HomeMy WebLinkAboutKingsbridge Subdivision AZ-04-023 PP-04-030 CUP-04-032
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of Kingsbridge Subdivision
Case No(s). AZ-04-023, PP-04-030, CUP-04-032
For the City Council Hearing Date of: January 4, 2005
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts
a. A notice of a public hearing was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the City Council public hearing, the first publication appearing and written notice
mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300')
of the external boundaries of the property. The notice of public hearing before the
City Council was posted upon the property under consideration more than one week
before said hearing. All other noticing was done consistent with Idaho Code §67-
6509.
The matter was duly considered by the City Council at the December 14, 2004 and
January 4,2005 public hearing(s). The applicant, affected property owners, and
government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the
City of Meridian were given full opportunity to express comments and submit
evidence.
b.
Written and oral testimony was received on this matter, as reflected in the records
of the City Clerk (for written testimony) and in the official meeting minutes (for
oral testimony).
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and issued a
written recommendation on the subject matter to the City Council.
c.
d.
The City Council heard and took oral and written testimony and duly considered the
evidence and the record in this matter.
2. Process Facts
a. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Idaho Code §67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of
Posting filed with the Clerk's office.
3. Application and Property Facts
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ-O4-023, PP-O4-030, CUP-04-032- PAGE I of 4
In addition to the application and property facts noted in the staff report and the
Planning & Zoning Recommendation for the subject application(s), it is hereby
verified that the property owner(s) of record at the time of issuance of these
findings are David A. and Janie Teeter,lJae-D Acres, Inc., Eagle Farm LLC, and
Kingsbridge Properties LLC.
4. Required Findings per Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
a.
a.
See Exhibit C/D/E for the findings required for each type of application.
B. Conclusions of Law
I. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land
Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-
6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and
Development Ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all
current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the
Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was
adopted August 6,2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
4. That the City has issued an order of denial in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon
the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Public Works Department and
any affected party requesting notice.
5. That this denial is subject to the Legal Description in Exhibit A and the Preliminary
Plat dated 9/27/04 in Exhibit B.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 12-3-5 and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's Annexation request, Preliminary Plat and CUP Site Plan are hereby
denied.
D. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may
request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed
with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ-O4-023, PP-04-030, CUP-04-032- PAGE 2 of 4
concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the
time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
this decision and order seek ajudicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
E.
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit B:
Denied Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C: Annexation and Zoning Findings
Exhibit D: Preliminary Plat Findings
Exhibit E:
Conditional Use Permit Findings
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
..J.Ã?flff.tt"l"f ,2005.
46 day of
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTINE DONNELL
VOTED~
VOTEDþ
COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE
COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE
VOTED (j!J~
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD
VOTED~
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD
(TIE BREAKER)
VOTED-
~~w~
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ-O4-023, PP-04-030, CUP-04-032- PAGE 3 of 4
Attest:
and City Attorney.
By: JÞOUì'ì~,I\~~
City Clerk's Office
Dated:
\ - \O{)c:;
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ-O4-O23, PP-O4-O30, CUP-O4-O32- PAGE 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Kingsbridge Legal Description
FOX Lalld au",.ys, lilt:.
<18M -.lid. 8TII ... <I - 1- A - A ~7NT A --'7437 PAX
PROPOSED KING88RIDGE SUBDMSION ANItEICATION DESCRIPTION
LoT 11. BLocK 2 OF QARTMOOR SUIIQI\IIeKJII - "PoRnoN OF THE 8OuTH % OF THE
~ 'I.. AND, TN! NoMH %.OF THE NoRTHWIIST % OF THE SouTHwEsT 'la, SE!CTlON
28, TOWIIIHlP 3 NOImI. RAII8E 1 EA8T, BollI! M_. ADA COUNTY. IDAHO
lot 11, Block 2 of Dør\nIcIof SubdhIIsIon wIlhin 8 PmtIon ofThs South '/aof the
NoIIhwEt %, and, the.NoIIh % of the NorthMSt%of th8 8aI.tu-t %, Ssctton28.
TownlPtlp 3 North. Range 1 East, Boils Merldillll. Ads County, Idaho. more particularly
d8scribsd 88 foIIowa;
Beginning at 8 found Bræe Cap McInum8nt II18Iking 1I1e ~ Comer of Ssction 28,
TownehIp 3 North, Range 1 East. BoIse MeridIan. fnxn which a ~ nd Brass Cap
Monument msrIIIng thII % Comer cammon to Sec;IIon8 21 and 28 beaIII South 89"38'03"
East a dl8l8nc8 of 2,857.34 feel;
thence slang tile boundary oommøn to Sectiona 28 and 28 of asid T ownahlp and Range.
South 00"2?'43" West. a dI8Ianœ of 2,581.93 feet to the Wastørtv prolongation of the
oommonboundalyafLots 11 and 18, Block 2 of DartmoorSubdMalon, the TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING;
1I1enoa along asId W88\8JIy prc¡Iœ I JIItion and tile - bouncIaIy of &aid Lola 11 and
18, SoutII89"23'38' East, 8 cIIsIanœ of 673.24 fesI to a set 518 Inch rebar with plaatic cap
8111mped"FlS PLS 7812";
~ along tile ÞoundarI8a of IIIIÍd Lot 11, Block 2 of DIIrImœr Subdivision tile follOWIng
cou- and diaIa-
North 00"25'38" EaIt, dIIIance of 228.03 f8øt to a 881 518 Inch rebar with plastiç
capst8mped "FLSI PLS 7812";
North 12"21'38" East, d\IIII naeof201.79f88t1otheaouthwe91: rI ht-of-wayofsaat
D81tmoor Driw at a tbund 518 inGh nlllar with pI8IIIc ClIp atl!mped "DHR PLS 3824";
South 89"25'57" EIIIt " dIatI!nce of 81.12 feel to the northeast right-of-way of East
DartmO!lf Drive at a foIInd 5I8111d1 rebar with plutIc CIIP!IIBmPed "DHR PLS 3624":
North 48°52'10" East,.... of 184.01 feel 10, 881518 Inch rebar with plll8tlc
cap 8I8nped "FLSI PlS 7812";
North 00"30'11" Eaat a III~ of 723.88 f8øtto th8 NoI1hwe8t corner of said Lot
11, BkIok Z of Darlmoor SlllldIld8hm, at a at 5I8lnc:ll rebarwilh plastic cap stamped "FLSI
Pl.8781Z";
1>e/~0 Ðtd
ONI ~ (1;1(1 ><I).
Lg.L~.g6e~
ee :91 Þ0eõ/SglLe
-'
-j
theI1œ along Ih8 NonhIIIIy boI/ndaIy of sakllDt 11, Block 2 of Osrtmoor Subdivision and
the North 1/18"'1Ina ofSeollon 28, South 89"30'18" E881a~of 1,741.56 feet to the
Northsaat corner of saki Lot 11 and the Csn1Br -North 111e" comer of Section 28, marked
by a .. 5IB inch Nbar with pIøaIIc oap SIIImped 'FLSI PLS 7812';
1henae 1lioii11 U1e EBSt$rIy bounCllUy of said Lot 11, Block 2 of D8f1moor Subdivision and
the North-South cenœr line of SectIon 28; South 00"211'23" V\Itit a distance of 1,325.48
feet to a found 1 inch in:In PIn wIIh no tIII ), stamped '7812"1II8IIdng the.SouIÆ8st comer
of said Lot 11 and the Canter of Section 28:
1henae IIIong Ihe SouIhsrIy boundary of &aid lot 11, the Ea..West center Une of Section
28, end th8 Northerly boundary ofKunz Holow SubdM8!aIt, North 88"25'12' West, a
di8lanca of 1,328.13 feet ID a found 518 inch r&barwlth pIssIIc cap stamped 'lS 2723"
ßIIIfkIng U1e Center-Wast 1/18" comer of Section 28 and the Northweat comer of Kunz
Hollow SubdMslon;
thence along the Wast 1/18"' One of Section 28 and th8 WeeI8rIy boundalY of Kunz Hollow
SubdIvIaion, South 00""'69" W88t.a dlsl8nœ of681.38fes1lD a found 5I8ineh rebarwith
pfaat coap stemped "EHM 32ØO" marking the Sou1h-t carner thareof and the Northeast
comer of ZaIdIen Zeru8 SubdlviBIon;
lII.nca IIIong the NoIItIeIIy ÞoImdIIIY of Zsklfen.Zsru8 6lOIdIvI8Ion and 1I1e WB8\eJ1y
.......,. 1Itereof, NtIIth 89"21'411' West a distance of 1,328.64 feat a point on the
WeaIerty boundary of SectIon 28 and the center line of South Eagle Reed. mafIœd by a set
518 Inch rebarwlfh p'-tic oap stemped 'FlSI PLS 7812';
thenca liking asld WeetIHIy boundary of SscIIon 28 and Ihe csn\8r line of South Eagle
Rœd North 00"3T13" Eset. . di8lance of 720.85 feet ID the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING:
ContaIning 3,344,GII equarefeet, 78.777 8CI8&, - 1II'1ass.
Subject ID exleting eaaementa end righbIoof-wsy ae any rnsy eIdst, of record or not of
record.
The Beall of Burl. fOr - dIIsarIption is ~ the faund BI'IIIIS Cap Monument
I11I!U'Idt1e the N~ Conw of Section 28, Towrrllhlp 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
MeridI8n. and the found SJ8eII,OQMIiIIIument m&IkIng tile " Comar cammon to SecIiona
21 .1PI.28 wldch basm SaulbS8'le'O3" East. distance oI2¡S57.34 feet.
l1mothy J. Fox. PLS 7612
END 011 DE8CIUPTION
T-
-~~ . -~
~~
0N1 ~ ~\f1 )(W
,"
'BIEB -
L8ÞL~~B81
B9 :91 .89l1681L8
.-
\J
:::0
I a
\J
II a
(/)
-.'In II ~ 'T
-- -.J"" -- 18 0
1----- II II ^
I " ~
. I Z
I II ~~ G')
I (/)
. w
III I ~I
~ :::0
0
-=' ~ ==rî. G')
. 'T
.
I i (/)
. . c
. . ID
L_____-, I 0
.." ---- I ! <
-- I I
0 I I (/)
X I ~I a
r z
» 1 : »
z Ii! z
0 z
(.I) I I 'T
1 I x
c I . »
;u . . -
~. L.._____-_.._-_J a
z
........
(.1)1 1-- (/)
^
B) 'T
-
()
I
,9/v9 JÐ\Id
OHI~~)i)J.,
tEvavES9l eS:9t vSSl/SE/LS
EXHIBIT B
Kingsbridge Preliminary Plat
See Attached
,.
OHVOl'ÞMam:!l1'i '
NOISWO"EU1S :Roon¡asONDI
. -=""11
",,-_...:
J.:iI9,..:iIJAØ >o-¿t-6()
[I
85 I S S! ~ '"
'!. . ~ '"
¡ It . . II I
¡ 'I ! ¡] I! I I
"
...- "
I I
ill I Ú i
IliIt! Iftil
I~S Ilda
u . .-<
~~~~~~~;~i
~Nh;i5!!n~.
ihilillui
~
~¡
.
EXHIBIT C
Kingsbridge Subdivision
Annexation Findings
Thefo/lowing is the list of standards found in 11-15-11:
A.
B.
Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, ü not. has there been an application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment;
Action eight on page 103 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City will
"require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing
low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional
densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between
urban level densities and rural residential densities." City Council finds that the
subject property is surrounded by existing large lot rural subdivisions. The
proposed transitional lot sizes are too small, too dense, and incompatible with the
surrounding rural subdivisions. Therefore, Council finds that the proposed
subdivision is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Council does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject
property in the future.
C.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in tbe
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a
residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use
permits;
Council finds that the proposed residential development is too dense to be
compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Comprehensive Plan shows the
majority of the property is intended to be developed as Low Density Residential,
which is less than 3 units per acre. The proposed project must be reduced well
below the 3 units per acre threshold to meet the compatibility standards for
transitional densities.
D,
Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
tbe area should be rezoned. For example, have tbe streets been widened, new
railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed
in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area;
The subject property is surrounded by one to five-plus acre lots-very low
density. Thus, the adjacent areas are developed in a manner inconsistent with the
proposed project. Council finds that the existing development patterns do not
E.
F.
G.
dictate that the property should be rezoned to accommodate the Kingsbridge
project.
Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
Council finds that the proposed use (single family residential) and accompanying
design will change the existing character of the area, which is largely rural. The
proposed lot sizes are too small to be harmonious with the existing or intended
character of the vicinity. The Commission and Council have considered the
adjacent property owners concerns and find the proposed project to be
incompatible. The applicant has held neighborhood meetings with the
surrounding property owners and made some changes to the plat/site plan, but
Council finds the modifications to be insufficient to address the incompatibility
issues.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Council considered public testimony (oral and written) and has determined
that the proposed use will be unacceptably disturbing to the existing neighboring
uses.
Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the
establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any of such services;
Council finds that the property to be annexed could be served by essential public
facilities and services. However, other issues regarding the density of the project
and lack of a compatible transition make the project unacceptable.
H.
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community;
If approved, the developer would be required to finance the extension of sewer,
water, utilities and pressurized irrigation to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents will be fire and police services. Council finds
that there would not be excessive additional requirements at public cost.
I.
Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any
J.
persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Council finds that the proposed higher density subdivision will create nuisances
that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Traffic
volumes on Dartmoor Drive are still unacceptably high.
Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Council finds that the traffic volumes on Dartmoor Drive, which runs through
existing Dartmoor Subdivision are too high. The existing portion of Dartmoor
Drive has no curb, gutter or sidewalk. As such, the approaches to the property are
insufficiently improved.
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Council has not identified any features of major significance on the site. Any
existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed would have to be mitigated
for, per the Landscape Ordinance. If any trees are deemed to be hazardous,
diseased or dying by the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, mitigation would not be
required for those trees.
L.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian? (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992).
Due to negative findings above for items A, C, D, E, F, I, and J, as described
above, the City Council [rods that the annexation of this property would not be in
the best interest of the City. The primary issues are the incompatible density of
the project and the insufficient transition to the surrounding rural residential
properties.
EXHIBIT D
Kingsbridge Subdivision
Preliminary Plat Findings
City Council finds that the proposed preliminary plat should be denied because the annexation
was denied. By denying the annexation, the City does not have jurisdiction to approve the plat.
See Exhibit C for the Annexations findings for denial.
EXHIBIT E
Kingsbridge Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit Findings
City Council finds that the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) should be denied because the
annexation was denied. By denying the annexation, the City does not have jurisdiction to
approve the CUP. See Exhibit C for the Annexations findings for denial.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 16of71
Bird: I move we approve CUP 04-046 for Jack in the Box by RHL Design.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 12. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Before you open the next hearing, I had several people come up to me, as
you saw, asking me to organize slide presentations. If we could just take about a two-
minute break, so I can get those organized for those folks, I'd appreciate it.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: I'm fine with that.
De Weerd: Okay. We will take a five-minute break.
(Recess.)
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kinasbridae Subdivision by
Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 04-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 237
single-family residential building lots and 21 common lots on 76.72 acres
in a proposed R-B zone for proposed Kinasbridae Subdivision by Vision
First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with
reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed
Kinasbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and reopen our meeting here. Items 13, 14, and 15
are all related, so I will open all three of them, the Public Hearing on AZ 04-23, PP 04-
030, and CUP 04-032. We will start with staff comments and, then, I will ask the city
attorney to give us an overview as well.
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 17of71
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I struggled with how on earth I was
going to present this to you. It's come before you in bits and pieces. I know you know
the name, but you haven't had an official presentation, so I am going to do it in the best
way that I think makes sense, which is to go through the original staff report, show you
briefly the original site plan, go to the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation and what they were looking for and, then, go to the letter from Steve
Siddoway that addressed how the new site plan met those conditions. So, that's just to
give you an idea of where I'm going and, hopefully, that will make some sense. I'm not
going to dwell on the characteristics of the development too much, because I think the
applicant has a far nicer presentation for you than I would, so I will let them do that.
But, hopefully, I can just hit some of the planning issues that staff was concerned with.
Okay. With that preamble in mind, here we go. This is the -- this parcel is on Eagle
Road. It's on the east side of Eagle road between Victory and Amity. There is an
existing Dartmoor. The large part of the property is a lot within the Dartmoor
Subdivision. The remainder of the Dartmoor Subdivision is out on Eagle Road. It was
done as a non-farm in Ada County and, then, they also have two parcels south of there
that they are bringing in. As you can see there is a relatively low density of residentials
platted around it. There is not a lot of large parcels, aside from the Dartmoor lot. Most
of these are kind of two, three, four, five-acre parcels and, then, they get a little bit larger
as you go south. This is our Comprehensive Plan designation. This large Dartmoor lot
is shown as low density residential. The other two are medium density residential. And
that becomes important later. And, then, this was the original lot. So, again, I'm just
going to go through this, so that you can see -- you don't understand the last letter from
Steve unless you're able to look at this -- at this first plat. This is the entrance road,
comes off of Eagle, comes into the development as you see here and, then, there is a
connection to Dartmoor Drive that makes a dogleg and, then, ties into the main road.
Find my notes. Sorry. The original -- the applicant has submitted a planned
development, along with the annexation and rezone, as well as they have requested R-
8 zoning. The planned development originally requested a minimum lot size of 7,000
square feet and, then, the city requirement, as you know, is 8,000 square feet. The lot
frontage they originally proposed is 70 foot minimum and to my knowledge that has not
changed. The block length they proposed was 1,300 square feet instead of the 1,000
square foot maximum. In the findings -- in the original staff report the recommendation
was for denial. I mean-- I'm sorry. The original recommendation was for approval, but I
wanted to go through some of the findings that were particularly of issue at that time in
the staff report. One was that the new zoning be harmonious with and in accord with
the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive
amendment. Again, these were the original findings in the original staff report. And the
issue was -- there was that they were asking for a step up in density. They are no
longer asking for that one. So, that was one of the original findings that was kind of
borderline, but they are no longer asking for that step up in density. The new plan that
they have proposed is less than three units to the acre. In Finding D, has there been a
change in the area or adjacent areas, which may dictate that the area should be
rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened. New railroad access been
developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 18 0171
proposed rezone area. And Mr. Siddoway says this is perhaps the most difficult finding
to make for this project. The subject property is surrounded by one to five acre lots.
Very low density. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision to the west -- it shows up better here.
You can see the beginnings of the platting there -- was platted at 2.4 dwelling units per
acre gross density and 3.1 net. So, although it's similar to what's being proposed on the
west side of Eagle Road, it is dissimilar to what's being proposed on the -- or what
exists on the east side of Eagle Road. Moving on to Finding E. Will the proposed use
be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate
in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. And staff
finds that the proposed use of the smaller lot, single family residential will change the
existing character of the area, which is largely rural. However, the change is generally
harmonious with the intended character as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. So,
I wanted to point those out. I'm going to move now to the summary that was prepared
for you coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. The Planning and
Zoning Commission did conduct a hearing on September 16th. The applicant Ken
Elliott of Vision First, LLC, testified in favor of the application. The Planning and Zoning
Commission heard and took oral and written testimony, as reflected in the clerk's record
and the minutes, and duly considered the evidence and record in this matter. The
majority of the testimony was in opposition to the project mainly due to density and
traffic issues. And that traffic issue was primarily on Dartmoor Drive and this connection
as you see it there. Key issues of discussion by the Commission included density and
lot size issues, the cut-through traffic on Dartmoor Drive, stub streets, landscaping, and
also the outstanding legal issues. The Planning Commission did recommend denial
and, then, those denials are in that -- those findings are in that recommendation sheet.
So, the Council has before it the findings for approval from the original staff report and
the finding from denial as listed in the summary recommendation to City Council.
Depending on whatever way the Council may want to go tonight, as staff I would feel
much more comfortable if we came back with findings that you could see, because I
think you don't have the findings appropriate to either way that we want to go and I'll just
leave it at that for now, unless the attorney has other recommendations. Okay. Now,
I'm going to move to the letter by Steve Siddoway as the staff report update that was
prepared for hearing and for that I'm going to go to the new layout. It's been washed
out, but as you can see there is Dartmoor Drive comes down and ends in a cul-de-sac
now and we have a connecting street that angles northeastward and, then, ties into the
-- the kind of arching system that's in this area here. So, that was the big change. As
you go through Steve's letter I'm going to leave the outstanding legal issues to the city
attorney. So, I'm going to move down to B on page two. It says -- in response to the
findings is how Steve has organized this. So, the plat needs to provide a better
transition from the surrounding large lot subdivisions, both in terms of increasing the
perimeter lot sizes and reducing the overall density. They have removed two lots from
the eastern boundary, making the average lot size 8,866 square feet along that edge.
All lots in the subdivision now are over the 8,000 square feet minimum. They have
removed two lots from the south boundary along here for the Ten Mile feeder canal,
making the average lot size 8,957 square feet. They have removed one knuckle from
the southeast edge here, so that small cul-de-sac there, making the average lot size
11,151 square feet. And, then, they have removed one lot from the Zaldia Lane,
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 190171
bringing that average lot size up to 8,306 square feet. On the west boundary they have
removed one lot, making the average lot size 16,832 square feet in this area here. And,
then, they have removed four lots from the north boundary on here, making the average
lot size 9,381 square feet. And, then, Steve does point out that there is also a 22-foot
separation north of those lots. You can see that little sliver right there. The original plat
included 110 lots, less than 8,000 square feet. They have proposed to remove 18 of
those lots, such that all of the lots are at or over the 8,000 square feet minimum for the
proposed R-4 zone. They have reduce density from 3.09 dwelling units per acre to 2.86
dwelling units per acre and that's related to that one finding that I mentioned earlier that
talked about the step up in density, but is no longer necessary, given the reduction in
lots. When the item went before the Commission, ACHD had not completed their
analysis. ACHD did hold a hearing on October 6 and the final ACHD report did require
several new stub streets to be added to the original plat. The revised plat does address
all of those stub streets. Regarding projected traffic, the original layout would have put
800 new vehicles per day on Dartmoor Drive and this layout, because it is less
convenient now to get to Dartmoor Drive, they are projecting that only 400 vehicle trips
per day will take that route. They are predicting that most of them will come the
southern route. The planned development -- I'm going to quickly cycle through some of
the landscaping. Most of it's just street buffer landscaping. This is the -- as you can
see, the streets as well as the community center, and here is the community. I'm going
to focus a little bit of attention on that for a moment. This is a community park with a
swimming pool, clubhouse, full size basketball court, tot lot, gazebo, picnic tables, and
barbecue stands. Another park with a gazebo was located in the northeast corner. I
believe up in this area. I don't know what happened to it. I'm not seeing it on the -- the
applicant may need to address that one, because I'm not seeing it now. Here we go.
There is the other park and there is a micro-path proposed to connect the two parks.
There is also a path and landscaping proposed along the Ten Mile feeder canal. See, if
I can find that one. I can't. There it is. And additional amenities include a landscaped
entry boulevard, multiple smaller open spaces around the subdivision, a bridge or -- and
here is the bridge. A bridge monument or ornamental street lights. Detached sidewalks
and street trees are also proposed throughout the subdivision. And the applicant has
offered to increase the minimum house size from 1,400 square feet to 1,600 square feet
for the subdivision. There is -- the applicant stated that they were going to do a buffer
along Zaldia Lane with a berm, grass, shrubs, fence and trees and that's the south
boundary of the property. Here is Zaldia Lane. The landscape as you see here has not
identified those yet and staff had some concerns about how to best accomplish that.
Right now there is not sufficient room in the common open space there because of the
irrigation easement, there is not sufficient area to put in trees, because they can't be on
the irrigation. We have seen in other subdivisions where the applicant proposes to put
trees in the backyards. Staff has found that enforcement of that condition is very
difficult. You can't get the trees put in before the houses go up and, then, once the
houses go up, there is some question -- it's difficult to make sure that the trees are
going. So, staff had some questions about how best to accomplish that. I think, in
general, we feel it would be better to increase the buffer width to accommodate those
trees, but, then, these lots would likely fall below the 8,000 square feet minimum.
ACHD in their final report has asked the city to preserve additional right of way for Eagle
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 20 of 71
Road. The current Capital Improvement Plan only shows a three-lane road-widening
project for Eagle Road in the next 11 to 15 years. So, ACHD will be only able to
purchase 35 feet of right of way at this time. However, they would ask that the city
consider preserving the 48 feet of future right of way and that that be in a separate
common lot that could be sold to ACHD in the future. The required 25-foot landscape
strip should be at the boundary of that 48-foot right of way. Staff did not have an
opportunity to talk to the applicant about this, so they should verify tonight if they could
accommodate this recommendation. Regarding access easement, this large parcel --
there is one large parcel here. The board obscures the rest of it. It's just a square
property, but right now it's separated from the road by a common lot and because it is a
fairly large property, it would be anticipated that it would redevelop in the future, given
the -- if the surrounding uses, if this were approved. So, staff is recommending that and
ACHD as well have -- would like to see some sort of future access. The way it's written
in the staff report right now it's asking for a cross-access agreement. But also another
possibility might be just to have them have frontage on it for some length of roadway.
So, that that would be secured in the future and they wouldn't have to negotiate with the
homeowners association for that access, but either of those options would probably
work. Finally, in number five Steve points out that there are some findings to resolve.
One of the -- the first bulleted item there, as I mentioned before, the one step density
increase no longer applies with this revised plat. The annexation Finding D on -- talks
about how the project relates to the surrounding areas. Council should determine
whether or not the changes proposed by the applicant are sufficient to address the
surrounding compatibility issues. And, then, regarding annexation Finding F, the
Council should resolve -- determine whether or not the proposed reduction in traffic on
Dartmoor from 800 to 400 vehicle trips per day is sufficient to make the finding that it will
not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring land uses. So, as you see, there are a
number of outstanding issues. That sounds like my phone, but it's not. I'm thankful of
that. Staff anticipates that some of the major issues from the surrounding property
owners will include the density of the project and related traffic impacts. Many
surrounding property owners are hoping for lots of one to five acres in size for the
subject property. Staff recommends resolving the issues raised in the report, including
deleting the preliminary plat site specific condition number two, which I believe Mr. Nary
will explain that one. That's the legal issues. And the Zaldia Lane landscape berm, the
right of way preservation along Eagle Road, the access easement for Lot 17, Block 2,
and resolution of required findings. With that I think I'll end staff's presentation, unless
Council has specific questions or if they'd like to come back after the applicant's
presentation.
De Weerd: Anna, could you summarize the key points in the testimony that was
provided in opposition for this?
Canning: Density and traffic were the two key issues.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 21 0171
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Just for the record, to make
it clear, this matter is properly before you. What you have seen before this is some
procedural issues that you have addressed in setting this matter for tonight. As
previously said by Mrs. Canning, this project originally was recommended for denial by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the plat itself was denied. That was before
you previously as an appeal of that denial. As you know, under our city ordinances the
Planning and Zoning Commission do have the say on plats and if they deny the plat, it
does not move forward to in front of you. They did request -- the applicant did request
reconsideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. That was not granted. They
came for an appeal. This Council did grant the appeal for the purposes of hearing all of
these matters together and I think you made it very clear at the last hearing that it was
not the intent of this Council to grant the appeal for any other purpose than being able to
hear both the annexation request, the preliminary plat, and the Conditional Use Permit
all at one hearing. This matter was set over one time at the request of the applicant and
that's why it's before you tonight. Probably the only thing -- there is a number of lawyers
in this room and as you would imagine when there is a bunch of lawyers none of them
can agree on one thing, but I think we all -- I think all the lawyers do agree that this
matter is within the discretion of this Council on the decision of annexation, that I don't
think that's a legal issue that has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission or
you or in the documentation we have received to this point. It is within the city's area of
impact, it's within the discretion of this Council to decide that tonight as part of this
hearing, unless more information is needed. I don't think that's a legal issue you need
to be concerned with. The rest of it there probably is a tremendous disagreement and
this Council will probably hear a lot of different legal issues being addressed by both the
applicant and as well as the neighborhood, both through lawyers and on their own. The
issues predominately -- and what the Planning and Zoning Commission had originally
denied, the preliminary plat, was concerned with, again, the same legal issues, the
concern that was expressed in the recommendation for Planning and Zoning, was that
there were other legal issues and the P&Z was concerned about the city becoming
embroiled in a lawsuit over this particular property. What I advised the Planning and
Zoning Commission and advised this Council is under Idaho Code 50-222, that's not --
that's not a finding that this Council needs to concern itself with on whether to annex
property or not. What the Council has to be able to address in an annexation is,
essentially, three things. First, that the property is appropriate to be annexed. And
what that means is that if it fits all the requirements of annexation, it's contiguous to the
city, services can be provided, are probably the two most important. Secondarily, that
it's consistent with the public purposes addressed by this Council and the needs of the
City of Meridian. Again, that's based on the testimony that you hear, based on the
information that you have received prior to that that's part of the public record, that's this
Council's decision on whether an annexation is appropriate based upon that and, finally,
that it's reasonably necessary for the orderly development of the city. That, again, is a
discretionary decision of this Council to decide and I think Ms. Canning has summed it
up very well in looking at all of this project in conjunction with this annexation, you have
to look at the consistency with the remainder of the city, the services that can be
provided, whether or not it fits the orderly growth pattern as this Council determines it to
be, those are all land use decisions within your discretion. Again, you will hear a lot of
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 22 of 71
legal issues on the applicability of the county's ordinance. When this was previously
part of the Dartmoor Subdivision, as I stated previously, in the Council meeting, the
county's ordinances, if this property becomes annexed into the City of Meridian, do not
apply, the city doesn't have authority to enforce county ordinances and the city does not
recognize county ordinances within its city limits. So, that isn't an issue and that was
the reason that the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was not
appropriate and why this Council granted the appeal. So, that may be an issue again
tonight, there may be some discussion, but that's still the same opinion that I rendered
previously, that I wanted to make sure was on the record. I think that covers all that's
within the bounds, but, again, it is clearly within your discretion tonight, it is properly
before you for this hearing, so --
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Donnell: None.
De Weerd: Mr. Attorney, I guess I would have one in terms of these county clusters and
when they put a note on the plat and, then, the county allows a split. In the county's
opinion does that plat note follow the land?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you will probably hear some differences
of opinion on that particular point and there are some cases in Idaho that have some
discussion that probably addresses that to some degree on whether they actually follow
the land. In my opinion I don't believe they do. I don't see how a plat note from one plat
can be transferred to another, but there is probably going to be some testimony about
some reliance that people have upon those plat notes in what land use decisions they
make. That's probably the crux of the legal issue, that if this matter were to get beyond
this hearing room to a district court that may be an answer a district court judge may
have to answer better for us, but the case law is not very great in the state of Idaho on
that particular fine point and I think that's probably why we are here and why there is so
many people here is it's not quite that clear, but my opinion, again, it is not within the
city's jurisdiction or authority to apply county restrictions or county requirements upon
city subdivisions.
De Weerd: I guess at some point the city should meet with the county on that, because
the way their ordinance is on these cluster developments, this is one of many that could
come before us. So, that question needs to be answered. Otherwise, you will have
these developments where they develop a cluster, then, they split off their open area --
their required open area and you get this time and time again. So, that is something,
staff, that we will want to address in one regard or another.
Nary: Madam Mayor, just another point on that. Part of the reason we are here on this
particular one -- and that may not be as prevalent an issue in the more -- the more
recent county cluster subdivisions is because the ordinance itself has changed. And the
Meridian City Councii
December 14. 2004
Page 23 of 71
ordinance in the county now allows it to happen when there are services available to it,
whereas the path when this particular subdivision was created, they had a time
restriction and the time restriction, at least from the information we were able to gather,
was not really based on any particular specific point in time that they felt there was --
that 15 years didn't have some magic to it, that 15 years was what was generally
anticipated as to when services would occur in those areas. Services got ahead of that
and so that's why this one has that. We may not see that it's much in all of them, but
there certainly are other county subdivisions and, you're correct, in the southern area of
our area of impact that may have similar types of wording or restrictions on it that may
have the same applicable concerns, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anna, before we move on to -- just to point out to
Council where this has its contiguous boundaries.
Canning: Yes, ma'am, if I can get my mouse up here. Oh, I'm frozen. That's why.
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the point of contiguity is right here to Tuscany.
Rountree: Follow that dot.
De Weerd: Don't blink. Okay. Thank you. I would like to preface this. There has been
a lot of testimony, both in the Planning and Zoning hearing and the written testimony
from e-mail and letters that we have received. I would like to read those names into the
record, so that it is -- even though it is part of the record in front of you, to acknowledge
that Tim O'Brien, Frank and Sue Shoemaker -- and if I mess up your name, I will
apologize in advance, okay? Frank and Connie Stotts. Phillip and Judy DeAngely.
Michael and Paula Reedy. Robert Burns. Tim and Renee Ruh!. Gordon Bates. Tom
Smith. Rick and Brenda Schultsmeier. Sherry Lewis. Troy Quick. Chantelle Krasinski.
Greg and Bev Verte!. Rex and Tammy Cook. Jeff and Sharon McKee. Lisa Job.
Michael' and Donna Rich. George Hicks. Jeff and Virginia Walkersein. Tim and Lori
Wallace. Ronald Patton. Bob and Lisa Becker. Brady and Theresa Turner. David and
Valerie LaVigne. Edward Miller. And Rick Scott. Stott. Sorry. Council, have you read
all the testimony that's been provided? Councilman Wardle?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell?
Donnell: Yes, I have.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird?
Bird: Yes, ma'am.
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 24 of 71
De Weerd: Do you have any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none at this point.
De Weerd: Okay. As you can see, Council has read all of the testimony, so we do want
to assure you that that testimony has been read. At this time I would also, since we
have a full house -- and I know you have been in front of us several occasions, but
haven't been allowed to speak, but if I can have a show of hands those that were in
support of this application, if you could, please, indicate your support by raising your
hand. Thank you very much. Okay. And those in opposition of this application, if you
will raise your hands. Okay. Thank you. With that said, I would like to invite the
applicant forward. We have a time limit on the applicant's part of 15 minutes.
Elliott: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name
is Ken Elliott, I'm resident legal Council for the applicant Vision First, LLC. My address
is 661 South River Shore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. I'd like to quickly
introduce our team with me here tonight. The senior partner of Vision First is Randy
Cuarno, seated in the back row. Directly in front of him our legal counsel Ed Miller from
the Givens Pursley law firm. Both of them will be available to answer the Council's
questions on any specific matters later and Mr. Cuarno would like to make some closing
comments at the conclusion of the -- of the comments. Vision First is an experienced
developer of residential communities. We have offices in Eagle and in Vancouver,
Washington, although Kingsbridge is our first project in Meridian, the company has
developed literally thousands of residential lots over the past several years, in Oregon,
Washington, and now Idaho. We take pride in the neighborhood amenities that we put
into our projects, the landscaping, streetscape, and architectural controls. We are
confident that Kingsbridge will be developed at a standard that is at least as high or
higher than other projects that you have seen in the City of Meridian. Our notice of
appeal to the City Council, my letter, details the case background and the staff has
discussed the ways in which we have revised our plat to address the concerns of
Planning and Zoning, as well as the neighbors who testified at the September hearing.
We reduced our density from 237 residential lots to 219, reducing the average gross
density to 2.86 dwelling units per acre, which puts it in compliance with the maximum for
the R-4 low-density zone. We eliminated all lots of less than 8,000 square feet, which is
the minimum lot size for R-4 without a planned development. We increased the size of
all lots on the project perimeter. We obtained, after Planning and Zoning's hearing, a
favorable recommendation from ACHD. That recommendation was conditioned on the
cul-de-sac that you see at the end of Dartmoor Drive and the addition of the two stub
streets at the northwest and the northeast corners of the project. We did not reduce our
open space at all, so the expansion in lot sizes was not at the expense of open space or
amenities, we still have 11 percent of the site maintained as öpen space. And, finally,
we have a letter from our legal counsel Ed Miller addressing the Dartmoor covenant.
We would urge the City Council tonight to follow the guidance of the city attorney, the
comments made both at the November 3rd hearing and, again, tonight, that the issue of
the covenant should not be a ground for a finding that annexation is not in the public
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 25 of 71
interest, that it, indeed, is beyond the City Council's jurisdiction and is a private real
estate matter to be resolved by Kingsbridge and the Dartmoor neighbors in court if
necessary. Kingsbridge meets the criteria for annexation and annexation is in the public
interest. The site is within the area of city impact, the urban service planning area. Our
property is contiguous at the southeast corner of Messina Village at the centerline of
Eagle Road. There are sewer and water mains in Eagle Road adjacent to the site and
adequate sewer and water capacity is available to serve our project. With respect to
zoning, the future land map shows that our site is split between two residential
densities. The 56 acres north of the Ten Mile canal are planned for three units per acre.
The 28 acres south of the Ten Mile canal are designated for medium density at four to
eight units per acre. Our overall project density on the revised plat, though, complies
with the more strict low-density limit at 2.86 units per acre. By comparison, our previous
plat with 237 lots had a density of 3.09 units per acre, slightly above the R-4 maximum.
It relied on a blending of densities between the low and the medium, but that issue is
now gone, as the staff report pointed out. we are no longer seeking the one zone
density step up. Kingsbridge provides a transition from the medium density residential
areas shown on the future land use map to the south and to the west and, then, to the
rural existing subdivisions to the east and the north outside the city boundary. A straight
subdivision of these two sites would have allowed either 17 -- or four lots per acre on
the 17 acres south of the canal, up to eight lots per acre. So, between 68 and 136 lots
and 168 lots on the north 56 acres at the three units per acre density. So with just two
straight subdivisions, without seeking any planned development, we could have
developed between 236 and 304 residential units without any relaxation of the density
standard, compared with the 219 units that we are proposing on our revised plat. All
lots on our revised plat comply with the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size for the R-4
zone, even though the medium density residential tract south of the canal would have
allowed lots .of only 6,500 square feet in size. Our previous plat had a total 110 lots of
less than 8,000 square feet in size, as shown in yellow on this site plan. There are none
in our revised plat. We reduced that number of substandard lots to zero. Our average
lot size has been correspondingly increased from 8,526 square feet, based on the 237
lots, to 9,730 square feet now. Kingsbridge exceeds the approval standards for a
Conditional Use Permit for this residential planned development. Our revised plat
contains the same amount of open space as the previous plat, 11 percent. The 11
percent qualifies as one of the two required amenities for a planned development.
Additional project amenities are shown on this diagram of the main park. They include
the park, clubhouse, swimming pool, basketball court, tot lot, picnic tables, barbecues.
We have an entry monument at the Kingsbridge Drive entry off of Eagle Road leading to
a landscaped median, a tree lined boulevard extends to the landmark Kingsbridge that
crosses the Ten Mile canal. Throughout the project we have street lined tree -- street
lined -- or tree lined streets with eight foot planter strips between the sidewalk and the
streets, so we have detached sidewalks and landscaping throughout the project. In the
northeast area we have a pocket park with a gazebo. There will be ornamental street
lights throughout. And as mentioned in the staff report, pedestrian paths connecting the
two parks. This compares very favorably with the two standard subdivisions which
could have otherwise been approved on these sites with as many as 304 lots and no
project amenities. The Kingsbridge preliminary plat conforms to the Comprehensive
Meridian City Councii
December 14. 2004
Page 26 of 71
Plan. We have public service available in Eagle Road. We will be extending all of the
public utilities into the project site and build the Eagle Road frontage improvements that
are shown on ACHD's plan for widening of the road. And there will be no required
expenditure of public funds as a result of extending the utilities into the site. As to
compatibility with the Dartmoor rural subdivision, this has been a contentious matter.
We met on two occasions with the Dartmoor neighbors. We submitted all of our revised
plat and supporting documents for their review and discussion after the Planning and
Zoning Hearing. We have attempted to address their concerns in several ways. First
by expanding even further the area of the adjacent lots. We have the lots shown there
in dark that abut the eastern boundary of Dartmoor, we have eliminated one lot there,
so the average size now is up in the range 16,500 square feet. We have also taken out
a lot there on the cul-de-sac, so that you see the lots 36, 35 and 34 that adjoin Dartmoor
are -- two of them well over 17,000 and one about 16,000 square feet in size. We are
proposing and the previous recommendation of staff recommended privacy fencing,
vinyl fencing, throughout the project perimeter and with the police department standard
for security where it adjoins the buffer areas, we would have that at four feet high solid
fence and, then, a two foot lattice above that. And we also have proposed -- and this is
the question raised by staff that this design did not get incorporated into our revised
landscape plan, but we are committed to abiding by this detailed cross-section for the
berm and fence along Zaldia Lane. We are prepared to following the city's guidance on
this. We could either plant trees, one on each lot inside the fenceline as shown on this
diagram, or expand the width of the buffer strip and have the trees planted within a
common area tract, but outside the area of the irrigation easement. So, the fence -- in
that scenario we would have the fence moved further to the north and the tree would be
on the south side of the fence on each lot. So, we have two strips south of the
fence line, both the irrigation easement and, then, a common area tract. Either of those
conditions would be acceptable to us. As I mentioned, we have detached sidewalks
and street trees throughout the project, 11 percent open space, all of the amenities that
you have seen and we have also agreed with the Dartmoor residents that we would
improve the tail water, which now runs from the field along the south side of Dartmoor in
an open ditch that's prone to lots of weeds and makes it difficult for the adjoining yards
to be maintained. We would put that in a pipe and route it along the south side of
Dartmoor to Eagle Road northerly along Eagle Road to the Dartmoor irrigation pond,
which is just north of their entry. Traffic mitigation, we -- as I mentioned, the ACHD has
recommended approval of this project. We felt attempted early on to convince ACHD to
allow the termination of Dartmoor Drive at the boundary of the project. They declined,
they said it was against their policy. The recommendation they made in lieu of that was
to create the cul-de-sac, which we have incorporated into our design. By doing that we
-- our traffic engineer concluded that the trips going through Dartmoor would be cut in
half from an estimated 800 vehicle trips per day to 400. And you see the cul-de-sac
there adjoining the park, which Dartmoor Drive used to connect through sbridge Drive.
The traffic circulation is designed to minimize the trips going through the Dartmoor
neighborhood. We are building a very prominent entry at Kingsbridge Drive with the
monument signage, with the median landscaped. We will be directing vehicle trips to
the Kingsbridge entry on and off of Eagle Road and in order to help with that we will be
widening Eagle, adjoining our project to include decel and accellanes northbound and a
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 27 of 71
left turn pocket southbound. This diagram shows the traffic calming measures that we
will be implementing where our Dartmoor Court connects into the existing Dartmoor
Drive bulb. We will be narrowing down the street, having the sidewalk taper into the
bulb and, then, continuing with a stripped pedestrian path on the existing Dartmoor
Drive. This particular design has been approved by ACHD on other projects and they
have found that it works very well to make the transition between an urban and a rural
subdivision. Much of the neighborhood opposition and the discussions at Planning and
Zoning focused on the characterization of our site as being in a rural area and, thus, this
urban low density subdivision is incompatible with its surroundings. I'd like to ask
Heather if you could put the larger map up in front in case some people can't see the
screen, but -- or over here on the easel. Sorry about that.
De Weerd: Sir, I might tell you your time is up.
Elliott: Okay. We will save it for rebuttal. Thank you.
De Weerd: And you will have ten minutes then.
Elliott: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Not at this point.
Elliott: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I wanted to make a quick clarification on something the
applicant presented regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The low density allows for
density of three dwelling units or less per acre. The medium density -- there is a tiny bit
of overlap. It says three to eight dwelling units per acre. Staff has always taken that to
mean 3.01. The applicant's testimony said four to eight, so I just wanted to make it
clear that it was just 3.01 to eight units per acre.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions at this point? Okay. I
guess I would ask is if there is a spokesperson for any of the groups that are here
tonight and that way I can allow that spokesperson more time if there are people willing
to give their time to that spokesperson. So, are there any designated spokespersons in
this room? Okay. If you will, please, come and speak into the mike. Were you sworn
in?
Burns: I was, indeed.
Meridian City Councii
December 14. 2004
Page 28 of 71
De Weerd: Okay. If you will state your name and address.
Burns: Yes. My name is Robert Burns, I am the attorney for Dartmoor Subdivision and
my address 101 South Capital Boulevard, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Okay. At this point you have three minutes. Is there anyone in the
audience who you are speaking on behalf of, if you will, please, raise your hands.
Burns: Dartmoor Subdivision.
De Weerd: Are you willing to give your time to your spokesperson?
Burns: When you ask are you willing to give your time, are you asking them to give up
all their time or just a portion of their time? Because I don't think --
De Weerd: That will be very hard to track.
Burns: I only intend to speak for a few minutes, but I wanted to speak before most of
them got up.
De Weerd: Okay. If you can speak in your three minutes time it's not an issue.
Burns: Great.
De Weerd: Okay.
Burns: I wanted to address, as an initial matter, a comment that's made in this staff
report update, because I'm not exactly certain what the update means when it reports
that -- back in the second to the last paragraph on the first page the update states:
When granting the appeal, the Council found that one of the primary reasons for denial,
legal issues surrounding the developability of the land based on prior Ada County action
was invalid and should not have been considered as a reason for denial. I'm afraid that
that statement is misleading and let me tell you why. It is just absolutely clear that when
this City Council or any other city annexes property into the city it's a legislative action
and as a legislative action, as the city attorney indicated just a few minutes ago, this
body has discretion to do as it pleases and because it has discretion to do as it pleases,
it can consider any matter that it believes is relevant to the decision pending in the
annexation. It's not held to firm standards, because it is a legislative matter and,
therefore, this City Council can absolutely consider the private zoning restrictions or the
plat restrictions, CC&R restrictions in connection with deciding whether or not it wants to
exercise its discretion in annexing this property. So, I think that's an important point that
I wanted to clarify, is that although you are not bound by private restrictions, CC&Rs,
plat restrictions necessarily, you can consider them in connection with exercising your
discretion this evening, because you have the absolute right to do as you feel it's the
appropriate thing to do for the benefit of the citizens of this community. Now, I provided
the City Council with a letter, which you have made reference to, at least by citing my
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 29 of 71
name earlier, and the letter is dated October 11th of this year and in this letter I explain
why concerns with equity, fairness, good government and prudence should prevail over
the given fact that the City Council does have the discretion to annex into this city the
property at issue should it want to. And I don't want to restate and go over what I stated
in my letter, because I know that you have read it, you made that clear at the beginning
of the evening. I would offer to answer any questions should anybody have questions
with what I stated in my lelter. But if there are no questions, let me just get to the point.
At the time my clients, the residents of the Dartmoor Subdivision, bought their property,
there was a recorded plat and CC&R in place on their property, as well as the bulk of
the Kingsbridge Subdivision, that promised that there would be no development in that
property until 2009.
De Weerd: Your time is up.
Burns: And there is the deed restriction. I would simply ask the City Council members
to read that deed restriction and see if there is any question as to the promises that
were made to these residents with respect to the use of the property.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I do have a number of people signed up to testify
and what I'll do is I'll read off your name and indicate the support for or against. If you
would like to provide testimony, I will ask you to come forward at that time. Rick
Anderson, against. Okay. Do you wish to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you. And
your wife also Delphia. Okay. Is also against. Bradford Deadman. Okay. Against.
Deadman: Hello. My name is Bradford Deadman. I reside at 3644 East Zaldia Lane,
which is on the southern border there of the proposed subdivision.
De Weerd: Were you sworn in?
Deadman: Yes, I was.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Deadman: Of course, again, I prepared something that I really wanted to say and had
to change it as a result of listening to some of the initial comments here tonight. The
main thing that I'm very interested in is the recent comparison of this subdivision to
being broken down into two parts, one addressing the large neighborhood proposed
north of the Ten Mile feeder, as well as looking at a portion of the subdivision south of it.
My idea here is that the proposal is -- that the whole is far greater than the sum of these
two parts that we are looking at and to portray low density, excuse me, on the slides as
Meridian City Councii
December 14. 2004
Page 30 of 71
individuals doesn't seem like a very bad thing, but to take them both together, we are
clearly looking at an area that is going to have high density. I am still very adamant
about my interest in my five acres of property being bordered by very small lots versus
larger ones where the homes compliment each other and there is a smooth transition
from neighborhood to neighborhood. I am very adamant in my desires to see a balance
of density in the form of a harmonious blending, which is something that I know is a
target. My -- forgive me for hemming and hawing here. I'm so passionate about this. I
have attended every meeting, I have been very involved and very interested. I'm not a
direct -- as you can tell, I am not neighboring Dartmoor, but I have met all of these
neighbors, we share the same concerns, I have a border property that I have
approximately 950 feet of frontage that will be affected by this proposal. I'm very
curious what it would be like for emergency services or anybody to reach the portion of
this neighborhood in the very far northeast corner of this neighborhood should there be
an accident or something in someone's home. I'm very protective of my six-year-old
daughter and my wife. I'm glad to know that I'm just 30 seconds off of Eagle Road, if I
have to get either an ambulance to my home or directly shoot down toward -- across the
freeway to 5t. Luke's. I sure hope that this is not a direction that the neighborhood is
going. I was also one of many people that was told by my realtor, when considering the
purchase of my land, that, indeed, our neighborhood would be bordered by a
neighborhood that has the 15 year moratorium, I guess is the -- is that the proper term?
On development. So, I was definitely led to believe that that would, indeed, be the case
and that that would give me a chance to grow some trees. So, that is a big interest of
me, considering the representation of my property and the representation of the
property directly north of me. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Donnell: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: Can you tell me --
Donnell: I was just going to ask the same thing.
De Weerd: -- where your lot is?
Donnell: Yeah. Can you point that out?
Deadman: I'm going to do my best here.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, can you move that -- the board?
Deadman: I am right here. My wife and I and my daughter, we have -- our building
envelope places our home right toward the back of this property. Of course, here is
Zaldia Lane and here is five-acre plats all the way across the board. So, we are toward
the back end.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 310171
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any other questions? Thank you so much. A P.D.
Angel is against. Okay. When we get to him we will call him up. Thank you. He was
tardy? What happens when you're tardy? I guess we will ask Mr. Shoemaker to go
ahead and speak. I guess I will also have to swear you in. Is the testimony that you
provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Shoemaker: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Shoemaker: Okay. Thank you. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I currently own five
acres on Zaldia Lane, currently building a house there. The address is 3497 Zaldia
Lane on a five-acre parcel of land that abuts the south end of the proposed project. I
have been a real estate appraiser in the Boise valley since 1977, so I think I have a
good understanding of what creates values. Obviously, I don't disagree with
development, as a share of my income comes from the end result, appraising
residential homes for lending and mortgaging purposes. However, as Kingsbridge as
proposed, I do not think that is the best interest for my neighborhood. From my view
point I see Kingsbridge as a typical tract development that exists throughout the
Meridian area. We -- typically the development puts up some berm and landscaping as
a buffer zone on the street areas and, then, they do some little calming area to appease
the appropriate parties, sometimes they donate a school site or whatever and
everything looks the same when you drive down the rows. Their intent is to sell the lots,
not to develop them with improved -- improvements on them. So, consequently, what
we end up with are developers selling lots to several builders, most of them just mirror
each other in their construction techniques, so we see a lot of houses that mirror each
other. In my opinion that is what Kingsbridge is at this point in time. I purchased the
four acres -- I purchased the five-acre parcel four years ago and I'm just now starting
construction there. If Kingsbridge would have existed when I was looking to buy the
property, I would have not have purchased it. I was buying the five acres and the
country environment and the close in proximity and location to services. The
surrounding lots are larger lots than five acres on the majority of the property. And,
then, we have the Dartmoor Subdivision, which is the nicer custom built homes on
three-quarters, one acre lots, some of them are smaller, but the larger homes also exist.
If I were to do an appraisal today on approved construction on five acres on Zaldia
Lane, my comparable property would be the most similar properties I could find in the
neighborhood. Obviously, I'm going to have to go out into the county for that and when
I'm out in the county what I'm going to see is a county and the rural environment,
whereas on Zaldia Lane what I'm going to see from my home and any property that
borders that, particularly those on Zaldia, Terri, Selatir.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, your time is up. Council, do you have any questions for -- thank
you. Okay. Tim Wallace is against.
Wallace: And I'm here a lot.
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 32 of 71
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address.
Wallace: My name is Tim Wallace. I live at 3834 South Gideon in Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wallace: We have been --
De Weerd: Your times up. I'm sorry. You stand up here way too much. I'm sorry.
Wallace: One of the things that I hope you people consider -- I have heard the
language both ways. If Meridian annexes our parcel into Meridian, that -- from the
county, that our 15 year deed restriction goes away and at the time, as I wrote on my
letters to the Council, ten years ago we paid a premium for that one acre that I
particularly have. I was the first one to build there and with the idea that there would be
no building on that 56 acres for 15 years and now we are in the ten year zone and not
only do they want to put multiple houses from one to two acres that we were told that
would be put there, now they want to put a multitude of houses and, then, the street is
going to be considerably busier with traffic than it is right now. I just hope that you
consider the thought and what we bought into was that for 15 years we did not have to
deal with any type of housing or anything going in behind us and as the gentleman
stated before us, is I have done research on the property and what my property values
will be after this development goes in and it will be 10 to 20 percent below what it is
appraised for right now. I guess being in the car business I could say it's like buying a
brand new car with a five year warranty and you move to Meridian and, then, that goes
away. I don't feel that that's right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Lori Wallace has signed up against. Only if they are a
spokesperson for many, other than for each individual.
LWaliace: I'm Lori Wallace and I live at 3834 South Gideon and I just wanted to say
that we purchased our house knowing this 15 year deed restriction was going to allow
us to have 15 years and you're going to turn it all away?
De Weerd: Thank you. Ron Patton. Against.
Patton: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Ron Patton, I reside at 385
South Gideon Place in the Dartmoor Subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Patton: I wanted to just touch on the traffic issue that's been brought up before. I
appreciate the attempts that have been made to limit the traffic flowing through
Dartmoor. You know, unfortunately, Kingsbridge has got a problem, you know, the
location they are putting the subdivision is very land locked. Their only access is the
two points out to Eagle Road and, unfortunately, one of those being through my
Meridian City Council
December 14,2004
Page 33 of 71
subdivision. I don't really want to argue the numbers, whether it's 800, 400 cars, I don't
really know, but you can look at that picture and see that the majority of the traffic is
going to flow north, people are going to head north. So, a large portion of that upper
half, that northern half is -- they are going to want to go down Dartmoor. It's going to be
more convenient for them. And, unfortunately, unlike their main entrance, we have no
traffic buffers, we have no privacy fencing. Our houses on the street, all open fencing.
Our children walk and wait for the bus on that road. This is, to me, the largest concern.
I would be - feel much better if they had a different access off to another main road that
would severely limit the traffic driving onto Dartmoor. It kind of seems like we are kind
of getting hit double here. Not only do we have this high density subdivision getting put
in right next to us, we also have the burden of the traffic flowing through our subdivision
to that -- to that high density subdivision. So, I hope you consider that in making your
decision. You know, this is -- this is maybe a very nice subdivision. The problem I see
is the placement. This seems like the wrong place to try to fit it in. It's kind of shoe
horned in, you know, where they could put it, land locked all the way around. I just don't
feel that it's right to have us -- that traffic flow right through our subdivision. Thank you
very much.
De Weent Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Mr. George Hicks. Against. Does Mr.
Hicks wish to provide testimony?
Hicks: Thank you, Your Honor.
De Weere!: Were you swom in?
Hicks: I am not sworn in, so I will do that.
De Weere!: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Hicks: Yes.
De Weere!: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Hicks: My name is George Hicks. My office address is 1471 Shoreline Drive in Boise,
Idaho. Suite 100. I'm here this evening on behalf of folks who have some interest in
this open space that was promised to them until the year 2009. They are members of
the Bridlewood Subdivision and Bremerton Subdivision. There is a letter that I wrote to
Your Honor and members of the Council in the record already. I wanted to augment the
record just briefly and point out a few things in my short time. Back in the time when
these subdivisions were approved in the county, Bremerton Subdivision and Dartmoor
Subdivision had provisions in them that didn't just magically appear out of the whole
thought. They were placed in these -- on these plats under a county code provision 8-
4B-7 under nonfarm development, under subsection F in that particular ordinance.
There are open space requirements and there were four options and it appears that the
developers at that time chose option number four, deed restricted private ownership for
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 34 of 71
a period of not less than 15 years, which shall prevent development and/or subsequent
subdivision of the open space area and provide the maintenance responsibility,
including the payment of all taxes and charges. This, I guess, was a promise made in
an ordinance, it was made by public officials in open meetings like this, to people who
spent a lot of money to buy lots and to build homes in this area, because it was a rural
area. And this particular development -- and I must congratulate the developer, the
applicant, I think they are very organized and they make a great presentation, but it's
not for now and it's not for here. I think a couple of things that you should look at and,
with all due respect, I wonder where Mr. Nary got his idea that this 15 year restriction
was just kind of a guesstimate of maybe when the various city services might reach the
area. It's really real to these people. It's really real. And that's one of the things they
counted on when they bought the land and they built their houses. Please look to your
own ordinances with regard to what conditions are placed upon development and I
quote from Meridian City Code. There are three very -- three ordinances, 11-1-6 is the
one that's pertinent here, where the conditions imposed by any provision herein upon
the use of land or buildings or upon the bulk of the building are either more restrictive or
less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other provision herein or
any other law, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation of any kind, regulations are more
restrictive or which impose higher standards or requirements shall govem. Thank you
very much for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Robert Burns. We have a letter or -- has provided
testimony. Is against. Have new testimony to offer? Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't check
you off. Lori Allen. Against.
Allen: I'm Lori Allen, I live on 3550 Terri Drive adjacent to the subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Allen: It's a pretty lousy copy and she said she would put it up anyway, but if you can
see by the highlighted yellow, that is what the one-acre area looks like. She has it
turned around sideways, but Victory is north, if you wouldn't mind.
Canning: I can do that.
Allen: Thank you. I thought the developer had been quite careful to show you a view
that was favorable of his presentation, rather than showing you all these single family
acreages in the rural setting and, then, all of a sudden this mass of housing in the
center of it, it just doesn't seem to be necessary to me and that was one of your
statements, that it needed to be necessary to the development to the city plan. I don't
think it's necessary in that place. Probably it will be a nice subdivision, but I don't think it
needs to be there and I have a very small voice, I haven't got an attorney, but I have
one of the largest contiguous lot lines and I will have probably seven or eight more
homes adjacent to me and that's certainly not what I bought into and I thought I had at
least 15 years because of that 15 year clause or I would have fought the original
Dartmoor Subdivision a little harder, but they implied -- told me that we would have 15
Meridian City Councii
December 14. 2004
Page 35 of 71
years at least and it would be rural when it did come. It would be more acre
subdivisions, so I just hope you will stick with that. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mrs. Allen, can you point out where your lot is? Kind of the northeast
corner?
Allen: Yeah. It's -- there it is.
De Weerd: Right there. Okay.
Allen: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Phil Allen is also signed in opposition. And, sir, were you sworn in?
Thank you.
P.Allen: Phil Allen, 3350 South Terri. On the same northeast lot. And I just wanted to
say that I agree with everybody here. When we went there we understood the 15 years
when they approved the Dartmoor and, furthermore, it was to be -- when it was
approved development it was going to be larger lots and I guess my biggest problem is
is that when we were told something, what are we supposed to believe and who are we
supposed to listen to and if you tell us something here today or tonight, what are we
suppose to get out of that? Will it change tomorrow or next month? I mean this is the
public out here and we are here and we are saying what's out here to protect us?
What's exactly legal or what's right? That's about alii got to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I would like to remind everyone, if we could bring in new
testimony. We have seen that most everyone in this room is in opposition and we have
been able to look at the record as stated. So, if you have new testimony -- because
there is a lot of new detail in front of us that you haven't been able to comment on. I
would ask that you limit those comments to that. Lee Moncar is signed up against.
Thank you, Anna.
Moncar: My name is Lee Moncar. I live at 3415 South Terri Drive, right on that lot right
there, and I'm going to have about nine houses backing up to me right there.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Moncar: I'm the second owner of this house. It was built in' '75 and the man that I
bought it from originally was a good friend of mine and a builder in this valley and this
was his original place. He just - they got to be too elderly to take care of it and it was
getting run down and I ended up buying, but that was the same thing I was told by him,
this moratorium for Dartmoor being started, he was one of the first five or six houses
around there that had a say in Ada County to the development of Dartmoor. So, when
that came through and he explained that to me, that was the only reason why we
bought the property, too. And I spent over a year and a half remodeling and adding on
and this and that to our house to get it where we wanted to live there. It would just be a
Meridian City Councii
December 14. 2004
Page 36 of 71
real shame to have a development -- a small city stuck right into this rural area that
probably doesn't even have a hundred homes in that square mile, to put two hundred
and some right there for monetary gain for somebody else or just because the sewer
and water is right there, that makes it okay just to make this all right now is just not right
and that's alii have to say.
De Weerd: Thank you. And Sandy Moncar is also against. Thank you. Brady Turner.
We also have testimony on file. Is in opposition. Thank you.
Turner: My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I was
sworn in at the beginning of the meeting.
De Weent Thank you.
Turner: In the initial meeting between Vision First and Dartmoor resident subdivision
back in February, the plat that was presented to the Dartmoor residents was 222
homes. When the Vision First filed for the P&Z they presented a plat of 237 homes.
Now, they have reduced the current plan down to 219 homes. The overall reduction
from what was originally presented to the Dartmoor homeowners association is a total
of three homes net. I suppose that a reduction of 1.4 percent of the homes is supposed
to address the homeowners' concerns about the density being too high in the
Kingsbridge Subdivision. I don't believe it does. There were a number of other
secondary concerns that were expressed at the meeting. These were all affects of the
higher density. Several of the neighbors have expressed concerns about the increased
traffic and pedestrian safety when walking along Dartmoor Drive, which does not have
sidewalks, it has borrow ditches. I echo their comments and add that the residents in
Kingsbridge will also be at risk when the elementary school is built in Tuscany Lakes
there will be a significant increase of traffic -- pedestrian traffic along Dartmoor Drive
from the Kingsbridge residents walking to and from the elementary school. Unlike cars,
which, according to the traffic study, will be discouraged from using Dartmoor Drive, in
theory at least, pedestrians will take the shortest route from Kingsbridge over to
Tuscany Lakes along Dartmoor Drive. In a November 22nd e-mail message to the
president of the homeowners association in Dartmoor, Kingsbridge offered to build
sidewalks along Dartmoor Drive. However, that proposal was contingent not only on all
Dartmoor residents supporting this proposal, but also all surrounding property owners
supporting this proposal. I can see from the testimony and the sign-in sheets that at
least one surrounding property owner has opposed this development. We, therefore,
must conclude that Vision First will not build these sidewalks, disregarding the safety of
the Dartmoor residents, as well as the residents of their own Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Another issue addressed was the need for irrigation tail water being piped from
Palfreyman land. The Vision First application to the P&Z states that they will, quote,
connect the tail water from Palfreyman land in a pipe to Dartmoor irrigation subdivision.
However, in the same e-mail message to the Dartmoor president, Vision First reiterates
this promise: However, again, it is contingent upon not only all Dartmoor residents
supporting the Kingsbridge proposal, but also all surrounding property owners, quote,
standing down from their opposition. Again, at least one surrounding property owner
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 37 of 71
has opposed Kingsbridge. This promise made to the City of Meridian, the Planning and
Zoning board, and the Dartmoor residents is now, apparently, null and void. Also in the
same e-mail to the Dartmoor president, Vision First proposed to implement a 25-foot
rear yard setback on Kingsbridge lots abutting Dartmoor Subdivision. Again, this was
contingent upon all surrounding property owners not opposing Kingsbridge.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Do you have something in writing you can give to the clerk?
Turner: Yes. I have a copy of the e-mail report.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Turner: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Theresa Turner is signed up in opposition. Chantelle Kransinski.
Thank you. Against.
Kransinski: My name is Chantelle Kransinski and I reside at 3475 East Falcon Drive.
That's the corner property at the end of Falcon Drive there. Right -- right there. And
you do have my testimony to Planning and Zoning on record and I had talked about
schools. I will be brief. I just -- just this week, from lake Hazel Elementary we got a
notice saying that they are over capacity on their first grade classes and they are going
to have to add another one. So, they are trying to figure out how to reorganize the kids
to do that. Today when I called them their capacity is 460 and they are at 588 currently.
There are no more elementary schools currently in bond issues and Eric Exline had
indicated at the last redrawing of the boundary that if there is another elementary school
built it will be in northern Meridian and so we don't have anything coming down the
pipes to alleviate and to take on the extra capacity of this high density subdivision. The
only other thing I'd like to mention is the four way stop at Victory Road and Eagle.
That's a two-lane intersection, with a four way stop that is already backed up. Ada
County currently plans to widen that intersection and put in lights in 2008 and so up until
that time all that traffic of that high-density subdivision is going to be backing up and we
are just right off that intersection. It's already very difficult to get out. It seems like the
2009 planned building of this property would fit in very well with the 2008 widening of
that intersection. And I would just close with that infrastructure doesn't necessarily
always have to mean that water and sewer lines connect across a road, it also has to be
schools and roadways to make it easy for us to get home and our kids to go to school.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. And Harold also signed up against. Okay. Lisa Becker also
against.
LBecker: let me give you my presentation. I'm sure you're quite anxious to see what
it's going to look like.
Rountree: Deaf by technology.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 38 of 71
De Weerd: Maybe we should have taken our break.
Rountree: Why don't we until we get it up and running?
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you want to take a break? We will take a five-minute
break.
(Recess.)
De Weerd: Okay. Lisa.
LBecker: Okay. Hit it, Anna. Good evening. My name is Lisa Becker, I live at 3421
South Selatir Place in Meridian, Idaho. I wanted to compliment you on your
Comprehensive Plan. I feel it's well written, it shows your vision, and it helps us
understand as citizens the decisions that you will make. I wanted to focus on my
comments about the Comprehensive Plan and whether this development meets that or
not. One of the quotes in the Comprehensive Plan: Existing land use development
patterns provide the basis for future land use development. The proposed
development, the surrounding area is surrounded by five to ten' acre estates ranging in
value from 350 to 500 thousand dollars. I wanted to give you a sense for the character
of the area. This is our house. We live on five acres. Our neighbors house to the right.
Our other neighbor on the left. And our neighbor across the street. So, this is the
character of the area that we are talking about. The Comprehensive Plan also states
that it's important for the citizens of the area to determine how they want development to
occur in order to preserve the city's character. The developer has not planned any
transition lots to the east of the development. They have actually clustered the highest
density lots along our property line. We will show you a picture of that in a minute. The
developer also did not seek our opinion how the area should be developed. When I
contacted Vision First's CEO, he indicated that while he attempted to work with
Dartmoor, he had no legal obligation to meet with any of the neighbors prior to
establishing plans for this development. The Comprehensive Plan also states that
within rural areas it requires new urban density subdivisions which abut low density
residential provide landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more
compatible lots to buffer the interface between urban level and rural densities. The plat
is coming up. Our property is right here. The lots that they have placed along our
property line are the 8,000 square foot lots. We have houses in our neighborhood that
are almost that big. We have several concerns about this plot. Also we have a concern
about the stub road here that's supposedly accessing Selatir Place. We have an
agreement with the -- on the Ada County recorder on September 10th, we made an
agreement and recorded it that says the developer shall extend South Selatir place as a
dead end cul-de-sac within the interior of the residential lots with no reservation of right
of way over residential lots. So, we have a real concern about that stub. road and their
intent to access Selatir Road. We did attend the Ada County commissioners' hearing
when Dartmoor was approved. Dartmoor was approved contingent upon the property
owner and developer agreeing to the 15-year deed restriction. They did that, because
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 39 of 71
Dartmoor's one-acre lots were at a higher density than the zoning allowed. Vern
Bisterfelt was the author of the cluster development. He took great extent to explain to
us the purpose of cluster developments and the 15-year moratorium.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, your time's up, but thank you. Jeff Walkersein.
Walkersein: Close. I don't think anybody's ever pronounced it right.
De Weerd: That's all right. I have one of those names, too. Usually no one will even
attempt to say it. Were you sworn in?
Walkersein: Yes, I was.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Walkersein: My name is Jeff Walkersein. I live on 3702 South Selatir Place.
De Weerd: Thank you.
W¡¡lkersein: And in light of the testimony that I have heard tonight, if I understood it
correctly, Mr. Nary indicated that regardless of all these legal issues that everybody is
talking about, the bottom line is the Council discretion. The letter Mr. Siddoway wrote
indicates the key issues are the density and the traffic concerns and I might add also
that schools overcrowded. The applicant has said that annexation is in the public
interest and in my opinion, with the increased traffic and the density concerns with
placing the subdivision in the middle of all these, you know, more rural setting houses
and all the property owner concerns, I, myself, have not seen how this annexation is in
the public interest. So, those are just comments I had.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Walkersein: Thank you.
De Weerd: And do you -- your wife, she also signed against.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I have that letter, if you'd like me to read it.
De Weerd: Okay. I have asked staff to read the letter from the school district that we
received.
Canning: I apologize, Madam Mayor, I thought I found it. It's for Silverleaf Subdivision,
apparently.
De Weerd: Okay. We will get back to you. Okay. Bob Becker. Against. Okay. And I
cannot read the next printed name. Troy something. Okay. Signed up against.
Meridian City Councii
December 14. 2004
Page 40 of 71
Quick: My name is Troy Quick. I reside at 3677 South Caleb Place inside the Dartmoor
Subdivision and I'd like to make three points tonight and, first of all, I'd like to let the City
Council know that -- that I am a builder and so build homes as a profession and so I am,
obviously, not against development, but I am against the way this development is
proposed because of the way it sits. And the reason that I am opposed to that is for
these points. The first point is is that, obviously, if we only took into account the
surrounding properties, this is not now, you know, compatible. What they are using as
compatibility is the Tuscany Subdivision. However, the Tuscany Subdivision is at 2.4
gross density homes per acre, whereas Kingsbridge is proposing 2.86. Though that
seems like a small increase, if you do the percentage of that, that is a 20 percent
increase in density from what Tuscany is proposed -- or what Tuscany is doing
currently. The other thing that makes Tuscany much different than Kingsbridge is that
Tuscany, basically, has bought almost half of that entire one mile block there, whereas
the Kingsbridge Subdivision is, basically, just a land locked piece of property that is
surrounded completely by all of these larger parcels, so that makes our subdivision
much different. The second point is is that the due diligence that the developer has not
really shown towards us -- or I guess I should say has made a very token effort at
showing towards us. We have concerns of the safety of our children with the traffic flow
down Dartmoor. The way he addresses that is by saying that he will paint white lines on
our road for us. Actually, I should -- actually, according to his own thing, Ada County
will paint white lines on the road and that's supposed to protect our children from all
these -- from the traffic flow. We told him up front that we had a problem with all the
number of homes that he was proposing. The original one was 222. The way he
addressed that concern was to increase the lot count to 237 homes. The other thing, as
you saw tonight, he was asked for, basically, larger transitional lots, so his way that he
addressed this was basically by approximately removing one lot on each boundary. I
don't really consider that much in the way of due diligence. I consider that much of a
token effort. The other point that I'd like to make is that if City Council does choose to
approve this subdivision as proposed, that you're going to be forcing the voting, tax
paying citizens of this small community and these small surrounding areas to go into
litigation against this developer in court and I don't feel like that that would be right in
your case to do that. I feel like it would be in the best interest of the citizens, the people
that live in this area, that once we are annexed into Meridian we will be voting for your
offices and paying taxes to your city, that you need to pay attention to maybe our voice,
rather than the voice of this developer. Thank you.
De Weerd: Maybe even running for them. Look at how much fun you will have. Mr.
Dan Johnson signed up against. Were you sworn in?
Johnson: I was not.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Johnson: Yes, it is.
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 41 0171
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: My name is Dan Johnson, I reside at 3501 South Selatir Place. I have been
following this with a lot of great advice from some excellent legal advisors and I guess
the thing that bothers me is I'm kind of wondering why this application ever made it past
the pre-app with this deed restriction on it. I think that's something that staff should
know and understand what that means. A lot of comments have been made about the
inappropriate densities and the fact the developer didn't work with the perimeter
property owners. I have six acres to the east of this property and I was never contacted
and I -- you know, it's a nice subdivision, but does not fit here. I think you heard that.
The thing I'm wondering about, since I did attend Ada County council hearings, their
commissioners hearings ten years ago on two different cluster developments, they
indicated that this 15 year moratorium was a minimum fixed term, it would go with the
land, it was part of a legal record of plat and it would survive any annexation process
that was done by any municipality. That's what we were told, that's what we believe is
true, and that I think is the law and I think Mr. Nary was correct in saying that the City
Council tonight can annex this property, because there is no law against that, but if you
approve the development, we believe you will be violating that law and I don't think
there would have been any reason for that 15 years minimum moratorium to have
existed to any benefit if it wouldn't survive annexation. So, I think the fellows or the
people that think that there is going to be a litigation between the neighboring property
owners and Vision First, they are wrong. If the city approves this, I think the city is
vulnerable. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. And David -- I'm really not even going to try your last name.
LaVigne: Come on. Give it a shot.
De Weerd: LaVigne. There you go.
LaVigne: She's going to load a presentation for me. Hopefully we won't have to take
another five-minute break.
De Weerd: And did we swear you in?
LaVigne: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, while she does that I will swear you in.
LaVigne: Okay.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
LaVigne: Yes, it is.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 42 of 71
De Weerd: Now, I will stress to our attorney, it will be nice to get this thing out of that
ordinance.
Nary: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: We all trust that everything you say to us is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth without you swearing at us.
LaVigne: I would never do that. Maybe under my breath.
De Weerd: Almost like the hearing impaired, we need to have advance notice and have
our computer guy here.
Canning: It doesn't like your CD.
LaVigne: It doesn't like my CD?
Canning: No. Oh, there you are.
LaVigne: Yeah. That's it. That's a good CD.
Canning: Have you got a lot of photos on here or something? David, have you got a lot
of photos on here?
LaVigne: A few. I figured you guys would have pretty fast computers over here.
Canning: This is a reject computer. It's not very good, so -- Madam Mayor, with the
indulgence, if I move it onto the hard drive it might be better, but I will have to -- it will
take another--
LaVigne: Does somebody want to go and, then, I can come back up here once she
gets it?
Canning: That will work.
LaVigne: Okay.
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Tim O'Brien is signed up against. Were you sworn in?
O'Brien: I was not.
De Weerd: Maybe as I swear in Tim, anyone else who hasn't been sworn in, if you will
raise your right hand, if you will be providing testimony. Is the testimony you provide
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
(Affirmative answers.)
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 43 of 71
De Weerd: Thank you.
O'Brien: Okay. My name is Tim O'Brien and I live at 3873 South Gideon Place in the
Dartmoor Subdivision and just real briefly, my biggest concern is that the density really
doesn't fit I think the whole flavor of that block and I think in terms of fitting in and
approving it, I think that needs to be considered, along with resources, such as sewer
and all that. It needs to really fit the flavor of the area and it doesn't. That's all.
De Weerd: Thank you. Christie Quick against. Okay. Rick Stott against. Please state
your name and address.
Stott: Rick Stott, 3684 South Caleb Place, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stott: You have heard a lot of testimony about the lack of consistency in the area with
this subdivision. Maybe we could talk a little bit about what it can be. There is an
opportunity here to set up a -- as all the neighbors have said, they are not against
dividing or subdividing this land. It's a valuable piece of land. We are within a mile of
one of the best business developments that's going into Meridian. We are within a mile
and a half of a freeway. We have homes surrounded that range anywhere from
400,000 to a million dollars in value. We have an environment that is rural in nature, as
Mr. Elliott said, rural Dartmoor and that's what it is and the surrounding area. What we
can do with that land is develop it into something that is consistent with that area in half
acre or one acre parcels and it gives an opportunity for executive homes, large homes,
that adds value to this entire area, not just Dartmoor, not just the surrounding area, but
also the subdivisions that are higher density that are across Eagle. What a great
opportunity that you have as a visionary Council to send that message to developers in
the long run. We have horses; we have cows that surround that. I work for a company
called Agri Beef and we fight every day for freedom of farm, .freedom of ranch, the
freedom of farming act and it's being eroded on a constant basis. I had a steer in the
backyard. My wife said it smelled. I disagreed. But she won and it's no longer there.
but I do have a horse and the neighbors around the area have horses as well. What
happens when you have high density houses that are inside of a city that doesn't like
the smell, doesn't like the flies, the freedom of farm act goes out the window. DEQ
comes and says it's a nuisance. That's what happens. I know from personal
experience with our properties in rural areas that that's what happens. It's a big
concern. The traffic is a big concern. My daughter is deaf, she's going blind. No
sidewalks. Rural area. Walking to school in the dark is a grave concern. The
calculations that they have made in the traffic study are flawed. As an accountant I like
numbers. Calculating the numbers that they use at 200 trips today out of Dartmoor --
there is only 15 homes there. Add that up. That's 13 trips per day, yet they calculate
their own calculations with only eight trips out of the Kingsbridge calculation. In addition
to cutting from 400 to 200, that means only 50 homes. If you look at that map -- I mean
I know how I drive, I find the shortest way. It doesn't make any sense just because you
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 44 of 71
cut off one little part that half of the people are not going to go that direction. It makes
no sense. There is no street lights, no sidewalk, and the legal issues are -- that have
been spoken of well and -- but we were committed to in the deed to 15 years and with a
rural development and that's what we committed to. Thank you.
De Ween:!: How are we doing, Anna?
Canning: Not quite there yet, Mayor. Sorry.
De Weerd: Okay. Susan Brenden signed up against. Okay. Ralph Tipton signed up
against. Donna Rich signed up against. Thank you, Donna. Okay. Those are the
people who have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony?
Please come forward. Were you sworn in?
Smith: I was. Just come in. I was tardy also.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Smith: Tom Smith. I live at 3300 East Dartmoor in the Dartmoor Subdivision. We have
-- we are the first lot as you come in the left on the north side of Dartmoor as you come
in, so have a lot of exposure and a lot of people that will be walking and driving down,
as has been said. I think this, you know, has been said that I don't feel like this
subdivision fits very well either. Everything has its place and everything has a feel to it
and this is kind of like me taking my car and parking it in the family room, my wife really
wouldn't find it very -- a very good fit, so -- but the one thing that hasn't been brought up
-- I agree with Rick Stott that it has -- has a chance to be something really good here.
I'm a businessman and I understand that everybody is out to make a profit, but the
difference, if you run the numbers -- and I'm also not a realtor and I just go by what I see
the market has done out there and we have looked at other properties, but Dartmoor is
such a nice home country feel and we like the people there and the feel of it, which will
totally change with this subdivision. But if you run the numbers, the difference between
the lots -- as I said, I'm all about them making money, but if they were to go with one
acre lots and get say a hundred to a hundred twenty thousand apiece out of them, they
would be in the five to six million dollar range that they would be getting when they were
done as far as total return on investment. I don't know what their costs will be in that,
but if you look at it with their 219 lots at an average of say 60,000 dollars that they will
get per lot, some of the bigger lots and some of the smaller lots, they are almost 15
million. So, I understand that they are trying to make money at this. The thing is, you
know, trying to shove a square peg in a round hole just to make the extra cash, you
know, is not -- not what I think Meridian wants to -- we are all -- I think everybody wants
to see them make some money, but more than that, we want it to be the right fit and do
what the city wants it to do and what we would like to -- we would like to have good
neighbors and good relations with these people, not have it be a fight from the
beginning and have to deal with that clear through. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 45 of 71
Canning: Madam Mayor, we are ready.
De Weerd: All right. David, come on up. Okay. If you will just restate your name and
address.
LaVigne: My name is David LaVigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, Meridian,
Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
LaVigne: And as you can see, we had a few dates that we had kind of gone through,
but I have three primary concerns that I want to talk about. Proposed stub streets, the
Meridian traffic, and no transition lots. All the proposed stub streets attempt to access
rural roads with no sidewalks, some with open borrow pits for drainage. And as you can
see, the proposed stubs streets on Falcon Drive, Terri Lane, and Selatir Place, this is
kind of what they look like. Selatir Place is 22 feet wide with open borrow pits. Terri
Lane is 20 wide with no sidewalks. Falcon Drive is 22 feet wide with open ditches. If
you look at Tuscany across the street from Dartmoor on Roam Drive it's 30 feet wide,
plus it has sidewalks. It's pretty safe walking around in there. Vision First's proposal for
Dartmoor Drive is to have a four-foot wide stripe on each side of the road, as they had
proposed earlier. What that really means is if you look at Dartmoor, Dartmoor Drive is
24 feet wide, if a four-foot wide stripe is painted on each side of the road that will leave
a 16-foot wide road. That's like pulling in your garage at 25 miles an hour. Regarding
the proposed stub streets, with the general standard applicable to all conditional uses,
that proposed -- the proposal will not -- the proposal will not involve conditions of
operation detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare or reasons, excess
production of traffic. Kingsbridge doesn't meet that. Based on the November 14th news
article that I think everybody here read regarding Meridian traffic, the planning agencies
have miscalculated several key estimates of land that's being developed at fast -- pretty
fast rates. Traffic is moving toward gridlock in the City of Meridian and there is not
much can be done. Does the City of Meridian really need to annex anymore property in
the city limits with current traffic and growth issues unresolved? I think a lot of people
here would probably say no. With regard to transition lots. As stated in the City of
Meridian, this is the same thing that Lisa had put up originally. The bottom line is
traditional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes that buffer -- they need to
buffer or interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities, which
Kingsbridge isn't doing. So, as you will see, those are the transition lots. My property is
in the upper right-hand corner that abuts the east thing and the transition lots on the
east end of the development that abut the five acre parcels, Kingsbridge proposed
8,000 square foot lots, that's equivalent to 5.44 homes per acre. If I had 30 homes on
my 5.5 acres, then, I would probably call that a transition. You know, if you look at a
view from right there in that back east lot, wouldn't you think that that would demand a
little better premium lot? As you can see, I'm asking you guys to deny the annexation
into the city. We don't want to become looking like Seattle.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 460171
De Weerd: Thank you.
LaVigne: Or Eagle.
De Weerd: Okay. Other testimony?
McKee: Madam Mayor, my name is Sharon McKee and I reside at 3891 --
De Weerd: Sorry, your time is up. I'm sorry.
McKee: I reside at 3891 South Gideon. At this time I have to say I'm so proud of
everybody here. Mr. Turner presented some really good information and he said one
perimeter lot stood in denial. He didn't recognize that everybody here is perimeter lots
and they also stand in denial. Also Mrs. Becker, what she had done and what David
LaVigne has done is really good. However, I don't have it computerized for you, but I
did make you a storyboard and if you would allow me, I'd like to show it to you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any ideas how best to accomplish that?
Nary: Got to give that to the clerk when she's done.
Canning: We may be able to do them one at a time, but the whole thing won't fit on
there.
McKee: Can I submit it as the record?
De Weerd: Sure.
McKee: Can I give it to him? I take it you will all see it. The board is broken up into
three equal parts. The first section of pictures -- there is ten pictures on the first section.
It shows you, as Lori did, the character of the neighborhood and the homes that are in
the neighborhood. They are high-end homes and they have a lot of value. The second
section of pictures -- I took pictures of our back yards and the acreages and as you can
see by the pictures, we keep -- we take a lot of great pride in our land. The cost of
keeping it nice is high. Our personal expenses in maintaining them has always been
considered an investment into our property value. What I would like you to realize in
this is that the urban development is smack dab in the middle of a rural area. The last
section is what Kingsbridge is bringing to this lovely area of Meridian. As you can see, it
is just rooftops, walls, and fences. If you turn the board over, which I encourage you to
do, Madam Mayor, before you pass it on, we tried to illustrate what this development
would really look like. The top picture shows our existing rural area and the bottom
picture shows you that we inverted some roof tops in there and that is what Kingsbridge
is donating to our urban backyards. Because everybody else has done a really good
job, I'm going to try and keep it short and bypass my entire thing, but like they said, we
are not here to stop the developer, we are here trying to protect our home values. We
want to see the CC&Rs of the lot held. The 15-year deed restriction was a substantial
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 47 of 71
fact in everyone's decision to purchase their homes, let alone the commitment to
develop it in the same manner as Dartmoor was developed. We love living in Meridian
and better yet in the area because of its rural style. If this plan gets approved it will
decrease our property values and that's not fair or just and I really hope that you don't
put that burden on us that we would have to stand and fight and have some of these
few homeowners fight that financial battle against a giant developer and I'm just asking
you to, please, just say no. You have choices. We need a different development in
here that is in like with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you.
De Weere!: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I do have the school district letter.
De Weere!: Okay. Well, we will go ahead and just finish the testimony.
Canning: Oh, I didn't see any. I thought they were done. I'm sorry.
De Weere!: Okay. Sir. If you will, please, state your name and address.
J.McKee: Yes. My name is Jeff McKee. I live at 3891 South Gideon Place. And we
talk about everybody's concerns and everything, but the way I see it, there is right and
there is everything else. So, we can have lawyers, we can pay them to argue either
side of this, I think, but what I really want to know is what's right. The current property
owner he has a right to develop that property. I'm a property owner in Texas. I have
the right to develop that property. I understand that. But he has the right to develop,
based on what you have heard, on restrictions that were placed when Dartmoor went in.
And he has also restrictions that they had when I bought the property that I'm currently
at. And we were here many times in 15 years and it needs to be an extension of
development of Dartmoor, so we both have rights. I think Meridian has -- as a body, as
a governing body, should stick with putting in what fits. So, alii want to state is you can
have right and everything else. So, what is right for this piece of property? And that's
all.
De Weere!: Okay. Any further testimony? Yes, sir.
Schultsmeier: Good evening. I haven't been sworn in yet.
De Weerd: Okay.
Schultsmeier: Okay.
De Weerd: Are you sure? Weren't you here when we did the group thing?
Schultsmeier: Sorry. No.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 48 of 71
De Weere!: Another tardy guy. Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Schultsmeier: Yes.
De Weere!: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Schultsmeier: Rick Schultsmeier, 3422 East Dartmoor.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Schultsmeier: I'd like to read an e-mail that was sent to Lisa Job from Ken Elliott and
I'm going to read a portion of it. If the Dartmoor residents or neighbors challenge the
City Council decision in court, we will fully prepare to litigate the matter to its final
conclusion. Once a decision is made -- and we are reasonably certain the court will
agree with our interpretation of the Dartmoor covenant as a matter of law, we will move
ahead and develop the project as conditioned by the city approval, but without any of
the benefits to Dartmoor listed above. The Dartmoor residents can cost Kingsbridge
project time and money, but as you all may rest assured, we are not leaving. Just from
that statement alone I'd like to appeal to the Council's sense of justice and realize that
we do not want to go into this and get involved in a legal battle. All we are doing is
asking for you to basically disapprove the Kingsbridge development and not allow us to
get into a battle in court. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weere!: Yes.
Nary: He needs to give that e-mail to the clerk.
Schultsmeier: It's the same letter.
De Weerd: Oh, it's already been submitted? Sir, could you, please, on the record, tell
us who these people are. You just read an e-mail and I'm not familiar -- you'll need to
do it on the microphone.
Schultsmeier: The e-mail is from Ken Elliott.
De Weere!: And who is that?
Schultsmeier: He's Vision First.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 49 of 71
Schultsmeier: And, then, it's to Lisa Job, which is the president of the Dartmoor --
De Weere!: Okay.
Schultsmeier: Is that enough?
De Weere!: Yes.
Schultsmeier: Okay. Thank you.
De Weere!: Okay. Is there any further testimony?
B.Schultsmeier: Madam Mayor, my name is Brenda Schultsmeier. I haven't spoke in
public in awhile. I reside at 3422 East Dartmoor Drive in Meridian.
De Weere!: Thank you.
B.Schultsmeier: We bought our property about three years ago and we had looked for
about a year trying to find property that had an acre that was close in proximity and that
had the rural setting. We have lots of dogs. Knowing that we were going to start a
family soon, we would have never bought this property had we known that this was
going to be developed into an urban -- into an urban development. It was promised to
us that this deed restriction would -- that it not be developed for 15 years and so we are
relying on that and we are asking for you to stop this development -- that couldn't have
been three minutes.
De Weere!: No. Time flies when you're having fun.
B.Schultsmeier: And, furthermore, the fact of the matter is it's going to cost all of us a
lot of time and a lot of money to fight this battle, which we are prepared to do, as they
are. So, we are just pleading with you to stop this development and look for something
else to go into this property at a later date. Thank you.
De Weere!: Thank you. Ma'am. State your name and address.
Bowden: I'm Sarah Bowden and I reside at 3515 South Eagle Road and I would be on
the northwest --
De Weere!: There is a pointer up there.
Bowden: Okay. Right there.
De Weere!: Okay.
Bowden: So, we would definitely be impacted by the additional number of cars coming
out of Dartmoor, but I totally sympathize with Dartmoor, because the flavor has totally
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 50 of 71
changed in our neighborhood since Tuscany has moved in. When they were
developers, sometimes they would just throw trash over the fence. They did put a five
foot fence, but they didn't berm it, they -- they wanted to berm it on our side of the
property, because -- you know, and they said, well, we will protect your view, but they
haven't protected our view and I'm concerned that possibly Dartmoor's view may not be
protected. They were only going to build like single layer homes around, you know, the
property, but, no, there are two story homes and it's also -- I have lived in this home
since 1985 and it was said back then that it was a natural migratory route and Tuscany
was going to try and save the flavor of the wildlife that is out there, there is wonderful
foxes out there in the area and geese and so much of that is leaving and I just hate to
see it leave across the street. We, too, have horses and I feel sorry for those people
that have horses for concern of, you know, all the little kids in the subdivision, they like
to stick their hands in -- you know, over fencing and play with animals. Also, what was
brought up when Tuscany was going through, I had objected to that as well, but they
said -- someone spoke from the fire department and there was also a letter read about
-- from the police department saying how it would tax that area -- I mean tax them with
so many people just moving into that area. I do know that on the fire department it's a
substation that's going to be built further north of us, but in the meantime, I'm concerned
that, you know, the people that are there, you know, can they truly be totally protected
by everyone and so I just kind of wondered that. I also object to the traffic. As it is now
-- or to the number of homes coming in. The traffic is such a gridlock on Eagle Road,
that there are times of the day when, between Overland and Victory is blocked, it is
backed up. And in the mornings when we try and leave our home, it is totally backed up
beyond Dartmoor. I can't imagine anymore homes on that double lane, but thank you
so much for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ruhl: I'm Renee Ruhl and I reside at 3886 South Gideon Place, also in the Dartmoor
Subdivision.
De Weerd: And that was Renee Ruhl?
Ruhl: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Ruhl: And I guess I would think that the deed restriction would be the thing that I would
want to stand on the most as well and I think about raising our four children and wanting
to go home and explain to them that integrity is still a value of the Meridian city that we
want to uphold and so I would hope that that would be the main reason that this would
be denied. Also I wanted to talk about the traffic as well. We walk on the ditch bank
that is currently right here and often at 7:45 in the morning this is backed up clear to
here from Victory Road, which is way up here, at this point in time when Tuscany isn't
even halfway down putting the homes in. They also have another proposed subdivision
area down here and more back over in here and I can't imagine what the road's going to
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 51 0171
be like just when Tuscany completes their homes, let alone Kingsbridge. I have a third
child just getting her driver's license and I am fearful for her to turn on Eagle Road
where it's 45 miles an hour, trying to take a left-hand turn there with cars going back and
forth not stopping. I think it's already dangerous and I can't imagine what it will become.
Also, if you have been out there on Saturdays during soccer season, the traffic is
incredible heading out to the soccer fields down on Hubbard Road, which we are thrilled
that those fields are down there, but traffic is often backed up clear from Overland all
the way out. State soccer tournaments were out there this year. State soccer
tournaments. There were buses, there were thousands of people on those roads and
the fire station is not proposed to be put in until 2008, so we have got things way down
the line. It's going to get much much worse at this point. Also the bridge that is pictured
in the subdivision -- I don't know if you can put that up. I don't understand how that's
going to work. That is Meridian-Nampa irrigation road that goes right there along the
ditch and the bridge doesn't even show that the road even exists and that's like their key
focal point of the subdivision. It's going to have to totally be changed. There is -- it's
like obliterated the road. I don't know if we can see the picture, but it's not
comprehensible how that's going to work in with the way the road is there and it's
required, it's the only way to get in and out of the home back there, so thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Just for the record, the fire station will open about this time next
year. So, we know we need to get service down there. Sir.
T.Rohl: My name is Tim Ruhl. I reside at 3886 South Gideon Place and I'd just like to
point out some obvious things with this new proposal, the new information. There are
no significant changes in the number of homes going in their new proposal. There is no
significant effort by the developer to meet any of our concerns or addresses any of our
issues. However, if this development goes in, there will be a significant impact on us.
Significant. There will be a significant impact on our way of life, on our schools that are
-- as you probably already know, are overcrowded and that will impact our children.
There will be a significant impact on our traffic, as was already stated. I think to
appreciate our plight, just try to drive down Eagle Road between 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock
and you will fully appreciate what we go through on a daily basis trying to get home after
work. And as what was already stated, I can't imagine what the traffic will look like if this
development goes in. It's already very very bad. The traffic will have a significant effect
on the safety of our children through that subdivision, as was already stated. It's
obvious. There will be a significant change in our rural living. It will change our way of
life. And we purchased these lots, as you well know, in good trust with the city planning
that had already taken place and we trusted that that was going to stay the same.
There will be a significant change on our views. It's -- if you look out our back lots right
now, we enjoy rural living. We will be looking at hundreds of homes. It will significantly
impact those. And it will significantly impact our property values. And so I'd just like to
state, along with everyone else in the room, that I'm in opposition to this development.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? I thank you were the first one
here and the last one to testify.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 52 of 71
B.Becker: Actually, I wasn't going to testify. My wife is the toastmaster in the family, so
I defer to her, but --
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address.
B.Becker: -- my name is Bob Becker, I live at 3421 South Selatir Place. I don't know if
you can -- not the best map. but it's right in this area here. I wanted to address just one
thing that Mr. Elliott said. He said that by increasing the lot size from 7,000 to a little
over 8,000 square feet along the east side, that satisfied the Commission's concerns
about transition lots and I don't think you can say that going from a 200,000 square foot
lot, which is approximately what our lot is, to an 8,000 square foot lot, is a transition
from low density to higher density. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony before I ask the applicant to come up for their
closing remarks? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Canning: Madam Mayor, did you want the letter before --
De Weerd: Yes. Before we start the clock on the applicant, if you will read that letter
into the record.
Canning: This is a letter from Joint School No.2, which is the Meridian School District,
dated August 19th, 2004. Dear Planners: The Meridian School District has
experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten years. The high schools, middle
schools, and elementary schools throughout the district are operating over capacity.
Approval of Kingsbridge Subdivision will have a significant impact on school enrollment
at Lake Hazel Elementary, Lake Hazel Middle, and Mountain View High School. We
can predict that these homes when completed will have eight elementary age children,
seven middle school age child -- children it should be -- and six senior high age
students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation.
Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be
necessary to bus students to other schools across the district. School capacity is
addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. Meridian School District is currently operating
beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact on the district's
capacity. If you have questions, please contact me. Signed Wendell Bigham.
De Weerd: So, are they recommending denial?
Canning: No, they are not. They never do.
Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record my
name is Ken Elliott, speaking on behalf of the applicant Vision First, LLC. We have
listened patiently, as the Council has, to the testimony. Many of the issues we have
heard before presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We took the
comments very seriously at that initial hearing and we do believe that we have made
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 53 of 71
significant changes to this project in response to the neighbors'concerns. We are in a
developing area. We recognize that. We look at the city's Comprehensive Plan or the
future land use map and we see that our tract is slated for low density residential at
three lots per acre, except for 28 acres of the site, which is as the planning director
pointed out, between three and eight lots per acre. We have attempted to address the
transition from the existing rural development at our boundaries by going with the low
density across the entire site, rather than mixing it with low and medium density. We
are at 2.86 units, which is below the three unit per acre max for the city's R-4 low
density zone. A couple of legal arguments have been made repeatedly tonight. We'd
like to rely -- continue to rely on Mr. Miller's interpretation of the Dartmoor covenants
and Mr. Nary's advice to the City Council about the impact of those covenants or the
nonimpact on the City Council's decision tonight. Since every Dartmoor neighbor,
though, has testified that he or she purchased their lot in the project in reliance on a 15
year covenant governing Lot 11 of Block 2 of Dartmoor, which is our 56 acres to the
east, I would like to repeat a sentence that is in Mr. Miller's letter, which is an excerpt
from the Dartmoor CC&Rs, which states that Lot 11 of Block 2 is excluded by the
grantor from coverage of this declaration. By accepting a deed to a lot within Dartmoor
Subdivision, each owner shall be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to
the exclusion of said Lot 1 and Lot 11 of Block 2 and consents to the resubdivision and
development thereof in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect
and applicable to Lot 1 and 11 of Block 2, including such resubdividing and
development as shall require that access to Lot 1 and 11 of Block 2 will be provided by
the public rights of way within Dartmoor Subdivision. It is disingenuous of, in my biased
view, for all these Dartmoor residents to say that they bought in reliance on a covenant,
when this was in their title report at the time of every purchase of every lot that you have
heard from tonight. We feel that our project addressed the city's Comprehensive Plan
and future land use map. The exhibit that I just began to discuss in the main testimony
shows the red tracts of land that are within the city's area of impact south of Overland
Road. A total of 705 new lots have been approved by the city for preliminary plat. It is
obvious that this entire area north of Amity is in a rapid state of change. We think that
our project will help address the traffic on Eagle Road, rather than make it worse,
because if you look at the northem part of that area that is shaded in brown, you see the
Silverstone and EI Dorado employment centers. In the Mayor's State of the City
address earlier this fall the study is referred to where we have projected by the end of
2005 there will be a total of 14,000 jobs created in those two projects. We are trying to
create additional housing south of the freeway where people can live and take a short
trip to work, rather than having to commute from north Meridian, where a lot of the
housing to date has occurred, and go down Eagle Road to get to these employment
centers south of the freeway. We think that Kingsbridge is precisely the right project in
the right place at the right time to respond to this issue and to the growth of Meridian.
We need to grow in concentric circles around the job centers. The air of impact was
established with that in mind, it's established a quarter mile south of Amity, as shown on
our red boundary on the exhibit, we are three-quarters of a mile south of that and about
one mile south of those job centers where we are expecting 14,000 jobs. If we are
wrong, we need -- and we would welcome guidance from the City Council tonight. We
are trying to abide by the future land use map. We think that we have balanced the
Mendian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 54 of 71
city's goals for residential growth in this area in a way that is -- that addresses the
transition from the existing rural development. Every lot on our perimeter exceeds the
minimum lot size for the R-4 zone. What is not mentioned in any of the opposition
testimony is that it says create large lots or landscape buffers. Well, we have a
landscape buffer all the way around our project. On the south side it's 60 feet. On the
east and north side it's 30 feet. So, we have both lots that comply with the zoning and
the landscape buffer to transition from the five-acre lots to the east and north. With
respect to the pedestrian safety improvements and my e-mail submitted to Lisa Job,
when we revised our plat we invited discussions with the Dartmoor neighbors, they
reviewed all of the compromises that we had proposed at that time and said, sorry, we
don't want to talk unless you are willing to go to one acre lots. We proposed recently,
about two weeks ago, a set of traffic safety improvements, because we had gotten
information that, in fact, the neighborhood thought we had withdrawn those proposed
compromises. We have never withdrawn them, it's just that they never responded to us.
So, I restated in my e-mail all of the improvements that we were willing to make and, in
fact, we hoped that we would reach an agreement with them and that's why it says if we
are going to do all of these things, we would expect, as a quid quo pro, that you not
oppose the project, because none of those enhancements are going to be made without
the project. And to be -- to be chastised for offering to do off-site improvements that
have never been made in their neighborhood to protect the safety of their children and
the safety of the Kingsbridge children I think is not fair play. We are willing to make all
of those improvements and we stand ready to accept that as a condition. We will put in
the first sidewalk that's ever existed on Dartmoor Drive. We will create setbacks far
beyond those that are required by the city's code. We will put privacy fencing all the
way along their boundary. We will commit to single level houses on the lots that adjoin
Dartmoor to preserve their views from their two story houses on their lots. We have
never withdrawn those proposals, it's just that whenever we seek to have a discussion
they say, sorry, one acre lots, we are going to hold out for a rural subdivision. Well, the
intent of the county ordinance was to prevent urban sprawl, to prevent the proliferation
of one acre lots in areas where urban services were expected to be extended in future
years. We have now reached that future year, it's year 11, instead of the predicted 15,
but Meridian has grown faster than anyone could have projected back in 1994. There
are several examples on our map that show where one-acre lots are existing quite
compatibly with 8,000 square foot lots on adjoining projects. Two examples are the
Muirwood Subdivision at Cloverdale and Victory and the new Sutherland Farm where
we have R-4 density lots abutting five-acre mansions on the north side of Overland. In
response to Mrs. Becker's testimony on our stub street in Selatir Place, we have no
intent or hope of ever connecting to Selatir, because of the strip of land that prevents
that. Our hope is that we will connect to Bot! Lane and, then, to Cloverdale to the east,
which is in Ada County's traffic plan for an east-west connection between Cloverdale
and Eagle. The difference in lot numbers, we have heard discussion about 222 in an
earlier plan, then, 237, then 219. The initial plan included many 6,000 square foot patio
home lots. We met with the Dartmoor neighbors, they said, . please, don't put in any
6,000 square foot lots. We increased the -- all of them to above 7,000 square feet, the
averaging created 237 lots. So, we have given up 19 lots.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 55 of 71
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have questions for the applicant?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have one.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: For the public -- for public testimony. How many of your -- 219, I guess, lots you
got now? Is that right?
Elliott: Yes.
Bird: How many of them is over 8,000 square feet?
Elliott; Over 8,OOO? All of them.
Bird: Every one of them is over 8,OOO?
Elliott: Every one exceeds. And the average is 9,700. May I introduce two exhibits at
the very end of my testimony. I have a letter from Ed Miller in response to George
Hicks' letter that was submitted into the record. I also have the detail on those red tracts
of land showing the 304 lots, as well as the job centers.
DeWeerd: Yes. Council, do you have any other questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: May I ask the folks in the audience a couple of questions? Not for the
applicant, no.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? No? Thank you.
Donnell: Now, I can go?
De Weerd: Yes.
Donnell: I'm curious as to how many of you are actually in Dartmoor. Can you raise
your hands? And just one per family. Would you raise your hand? Just one, so not,
you know, both of you. How many of you have been there since 1984? I said 1884
when that -- when the ordinance in regard to the 15 years -- 1984. If the 15 years --
okay. Fifteen years is going to be 2009. So 1994. How many of you have been there?
My math is really good. So -- okay. And, then, how many of you are in the surrounding
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 56 of 71
other areas? Just one hand per family. And how many of you have been there since
1994? Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed? Okay. Hearing none, do I
have a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Donnell: Madam Mayor, I would move to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Bird: I will second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on 13, 14 and 15. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Donnell: Oh, yeah.
De Weerd: Was that a -- do you want to go first?
Donnell: Oh, yeah. I have been listening for a long long time and I have some really
conflicting concems about this. I live in one of those subdivisions. 'live in one of those
Kingbridges. I'm one of those people who put those trips on the roads. I watch the
children that are out there waiting for the bus every morning, so -- and I see the
developments that have been approved all over everywhere. I also lived, prior to that,
in an area that had big homes and big lots and I can remember talking to the builder
when the home behind me was being proposed and I just said please don't build a two
story home, you're going to ruin my view and he said I'll tell you how you can insure that
it won't be, you buy the lot. And that was exactly right and a two-story home was built.
It didn't make much difference. The trees grew up and blocked my view anyway. Didn't
make any difference that the house was there after ten and a half years. So, I have
great sympathy with those of you that have a particular -- not particular, that's a really
bad choice of words, but a lifestyle that you enjoy and you love and you want to stop
anything else from happening around you. I have a greater concern about the ability of
the school district to provide services for a subdivision that is that big. But I also know
that from years and years of experience with the school district that their role is to
provide services, so when the developments are built, then, their role is to provide those
services, to build the schools. And I -- Anna, I'd really like to talk about the numbers
that were -- that you read into -- in the letter, because I don't think those were quite
right.
Canning: They would seem incorrect, but that was what was on the letter, so --
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 57 of 71
Donnell: I think that must have been -- something must have happened there. Usually
there is a little bit -- yeah, a little bit more children than that that would come out of 219
home lots. And would impact that. There is a school site that's proposed for Tuscany
and that, of course, would serve the Kingsbridge Subdivision and the land has been
purchased, it's just not yet gone before the public to provide a bond to support building a
school there. Lake Hazel has gone back and forth being over capacity and under
capacity. So, that is -- that happens all across the district. So, I'm -- I have a greater
concern, I guess, about annexation, when the one little contiguous area is one little spot
there. I assume across the road. Thank you, Anna. Going to put that up. Right there.
So, that meets the legal requirements; is that right? Mr. Nary?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it does.
Donnell: Okay. That's enough from me for now.
De Weere!: Is there any further comment?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weere!: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: As Councilman Donnell indicated, we certainly have done a lot of listening
tonight and I hope it's the right kind. First I want to thank everybody for taking the time
to come and recognizing that a good share of you are not now -- and probably not going
to be in the near term residents of the City of Meridian, but thank you for being here.
We have had some interesting testimony this evening, some interesting legal concepts
thrown at us. Quite honestly, the legal issues are not necessarily resonating with me in
terms of a decision. I believe those are for lawyers to deal with and I don't think that
either way somebody's not going to be happy with the decision. So, again, that's for the
lawyers to resolve. We have a unique situation with this development in the existing
condition and we have an interesting discussion in our Comprehensive Plan about what
happens in these kinds of areas. Normally we do not have a situation where we have a
residential development, which I will characterize as a -- anyway, it's an oddity, we
haven't seen one like this before, where it's surrounded by large lots and a rural
environment. Typically we will see a large lot on one side or one corner of a
development. And when you factor in what it was we were trying to accomplish with the
language within our Comprehensive Plan and what the character is of this particular
piece of real estate, I'm not -- it doesn't resonate to me that the proposed development
and/or annexation is consistent with what we are trying to accomplish. The word I was
looking for is it appears to me is if we have on enclave, but a reverse of the kinds of
enclaves that we typically deal with the city surrounding a rural area and in this case we
have a rural area surrounding the city. My inclination at this point is to not look
favorably upon the annexation. Some of the things we have learned tonight, before
there was a decision, I think one that we hear continually is be careful who you listen to
and when you listen to them when you buy property. I'm not sure what we heard this
evening again resonates with me in that regard. There is not much we can do about
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 58 of 71
promises made to you when you buy property. But what we can do is look at this in the
context of what we want the city to be and how we want the city to grow and given that I
at this point can't take a favorable position.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further comments? Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I agree with some of the comments that Councilman Rountree
has laid out for us and one of the words that I have heard tonight from the public and
from our own plan is the word harmonious and one of the reasons that we have within
our Comprehensive Plan a mixture of residential types is to be able to achieve those
kinds of blends and to attempt, even some of the lots are much much larger, to attempt
to transition from one style of either residential or one style of land use to the other style
and I didn't see -- I saw an attempt made and I will - I will say that there certainly was
an attempt to do that in this application, but I don't think it goes far enough and that's
why we have these subjective hearings, so that people can express their public opinion
and bring those thoughts and attitudes forward and so I would agree with many of
Councilman Rountree's statements about the annexation and its place within our city.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I, too, want to thank everybody for coming out and testifying and presenting your
views before the deal. I, too, agree with Councilman Rountree to the point that I -- I
don't feel this is a fit right now. I think -- and don't get me wrong, two rights don't -- you
know, or two wrongs don't make a right and we have -- we have in the past probably
made some bad decisions, but I think this is set in with rural around it and I just can't go
for the density. Now, if it was an R-2 or something like that, I could probably support it.
I'm not against development. But I just -- I just don't - there is something I just don't
feel that it's right in this area under these terms and I -- the developer has done a good
job, he's changed some stuff, but I think it's just too high of density surrounding the
other -- being surrounded by the acre and five acre lots and I think we need to be able
to transition a little better on the skirts of our impact area. That's my viewpoint.
De Weerd: Thank you, Council. I don't get to vote, but since I run the meeting, I get to
talk. I'm sure you guys are shocked by that. I appreciate the comments from Council
and, you know, in most circumstances this is a well designed subdivision, it has some
great amenities, but as Councilman Rountree has stated, it is kind of reverse of what we
normally see and we have had a similar situation in north Meridian that we asked the
proposers of that subdivision to be conscientious of the lower density lots that
surrounded it and they did a good job in transitioning in and I also agree with the
testimony that this is an opportunity for the executive houses and I certainly don't
propose to purchase this property and develop it myself. I know that they have to be
certainly aware of what the market would bear, but those jobs coming in do provide
some opportunity for some housing that currently doesn't exist and I know staff always
cringes when I talk about lower density, but this is certainly an opportunity to provide
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 59 of 71
choices in our city for different housing stock and the type of housing that surrounds it in
this rural area - and it is a city area of impact, so it is supposed to be urban, but since
the homes that surround this are very nice high quality homes, it doesn't make sense
trying to urbanize this area that is very rural. I also would like to get on my soap box. It
is an opportunity every time I hear schools and crowded and all of that -- right now we
are getting ready to go into a new legislative session. Growth needs to start paying its
way and schools are the only things that are exempted from impact fees and I have
been suggesting to the school district, who has been beaten down every year in the
legislature for even suggesting such a thing, but it is time that this community, this
school district, steps up and says growth needs to start paying its way and impact fees
should be allowed in this high area of growth. And sorry I took advantage of a full room
to please challenge you all to call the school district and say we are on your side and
what do you need us to do, because we definitely need the public's help on this,
because we can get -- the development community has stepped up to the plate and
they are offering property for development, now it's building the buildings and so,
certainly, you can be of great assistance to the school district, but, yes, their job is to
provide a service. We have been asking them to take a stand and say we cannot take
another child, but I do understand what their charter is, it's a little bit different than that,
but it makes it very difficult for us to turn down development, because of an authority
that we don't have to interpret what they are telling us. With that said, I also am
concerned with these rural subdivisions. There is two entrances onto Eagle Road and
one of them is through a rural subdivision plat. They don't have sidewalks, they don't
have road widths that are going to accommodate those things, and by using it as a
second entrance, you do set up -- and we would prefer that in these county subs in our
area of impact that they really do build it to our standards, because, then, you will see
sidewalks and those kind of things, so when those open fields are not guaranteed for
the fox and the geese and, you know what, that's why I got involved in city government,
because I had open space behind me and I really liked that fox was behind there and
now I have a whole big subdivision of higher density than what you see here and now I
moved and I have a golf course behind me. But, you know, when you build those urban
subdivisions around there and they are going to connect through a subdivision that's
been built to county standards, it really provides a very difficult challenge and so I do
agree with the neighbors in that that traffic going through there and that pedestrian
traffic going through there, are a risk, because of how that was designed and I didn't
want to disappoint Council by not saying just a few things.
Rountree: Are you off that soapbox yet?
De Weerd: So that soapbox is worn out.
Bird: Hallelujah.
De Weerd: Except for you can't gavel me down. And, again, I would say that it is a nice
development. I wish you would find another part of our city, but you choose your first
development in Idaho to build in, there is some work to be done and I would agree with
the statements of Council. If there is no further comments, I would entertain a motion.
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 60 of 71
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to be sure -- we had a lot
of testimony tonight and Mrs. Canning and her staff are going to have to help draft the
findings, which ever way the Council's going, although I can kind of see where we are
going. I didn't know, Mrs. Canning, if there would be some help that you would like to
help craft the findings. I think Council member Rountree talked a lot about the
compatibility and the fit and I think so did Councilmembers Donnell and Wardle, but I
don't know whether or not there is enough. If you would like to have any input on that.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you could, whoever makes the
motion, if they could highlight some of those issues and, then, we will make sure we go
back and hit them. Madam Mayor, with your permission, if I might converse with the city
attorney. Do you think that we need to prepare new findings for them to look at before
they address this or would - do you feel comfortable -- we have --
Nary: I guess I'm not tracking.
Canning: We have findings for approval based on a -- the staff recommendation without
the P&Z and, then, we have findings for denial from the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Nary: I think we probably be best in crafting some new findings and getting them pretty
clean.
Canning: And, then, bringing them back for the final vote?
Nary: Yes.
Canning: That's what I was hoping.
Nary: Yes.
Canning: So, I don't know how that -- what kind of motion is made tonight.
De Weerd: Do you really want these people to come back again?
Canning: No, I do not. I think --
De Weerd: We love you all and we keep denying -- or keep continuing this. Is there
any way we can do that --
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 61 0171
Canning: I think that the maker of the motion could make it clear what direction the City
Council was going, but just direct staff to prepare findings for their review at the next
hearing.
Nary: Correct. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's all I was going to
suggest, is that the maker of the motion just make it clear -- again, just for the benefit of
the staff and especially on a lengthy hearing like this, it's very difficult to piece through
an entire hearing to find your reasons to either grant or deny a particular motion. So, if
you can at least condense that down somewhat, between the planning staff and myself
we can certainly go through that to make sure we have got that correct, we will bring
that back if it isn't, we can certainly take that again and make sure we get it crafted the
way you're most comfortable with. But you can simply make that direction. These folks
don't all have to come back. Those will be available as part of a packet before the next
hearing, so --
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weent Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Mr. Nary, at the beginning of this hearing you talked in regard to the three
areas when we are looking at annexation, that it is appropriate and that's all the farther I
got, because you went right on to contiguous to city property and city services being
provided and, then, reasonably within the orderly growth pattem -- would you say those
three again?
Nary: Certainly. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Donnell, I'm
sorry if I spoke too quickly before.
Donnell: You did. I can't write that fast.
Nary: I'm so sorry. Basically, Idaho Code 50-222 talks about three particular areas that
-- where the findings need to be addressed by the Council in making a decision on
annexation. The first is whether or not the land is eligible to be annexed, whether it's
contiguous, whether it's annexable. Secondarily, the second consideration would be
whether or not it would be consistent with the public purposes addressed in your
Comprehensive Plan, whether it has a consistency with the rest of your community and,
lastly, the annexation is reasonably necessary for the orderly development of the city.
And those are, again, both very discretionary decisions on the part of this Council, but,
hopefully, that's of some assistance. I'll try to talk slower. I'm sorry.
Donnell: That is. Thank you very much. That helps.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further information needed or discussion, I would
entertain a motion on Item 13.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 62 of 71
De Ween:!: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have one question for legal council. Does the motion need to reflect
approval or denial?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
Rountree: And the necessary direction for preparation of the findings.
Nary: Councilmember Rountree, yes, that would be our preference.
Rountree: And our action would be after we review the findings?
Nary: Correct. Right. You can make a motion just to prepare findings in one particular
direction, we can do that, it will probably be -- it wouldn't be likely for your next meeting,
it would probably be your first meeting in January we could bring those back. Your final
action isn't completed until you have actually approved the findings.
Rountree: And if I heard you right, you're more comfortable with that then --
Nary: I think just so we make sure that it's what you want it to. be. I think you would be
the safest to do that.
Rountree: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Ween:!: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'll attempt this. I move that City Council instruct the city staff to prepare
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law based on the request for annexation for Item
No. 13, indicating denial of the request for annexation and that the basis for the denial
be around consistency with the direction of the city Comprehensive Plan as it deals with
transition between rural and urbanizing areas and the responsibility -- or the
reasonableness, the necessity for orderly development about and around the city and
that those findings be brought back to the Council for final action. Do I need a date
certain?
Nary: Yes. A date certain would probably be best. The January 4th meeting, Mrs.
Canning, is that okay?
Canning: That's fine.
Rountree: We aren't having that -- that those findings be available at Council for final
action on January 4th, 2005.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 14. 2004
Page 63 of 71
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to deny Item 13 and to ask the city attorney to draw up
findings.
Nary: City staff, just to make it --
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, just to clarify. I believe you're not actually denying it,
you're just asking staff to prepare the findings for denial.
Rountree: For denial.
De Weerd: For denial. Yes. Which seems kind of like the same thing, but --
Canning: Subtle differences.
De Weerd: Okay. This must be a legal thing. Okay. Is there any further discussion or
clarification needed? Staff? No? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary is -- would that be for the same on Items 14 and 15?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we could certainly prepare findings for
all of those at once. The other ones normally our standard findings would be is if the
property isn't annexed, then, we certainly don't have to make a decision -- we cannot
make a decision on a plat or a CUP, so those are not very complicated and we can
certainly make those as well at the same time.
Canning: Madam Mayor, if -- if perhaps the city attorney could address, though, that we
do have a permit -- we have a Conditional Use Permit and I believe we need some
clarification on exactly what City Council would like for - as how they can remedy the
situation.
Rountree: We didn't annex it.
Bird: We didn't annex it. How can you have a permit? We can't issue a permit to the
county. When they don't annex, those things go away.
Canning: I just -- my limited understanding -- I'm going to shut up.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mrs. Canning is always good to remind
me -- I mean statutorily it does require when you deny a permit, that you give some
grounds as to what they could do to be approved. Certainly one of those is going to be
that the property has to be within the city. If there is anything else you want us to
Meridian City Council
December 14, 2004
Page 64 of 71
include, we can certainly look at that. There isn't any real specifics in the Idaho Code or
case law that says what the depth of that recommendation needs to be, but there does
need to be something, We can certainly -- we can try to craft what we can, based on
the fact that we didn't annex the property, but if there is anything else, we can certainly
add that.
Rountree: Is that triggered with action on the finding on the annexation?
Nary: It's triggered by the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. That's what is required
by the state code, is that you give them reasons of what they could do, particular
directions you could give them as to what they could do to be approved and at the
moment I think all we are -- what we would be including is that they would have to be
annexed into the city to be approved, but if there is anything else you would like us to
add, we could do that.
Rountree: That's fine with me. Do we need a motion?
Nary: I think you probably should -- it would be best to have a motion to direct us to
prepare the findings for the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit as well and
anything else you want us to include in that.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we direct staff to prepare findings for denial, PP 04-030,
preliminary plat for Kingsbridge Subdivision, utilizing the reason that the City Council did
not act favorably upon the annexation, date certain to be January 4th, 2005.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion as stated was to ask the staff to draw up some findings.
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we direct staff to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law for denial for CUP 04-032, Conditional Use Permit for Kingsbridge Subdivision,
Meridian City Couneii
December 14. 2004
Page 65 of 71
utilizing the reasoning that City Council did not act favorably upon the request for
annexation.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to ask staff to draw up findings for denial on Item 15.
If there is no further discussion, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Ordinance No. 04-1119 AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna
Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburah Place Subdivision No. 1-2
by the City of Meridian - NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust
Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 04-1119 for AZ 04-025. Mr. Berg,
will you, please, read this ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the City Council. Ordinance No. 04-1119, an
Ordinance Vienna Woods and Edinburgh Place Subdivisions for property located as
described in the attachment A of this ordinance and annexing certain lands and
territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent to the -- and contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing
and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands as R-4, medium to low
density residential in the Meridian city code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall
be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State
Tax Commission as required by law and providing a summary of the ordinance and
providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effect date.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is
there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety?
Donnell: No, ma'am.
De Weerd:
ordinance.
Hearing none, Council, I would entertain a motion to approve this
Rountree: So moved.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 16. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.