HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 01-04
Meridian Citv Council Meetina
January 4. 2005.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:02 P.M.,
Tuesday, January 4, 2005, by Council President Keith Bird.
Members Present: Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, and Christine Donnell.
Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Brad Watson, David Overton,
Kenny Bowers, Ted Baird, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
~ Shaun Wardle
- Charlie Rountree
--L.,Christine Donnell
~Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Bird: Good evening. We'd like to welcome you to the first Council meeting of 2005,
January 4th, 2005. Welcome everybody here. And with that I'd like roll call, Mr. Clerk.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
Bird: Okay. Item No.2 is if you will join us in the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Glen Olson, with LDS Church:
Bird: Thank you. Item No.3 is our community invocation. At this time we ask you to
join in or just take a moment of silence. The invocation is pastor -- or by Bishop Glen
Olson from the LDS church.
Olson: Our Father in Heaven, we are thankful to be able to meet here in this very
convenient and very happy community that we live in. We are very grateful for the
progress that has been made and grateful for the safe place in which we live. We are
grateful for those that protect us who are in harms way and we ask there to be a
blessing upon them that they would be protected, particularly those that serve in the
military at this time who are from this community, we pray for their safety. We are
thankful, Father, for those who give their time and efforts to make this community a
better place. We ask thee particularly, as we, as a people, are gathered here this
evening to have wisdom and understanding of those issues which are pertinent to our
community here and pray that thy Spirit will touch them that they might have
understanding and the inspiration to carry on their work that they have so wonderfully
Meridian City Councii
January 4. 2005
Page 2 of 43
done previously. We give you thanks for these blessings and pray that thy will be done
and we say this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Bird: Thank you. Okay. Item No.4 is the adoption of the agenda. Council, what's your
pleasure?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: With the addition of Item No.6, department report by the city attorney, I move
that we approve the adoption of the agenda.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda with the revision. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
B.
C.
Approve Minutes of November 16, 2004 City Council and ACHD
Commission Joint MeetinglWorkshop:
Approve Minutes of December 14, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an
espressolinternet café in the C-N zone for. Joltz Internet Café by
Joltz Internet Café, LLC - SEC of West Franklin Road and Linder
Road:
D.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru
window in a C-Czone for Jack in the Box by RHL Design Group-
NWC of E. Goldstone Drive and North Eagle Road:
E.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a beauty salon in
the O-T zone for Rodnev Shaul by Rodney Shaul - 116 East Pine
Avenue:
Meridian City Council
January 4.2005
Page 3 of 43
F.
G.
H.
J.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 04-
014 Request for a Rezone of 2.4 acres from R-4 to R-15 zones for
Cedar SDrinas Place Subdivision by Plantation Place, LLP -
southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ashby Drive:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 2 residential building
lots on 2.4 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Cedar SDrinas
Place Subdivision by Plantation Place, LLP - southwest corner of
North Meridian Road and West Ashby Drive:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for a new 27 -unit assisted living facility and 13-unit
independent living facility in a proposed R-15 zone for Cedar
SDrinas Place Subdivision by Plantation Place, LLP - southwest
corner of North Meridian Road and West Ashby Drive:
I.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family
residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an
R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC -
northeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04-
028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.83 acres from RUT
to R-4 & L-O .zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of Victory Road and State
Highway 69:
K.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 90 single-family
residential building lots, 14 commercial office lots and 12 common
lots of 42.46 acres in a proposed R-4 & L-O zones for Strada
Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of
Victory Road and State Highway 69:
L.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development consisting of a single family residential and office
uses with a request for reduction to the minimum requirements for
street frontage from 80-feet to 79-feet for the residential portion for
Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
NWC of Victory Road and State Highway 69:
Meridian City CouncH
January 4. 2005
Page 4 of 43
M.
N.
o.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the North
Siouah Sanitary Sewer Project bv Kristen and Paiae
Freedman:
Permanent .and Temporary Easement Contract for the North
Siouah Sanitary Sewer Project bv Tonva Smith:
Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the North
Siouah Sanitary Sewer Proiect bv Conrad and Barbara Wriaht:
Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the North
Siouah Sanitary Sewer Proiect bv Martv Goldsmith:
Approve Beer and Liauor License for the Ram Restaurant.
International:
ACHD Joint Aareement - Locust Grove South:
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for Bobbv's
Transmission:
Approval of Additional Pavment for Special Workshop for the
Mavor's Citv Hall Steerina Committee with The Hudson
Company:
u.
Approve Bills:
Bird: Item No.5 is the Consent Agenda.
Donnell: Mr. President, I move that we accept the Consent Agenda.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: Okay. And for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers?
True? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will have roll call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
Bird: Okay. Item No.6, with an addition, it's -- the city attorney has an item to put
before us. He handed out a deal. I think Mr. Nary is there at the mike now, so if you
want to -- Mr. Nary, the floor is yours.
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 5 of 43
Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. I have actually two very very
brief items. I have handed out to you a draft master agreement license for landscape
maintenance with the highway district. This is a follow-up to the discussion with the joint
meeting that we had last fall with the highway district regarding maintenance of the
storm drainage facilities. Their counsel, Mrs. Takasugi and I, have been playing some
e-mail tag trying to get these finalized. I have the draft for you. You don't have to
certainly approve it tonight, I just wanted to make sure you had it and you had an
opportunity to let me know within the next week if there are concerns. I think we have
ironed out most of the details that the Council had raised previously with the highway
district and probably the one that was the most significant in the initial draft that we have
now resolved with the highway district was the cost of relocation of the facilities. The
initial agreement, the standard agreement that the highway district normally uses
requires that the property -- that they would move the facilities, since it's in their
easement, if there was a necessity to move it, but normally the property owners or the
adjacent landowners would be responsible to move the improvements, the grass, the
irrigation system. In our discussions with them I had indicated that it didn't seem to
really make much sense to the city, since we are not the ones having to put it there and
we are not the ones having to relocate it if it needs to be relocated and Mrs. Takasugi
had a discussion with Kent Brown with their maintenance group and said that was fine,
that the highway district would also be responsible for that cost if there was a necessity
to move these facilities at some point in the future. I think that was probably the only
one that was a real concern. There is a couple of very very minor things that we will
need to respond to them, just for some clarity sake, but I think it meets all of your
concerns you have addressed previously, I just wanted you to have it tonight, if you
could let me know within the next week if that's suitable or if there is anything else that
you think that we need to include in this agreement, otherwise, we will communicate
back to Mrs. Takasugi if it's acceptable, that we can, then, go forward with getting it
signed off by -- in front of you folks, as well as in front of the highway district
commissioners, and we can get this finally put to bed. The other issue that I forwarded
to you -- we had a request from the Vienna Woods homeowners association, I had
forwarded that to all of you, again, it's not something you need to advise me on tonight.
I did want you to be aware of what their request was. Just to refresh your memory,
regarding street lights, the issue had been is when we agreed to annex that property,
one of the conditions on the annexation was that the city would not accept nonworking
street lights, that they weren't going to -- the city wasn't going to incur the cost of
repairing these street lights to, then, have to maintain them going forward. So, they
were aware of that, but the homeowners association didn't indicate to me exactly how
many were not in working order, but they were asking the city if they would consider
accepting those. I think that that has been discussed with public works, I think Mr. Berg
had also replied on what our standard street light maintenance agreements usually are,
but I wanted you to be aware of that and if you have something else if you could advise
me as to how you want me to respond to them, I can do that. They had asked me back
in the middle of December, right before our final meeting, for that input from the Council.
Because of our last meeting of the year I didn't bring it forward then, I thought I would
bring it now, so you had an opportunity to think about it and just let me -- advise me
what you'd like me to do. I think that's the only two things.
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 6 of 43
Bird: Council, any questions for Mr. Nary?
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I do have. Mr. Nary?
Nary: Yes. I'm sorry.
Donnell: On 3.3, is there any reason why shall not is in bold and underlined? Is that a
change in the agreement or is that just for emphasis?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Donnell, I think it is just
for emphasis, because I think that's the way it's been in every document I have seen
from them, so --
Donnell: Thank you.
Bird: Any other questions for Mr. Nary?
Donnell: No.
Bird: Okay. Thank you, counsel.
Nary: Thank you.
Item 7:
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Bird: Thanks. Okay. We did not have anything moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Item 9:
Item 10:
Reauest for Reconsideration for Kinasbridae Subdivision AZ 04-023,
PP 04-030, and CUP 04-032:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: 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:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: 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-8 zone
for proposed Kinasbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South
Eagle Road:
Meridian City C:ouncii
January 4,2005
Page 7 of 43
Item 11:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: 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:
Bird: So Item 8 is a request for reconsideration for Kingsbridge Subdivision, AZ 04-023,
PP 04-030, and CUP 04-032. What's your pleasure, Council?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: On this matter, request for reconsideration, I'd like from legal counsel some --
to explain what our options are and what action this Council can take on the
reconsideration or the following motions.
Baird: Thank you, Members of the Council, Council-member Wardle. Without the
request for reconsideration, which you have on your agenda, the proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law For Denial, pursuant to the motion made at the last
meeting in December, with the request for a reconsideration you can choose to grant
that reconsideration and if you choose to do so, you have a number of options under
that. One would be to specifically grant the request of the applicant's attorney and set it
for a new hearing before the City Council on the revised plan. Another option would be
to remand it to the Planning and Zoning Commission and have them have a public
hearing and make recommendations to you. If you choose not to grant reconsideration,
then, of course, you would consider the Findings of Fact that are before you and if
those, in fact, are passed and the items are denied, the applicant could certainly
reapply. I had a conversation with Anna Canning this afternoon and she might have
some input with regards to any difference on the impact on her staff with regards to
either the remand or the re-application and how that might impact her staff, so if it's
appropriate I might have her comment.
Bird: Anna.
Canning: President Bird, Members of the Council, Council-member Wardle, the
applicant has specifically asked that the Council just rehear the item. Now, the plat that
they have included with the reconsideration is substantially different. I feel that it would
-- for the Council just to hold another public hearing and reconsider that, there is a lot of
other information we would need. We don't know how the planned development relates
to the project anymore, we don't even know what zoning they specifically want to go
with. They talk about R-2 and R-3, but the applications that are before you were for R-4
and R-8 and so there is a lot of inconsistencies. With regard to remanding it back to
Planning and Zoning, we have seen you do that when you have asked the Planning
Commission to reconsider a small portion of it or an item of it. This really, to me, seems
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 8 of 43
like a new application, if it's going to be what they have proposed. My other concern is
that I think that the Council was pretty clear that they needed to work with their
neighbors and, then, come back with a new one. What they have done is done a new
plan and now they are going to take it to the neighbors and it seems to me that we are
just encouraging them to not have that meeting first, to make the changes and, then,
resubmit. For my staff it's just as much work if it's remanded back and it takes just as
much time as if they turn in a new application, because we have to wait until we get all
the new submittal applications and, then, we schedule it for P&Z. So, there is really no
time difference on the remand. But that's not what they have asked you for, they have
asked for the Council just to reconsider it at a new public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. President, follow-up question. So, Anna, what you're saying is from a time
perspective, if we were to grant reconsideration and, then, remand it to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, there wouldn't be any time difference in the public hearing
process if they were to resubmit for a new application?
Canning: Exactly. Some cities don't let someone resubmit right away and we are not --
our code is not structured that way. The benefits of having a new application would be
we would have a clean file, we wouldn't have to -- the Kingsbridge volume of paper
associated with the file is already rather large and it would just provide a nice, clean
beginning to it and we could consider it as its own application and a new submittal. So,
it wouldn't really -- no, it doesn't save time. That was your question. Sorry.
Wardle: Mr. President, another question. So, is it the same amount of time was my
question?
Canning: Yes.
Wardle: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Any other questions, Council, or--
Donnell: No.
Bird: What's your pleasure, then?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Having reviewed the request for reconsideration and the new -- the new plat, I
certainly would like the public to have an opportunity to comment on that and the
Planning and Zoning Commission to see that again. That certainly is very different,
although it addresses some of the concerns; it is a very different application than the
Meridian City Councii
January 4,2005
Page g of 43
one that we saw. And so I would not look favorably upon a reconsideration of these
applications, but would certainly encourage the developer to work with the neighbors
and to take it back through the public hearing process. That would be my personal
preference.
Bird: In other words, you're saying to -- for a new application?
Wardle: Yes.
Bird: Okay. Mrs. Donnell?
Donnell: I would agree. And with that, then, I would suggest that we deny -- I would
move that we deny the request for reconsideration for Kingsbridge Subdivision, AZ 04-
032, and preliminary plat 04-030 and CUP 04-032.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk,
roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Now, Item No.9. I need a motion or--
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No.9, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
for denial, AZ 04-023, Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk, roll call,
please. Have we got a problem?
Canning: Sorry.
Baird: Just a point of clarification, Mr. President, Members of the Council. With the
motion on Item No.8 to deny the request for reconsideration, then, you are proceeding
exactly as I would recommend, to independently consider and vote on Items No.9 and
10.
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 10 of 43
Bird: No.9 has been moved and seconded to approve the facts and conclusions of law
for denial. Mr. Clerk, roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay. Item No.1 0, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law For Denial for PP
04-030.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 10, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
For Denial, PP 04-030, Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call
vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Item No.1 is Findings of Facts for Denial for CUP 04-032. Council?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 11, Findings of Facts and Conclusions For
Denial -- of Law For Denial, CUP 04-032, Kingsbridge Subdivision.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none, it's been moved and seconded to approve
the denial. Mr. Clerk, roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12:
FP 04-079 Request for Final Plat approval of 81 single-family residential
building lots and 10 common lots on 19.94 acres in an R-8 zone for Vallin
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 11 of 43
Courts Subdivision (aka Salisbury Subdivision No.2) by Earl, Mason
and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick %Road and east of Venable
Lane:
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Item No. 12, FP 04-079, final plat approval for Vallin Courts
Subdivision, also known as Salisbury Subdivision No.2. Anna.
Canning: President Bird, Members of the Council, as you may recall, Salisbury
Subdivision No.2 was located -- I have no mouse -- is located at the end of Sedgwick
Drive and Indian Rocks Street off of Meridian Road. There is -- Indian Rocks comes
through Clearbrook Estates. The street doesn't show up yet. It is also located at the
end of Venable Lane coming off of Ustick. The final plat has 81 single-family residential
building lots and ten common area lots that are shown in green there, on 19.94 acres in
an R-8 zone. The gross density is approximately 4.1 dwelling units per acre and the net
density is approximately 5.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amenities for the
subdivision are a gazebo with a picnic area and a minimum ten-foot wide pathway on
the -- along the South Slough. Staff has recommended some changes to the
construction plan. Otherwise, their standard condition of approval. Public Works does
have a discussion item about an irrigation ditch.
Watson: Mr. President, Council Members, I believe you have a copy of a memo -- or,
actually, an addendum to the staff report prepared by Bruce Freckleton today regarding
a users ditch along the northern boundary. As you will recall, Ordinance No. 12-14-13
requires these ditches to be tiled. Both property owners to the north of this project
request that it remain open until it get developed. We have suggested in this addendum
that the applicant provide half -- 110 percent of half the cost to pipe the drainage ditch
along the north boundary. If those properties develop and this ditch is never required,
that those funds will be refunded to this developer. So, in that addendum there are two
-- there is one change to item number 21, the site-specific requirements, and number
one in the general requirements inserts another phrase. This just cleans up not having
to tile. It's waived by -- it's waived by this comment as allowed by the ordinance section.
And with -- I had discussed this with the applicant's engineer and I believe they are in
agreement, but he can speak to that himself. That's alii have. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
Canning: President Bird, Members of the Council, the preliminary plat is in -- the final
plat is in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat and staff is recommending
approval.
Bird: Okay. Any questions, Council, for staff? Is the applicant here?
Stanfield: Thank you, President, Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield, 314 Badiola,
Earl Mason Stanfield Engineering in Caldwell, Idaho. No objections to the staff report,
including the addition that Mr. Watson just spoke about regarding the bonding
requirements for the northerly ditch, So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
January 4,2005
Page 12 of 43
Bird: Any questions, Council?
Donnell: Not at this time.
Bird: Thank you very much.
Stanfield: Thank you.
Bird: Okay. Council, what would be your pleasure?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve FP 04-079, final plat for Vallin Courts Subdivision, to
include site specific requirement number 21 and general requirement number one in
regards to a memo by Bruce Freckleton.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to pass FP 04-079. Any discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
FP 04-077 Request for Final Plat approval for six residential building lots,
one office building lot and one common lot on 1.1 acre in R-B and L-O
zones for Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -
2490 North Locust Grove Road:
Bird: Okay. Council, Item No. 13, FP 04-077, final plat approval of Secret Garden
Subdivision. Staff.
Canning: President Bird, Members of the Council, Secret Garden is located south of
Ustick, north of Fairview, along Locust Grove Road. As you can see, it's completely
surrounded by other residential subdivisions with no stub streets. When the preliminary
plat was approved, as you see it here, that did just access internally. The Conditional
Use Permit was approved for this project for reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes,
and reduced private street standards. What they are proposing are six residential
building lots. They would have three single family attached buildings as you see there.
And, then, the existing home on the site will be converted into an office. The final plat is
in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Even though it doesn't
look the same, it really is. And staff is recommending approval. I have an -- or you
Meridian City Councii
January 4,2005
Page 130f43
should have an e-mail from the applicant's representative stating that they are in
agreement with the conditions of approval. They are not here tonight.
Bird: That's an e-mail from Mr. McKinnon; right?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Bird: Okay. And I believe, Council, you have got that. Any questions for staff, Council?
Donnell: No.
Bird: Okay. The applicant isn't here, so what's your pleasure, Council?
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I would move that we would approve final plat FP 04-078 -- oh, I'm sorry. FP
04-077, Secret Garden Subdivision.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 04-077. Any discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14:
FP 04-078 Request for Final Plat approval for 25 multi-family building lots
and 1 other lot on 7.48 acres in an R-15 zone for Rock Creek
Subdivision by Rob Babneau Big View Builders - 1103 West Pine
Avenue:
Bird: Okay. Council, Item No. 14 is final plat 04-078 for Rock Creek Subdivision. Staff.
Canning: President Bird, Members of the Council, Rock Creek Subdivision is located
on the south side of Pine Street between Locust Grove and Main. Am I in the right
spot? Yeah, I'm in the right spot. The -- why does that say Linder? Okay. I'm sorry.
This is the approved preliminary plat and it was for 25 building lots and one common lot
on 7.4 acres in the R-15 zone. There will be 23 multi-family residential building lots,
each with one four-plex structure, for a total of 92 units and two office-building lots up at
the front toward Pine. The common lot will consist of open space, landscaping, parking,
and a common driveway for the subdivision. The amenities include a tot lot,
playground. The tot lot and playground, I believe, are here. And then -- and that would
have benches, horseshoe pits, and a barbecue pit in those -- on the north side of Nine
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 14 of 43
Mile Creek. And, then, a half basketball court on the south side of the creek and there
is also -- a five-foot wide pathway is proposed on the north side of Nine Mile Creek and
it will connect through the next property. The final plat, as you see it here, is in
substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat and staff is recommending
approval. I just got a note from Mr. Rennison, the application states they are okay with
the staff report conditions.
Bird: Council, any questions for staff?
Donnell: No.
Bird: Okay. The applicant is in compliance with it and agreement. So, Council, what's
your pleasure?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve FP 04-078, final plat approval for Rock Creek
Subdivision.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 04-078. Any discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15:
RP 04-001 Request for a Reduction in Platting requirements to divide one
34.57 acre un-platted parcel into two parcels by V.J. Joint Venture -
southeast corner of East Pine Avenue and North Eagle Road
Bird: Okay. Council, Item No. 15 is a reduction -- request for reduction of platting --
platting by V.J. Joint Ventures. Staff, report, please.
Canning: President Bird, Members of the Council, this is yet another reduction in
platting requirements, so this is un-platted property and they are asking for a lot split.
The proposed split is right at the intersection of Pine and Eagle, as you see it here.
There is a blowup down here. The full property goes all the way over towards the
school and comes down this power line easement. I do want to explain one of the
conditions of approval. We placed the condition of approval on the -- that this parcel,
parcel two, could not have a building permit and I wanted to explain why. The way our
zoning code is written, the original parcel of record would include all the area that also
now has the school and the Pine Street extension coming through it and because that
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 15 of 43
had already been split off some time ago, staff had negotiated with the applicants, I
suppose, to go ahead and allow a split in this area and, then, just condition it that the
remainder of this property would not be eligible for a building permit until it had been --
the entire property had been platted and they had agreed to that condition. So, that was
a new condition that you may have noticed. It's a little different from some of the other
ones. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of this lot split. There is a memo
from Christy Richardson with ACHD. They didn't provide official comments to the city,
but she did want to note that there would be restricted access and I believe she means
on Pine. It would be limited to right-in, right-out at the property line, restricted with the
median, and that cross-access easement be required between one and two and that is
one of our standard conditions for the cross-access. It's item number three. So, they
will get an opportunity to comment on it when there is a building permit submitted or
request for certificate of zoning compliance. They will have an opportunity to condition it
then as well. They have the right of way they need both on Pine and on Eagle.
Bird: Okay. Any questions for staff?
Donnell: No.
Bird: The applicant is in agreement? Okay. Stated yes by the applicant. Council, no
discussion. What's your pleasure?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 15, RP 04-001, reduction in platting for V.J.
Joint Venture.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk,
roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Now, we are entering into the public hearing part of our
agenda, so anybody that plans on testifying, if you will raise your right hand and I will try
to get us through this on the right format. Do you here testify -- what you testify is the
truth, the whole truth, so help me God? Say I do.
(Affirmative answers.)
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 160f43
Item 16:
Item 17:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: MI 04-011 Request to amend I replace the existing
Development Agreement for the former Valeri Heights Subdivision for
Sommersbv Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of
West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: PP 04-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 62
building lots (8 office, 33 multi-family, 9 single-family attached, 12 -garage
lots) and 6 common lots on 12.731 acres in L-O and R-15 zones for
Sommersbv Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of
West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
(Planned Development) for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot
size, street frontage, setbacks and increased lot coverage in L-O and R-15
zones for Sommersbv Subdivision by Confluence Management. LLC -
NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road:
Bird: Okay. Okay. Items No. 16, 17, and 18 and that's -- we will open them first, if it's
okay with you, Council. I'd like to open all three of them. And that's public hearings MI
04-011, PP 04-035, and CUP 04-040, for Sommersby Subdivision. Staff.
Canning: President Bird, Members of the Council, let's see if I can get through this. I
did want to explain -- what I'm going to do is I'm going to -- the first item you need to act
on tonight is the miscellaneous application, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to
explain the whole project, so that you know what they are requesting of you in the
miscellaneous app. So, I will explain the whole project and, then, I will go back to the
miscellaneous application and explain that.
Bird: Thank you.
Canning: The site is located at the intersection of Pine and North Ten Mile Road south
of Cherry Lane and it is currently -- it does have annexation and zoning. Although this
map shows a residential zoning, there is an L-shaped portion of the property that
actually has a light office zoning that hasn't been recorded accurately with the county.
This is probably the easiest to actually see, so I'll try and use this for reference. The
applicant is proposing -- just a moment. Sorry -- 132 apartment units and those
apartments are located in the interior of the property. These are attached four-plex
units or eight-plex onto this lot and, then, these lots in the center are all four-plexes, as
well as on the south, east of the entrance road, and, then, along the east property line
and along East Sky Cloud, I believe that's -- Gray Cloud Street. And, then, they are
proposing some townhouses or single-family attached units on the north side of Gray
Cloud and, then, at the end of this cul-de-sac on the northwest portion of the property.
Along the west boundary, south of the entrance road, you have office buildings and also
they wrap around and go face Pine Street along here. So, there are a total of 33 multi-
family residential lots, again, each of those having a four-plex or eight-plex -- well, a
four-plex on them. And, then, you have six common lots, two of the common lots are
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 17 of 43
designated as active open space and it's -- and, then, two of them are -- two? And,
then, some of the common lots are also to accommodate the proposed drives, as you
see through them. There would not be -- the only public streets would be the extension
of the cul-de-sac from the north stub street and the extension of Gray Cloud where it
would come from the north and, then, stub to the east. The other roads are internal
drives, with the parking off of them, and you see a roundabout and, then, there is a
water feature, Also at the south entrance there is a roundabout with a water feature in
the interior of that. The play areas are primarily located in the center just beyond the
entrance here and, then, there is also kind of a hardscape amenities area over here
between the offices and the attached four-plexes. There are some other interesting
features. The applicant has proposed a number of detached garages. There would be
four here, there would be five in this location, and, then, two up here by the first
roundabout. For the required planned development amenities, the applicant is
proposing to construct playground equipment, two water features, as I noted before, an
activity court, two gazebos, and a hardscape plaza that's, again, near the office
buildings. The total area of the two main amenity lots covers approximately 5.7 percent
of the gross area, Okay. Now, I'm going to try and go back and explain the
miscellaneous application. In 2000 -- in November of 2000 the City Council approved
Valerie Heights and it was annexed and zoned -- zoned to limited office and, then, R-15
zones -- or R-15 residential zone. The project was approved for 128 apartment units,
eight town homes and 26,000 square feet of office space. However, this was never
constructed. And similar to the layout now, there is office along Ten Mile and, then,
along Pine. That's where the L-O zoning is and, then, the rest were larger buildings and
not on individual lots, at least as shown here. That's the site plan. The projects are
fairly similar in their intensity and -- although the new proposal does have less office
space, I believe 5,000 square feet less than currently approved under Valerie Heights.
So, at the time this was approved, there were a number of off-site improvements placed
on the project that were a condition of the -- that were included in the development
agreement, because they were off site. Those include -- the off site ones that I wanted
to point out to you were right at the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine Avenue. Now,
since this time ACHD has put in their five year work program a light at the intersection of
Ten Mile and Pine, so it would be this intersection right here. However, that won't be
completed until 2007. The other improvements were a sidewalk -- here we go -- install
sidewalks from Ten Mile to the LDS church, which is located in the -- at that location
and they wanted a left turn lane on Ten Mile, along with the signal. And crosswalks at
the intersection. And these are at the bottom of page two of Brad's staff report for the
miscellaneous app. So, those are the -- the off-site conditions that were included in the
development agreement. What the applicant has asked in their miscellaneous
application is that you replace the conditions that are developed for the Sommersby
Subdivision, that you remove all of the Valerie Heights conditions and, instead, place
the Sommersby Subdivision conditions in there. Kind of a wholesale change. So, that
would preclude those off-site improvements that I talked about previously, so -- okay.
That's the miscellaneous app. Do you want me to go on and explain the project a little
more as far as the Planning and Zoning Commission or -- and hearing and the
outstanding issues before Council or do you --
Meridian City Councii
January 4,2005
Page 180f43
Donnell: Uh-huh. Go ahead.
Canning: Shall I finish up with that?
Bird: Yes.
Canning: Okay. The Planning Commission did hold a Public Hearing on November
18th on this application. Mrs. Becky McKay spoke in favor of the application. Steve
Martin, a resident of Thunder Creek Subdivision, spoke in opposition. And, then, Bill
Nary noted a letter in the record from Mrs. Atkinson and, then, staff -- presenting the
application was Brad Hawkins-Clark. The key issues of discussion by the Commission
regarded design and setbacks of units along Pine Avenue -- get to the units. There we
go. Along Pine Avenue. And, then, the configuration of the one hundred square foot of
private usable area per unit that is required for multi-family units in a planned
development. And, then, the existing development agreement for Valerie Heights and
the pending miscellaneous application to amend the development agreement. The key
Commission changes to staff's recommendation were to incorporate the applicant's
response -- there was a number of clarifications in the applicant's response for the
Planning and Zoning Commission detailing exactly what the requested deviations from
the zoning ordinance were. So, there was quite a bit of information in the applicant's
response for that one. So, they incorporated a lot of those responses as amended and
those are in your -- incorporated into your recommendation that you have before you
tonight. And, then, they required a temporary fence on the east property line and
allowed a five foot front setback for multi-family units only. So, those would, again, be
not these here in the northeast and the northwest corners -- northeast and the
northwest corners of the property. Those are attached single family homes, not multi-
family homes. The Planning and Zoning -- as far as outstanding issues, the Planning
and Zoning Commission did not hold a hearing on the development agreement, so, as
you know, you need to make that decision on the development agreement before you
consider these applications. The Planning and Zoning Commission required the
applicant to demonstrate how the minimum one hundred square feet of the private
usable open space area will be met within the proposed units. As shown, the units
include approximately 57 square feet. Staff had not received revised floor plans
showing how the hundred square foot requirement will be met, so this needs to be
addressed by City Council. As proposed, all of the office and multi-family units will be--
there was a concern on the addressing of this project and staff and the applicant met
separately with Joe Silva, the fire marshal, and you have before you a memo from Brad
Hawkins-Clark that details site specific conditions, a modification to number 2-A and,
then, a new number 12 and a new number 13 and the purpose of these is solely to
address the addressing and they have come up with a plan that the fire marshal is
happy with. Basically, the -- all the offices will be addressed off of Ten Mile and all the
multi-family units will be addressed off of Pine and, then, the applicant has agreed to
kind of put a diagram of how the units are addressed at the front of the entrance to the
project. And the fourth outstanding issue was at the November hearing the applicant
and Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a potential pedestrian connection and,
actually, it's discussed in the ACHD conditions as well, somewhere to connect Gray
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 190f43
Cloud to this internal drive and the applicant stated they were willing to do it, I think it
just forgot to get done on the revised plan and we just wanted to mention that we are
still looking for the pedestrian pathway. That was one of the reasons that ACHD felt
that they could not -- they could allow this to be on the private drive system, was
because there were the pedestrian connections to the public streets. There is also one
connecting this cul-de-sac right there. Okay. So, I think those are the outstanding
issues. Really, the one of note would be the development agreement and, then, the
private usable open space. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend
approval and I will end staff's presentation.
Bird: Any questions for staff? I do, if the other two don't. Anna, on the development
agreement, which that did not go before the Planning and Zoning, what is staff's
comments on that? Because I have got -- I'm the one person that was on there when
we put these in the original development agreement. We put them in there for a reason.
Canning: Yeah. And Brad, in his -- to paraphrase, because I can't find the exact -- oh,
here we go. Staff had recommended that the City Council allow a limited number of
units to be occupied prior to the 2007 ACHD construction project being completed and
that would be only the town-homes or town-homes and up to eight multi-family units.
So, again, these single family attached homes that are in the northeast and northwest
corners of the property.
Bird: That's regarding a light?
Canning: Yeah. And that was the only -- only outstanding condition that Brad raised in
his review. You do have more sidewalks now -- I believe this whole project now -- we
have sidewalks going up to Cherry. At the time of the original approval you didn't have
sidewalks going up -- all the way up to Cherry, but we do have them going from the LDS
up to Cherry now, but there is still quite a bit of sidewalk missing. So, he didn't address
that one.
Bird: What's staff's view on that, the sidewalk to the LDS church? You're putting a lot of
kids out on the street there and that's one reason we put that in there. He also said the
street-lights -- and for 2007 by ACHD. I have seen lot of ACHD -- in fact, more that
don't hit the date than do hit the date.
Canning: Yes, sir.
Bird: So, I have got -- I don't know, I can't speak for the other Council people, but being
-- sitting on that and doing the original development agreement with these conditions, it
was done for a reason and I have a hard time changing these conditions, because we
are basically putting the same amount of people back in there and traffic and stuff.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 20 of 43
Donnell: So, Mrs. Canning, what was the reason that staff approved it without the
condition of the sidewalks being put in? If that had been -- that was a condition for
Valerie Heights, but not for this development.
Canning: My only guess is that staff avoids off-site improvements, but that's no answer.
I don't know why Brad won't discuss keeping the sidewalk one in there. I think we did
have a project that came in recently on this area, so that would be required to do the
sidewalks from here to here, then, I think you have one remaining property there and,
then, of course, this one here. So, you do have a couple gaps.
Donnell: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Anna, can you show me where that canal is that goes across there?
Canning: Right there?
Bird: No. No. It's down here. It's down on Pine right here.
Canning: This one right here.
Donnell: Is there not one also that's up closer to the Albertson's?
Bird: Yes, there is.
Canning: That was the first one. Yeah.
Donnell: And the road that goes in there to the west goes into Chaparral Elementary; is
that right?
Bird: Uh-huh.
Canning: Yes. And it loops and comes --
Donnell: Right.
Canning: -- down into Chaparral. There is the road right there. And, then, Berkeley
Square and Moshers Farm had added pathways and gates that connect to Chaparral
directly.
Donnell: Right.
Canning: And, then, this project has been developed in residential lots. They take
access through Berkeley Square. And the proposal here was for -- the existing church
Meridian City Councii
January 4.2005
Page 21 of 43
would remain and they put some patio homes toward the back and a vacant lot -- I
believe the corner one was left vacant -- or part of the church lot still. And we didn't
include that. We didn't include that. I'm sorry. This corner piece is not in the plat.
Donnell: It was before my time.
Canning: It has come before you, sir.
Bird: Oh. Okay. I know which one you're talking about. What I see, Anna, on this --
and it's -- we have helped them get some sidewalks there, but that still don't get all the
sidewalks and, like I say, we put that condition on there for the safety of -- and I don't
care if they are on the west side or where they are at, we still need it on the east side of
that road also. You're going to be putting a lot of kids out there on the deal. The traffic
light -- and I hate to see that open at all with that. The cross. Left turn lane. But, like I
said, I can address my concerns, but it's up to the other two Council, I don't know what
they -- what their concerns are, but I do have a problem changing the conditions on the
development agreement.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a question of Anna. Do we -- it appears to me we are talking about the
miscellaneous use permit in relation to the rest of the proposed development. Would it
be -- do we need to hear from the applicant just on that miscellaneous use or can we
hear the entire project as a whole?
Canning: They are both public hearings, so whichever way you would like to conduct it.
Bird: We opened all of them, Mr. Wardle, so -- you want to hear everything, don't you?
Wardle: Yes.
Bird: Is the applicant here, then?
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm
representing the applicant on this application. This is kind of a complicated project.
When the applicant came to me to discuss this project, I had some reservations about it,
because I recall back in 2000 when the Valerie Heights project was processing through
the city, how controversial it was. I remember being at the Council chambers when that
was being heard and it was standing room only and I was stuck clear out by the doors
and there were a lot of upset neighbors, concerned neighbors, and a lot of good issues
were raised. So, before I agreed to take the project, I recommended that we kind of
come up with a rough pencil concept and provide a neighborhood meeting with the
Thunder Creek and Haven Cove residents to just bounce these ideas off of them. We
had our meeting here. It was -- it started off kind of rocky. They still had some hard
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 22 of 43
feelings about the first application. They had felt it had been shoved down their throats,
but that they did not have the opportunity in the very beginning of the project to give
input on it. So, we had made sure that we did not make the same mistake. Their
complaints about the original project was the fact that the buildings were large in
stature, they were three story apartment type buildings, they were extending the public
streets into the single family residential subdivisions up in this area and they felt that
they would get some cut-through traffic. They were not pleased with the design. They
had parking garages stuck right up against them and they just felt that their input was
ignored by the developer and his representatives. After meeting with them, we got a lot
of good input on our site plan and we went -- we took that pencil plan and went to the
drawing board -- back to the drawing boards and made adjustments. The things that --
the key issues that we heard was they did not want an extension of this roadway into
our site. They also complained that they had no turnaround, so like the garbage truck
that comes into their neighborhood would drive up onto people's lawns, people that
were lost would drive on -- to turn around on those lawns, and they wanted some type
of turnaround and they wanted us to incorporate whatever development here into their
neighborhood. So, we came up with the town-home design. This would be a public
street turnaround, which would satisfy that turnaround need that they had. We have
pedestrian access here, so we have interconnectivity and, then, the landscaping here.
They also want us to maintain a good buffer here. We have got a 20-foot setback all
along this perimeter here. They wanted a berm and fence combination, which we did
agree to. We also discussed with them fence types and landscaping. On this street,
the adjoining resident has an undeveloped property with one single-family dwelling. He
attended the neighborhood meeting, he wanted that street, that public street, to be
extended to stub to his property for future connection in redevelopment of his parcel.
Therefore, we provided a temporary turnaround here at the end and we would extend
that as a public street. I had the highway district staff limit or restrict North Gray Cloud,
so that these units could never take any access to that roadway, but only these town-
homes. These town-homes will be very similar to single-family dwellings. We have got
some copies -- or some pictures that I showed the Planning and Zoning Commission. It
demonstrated what we were trying to achieve as far as something that would be
compatible and would mesh in with the design of those like existing single-family
detached dwellings. I have got to find some pictures.
Canning: Becky, I have some behind you.
McKay: There they are. Yeah. Thank you. That's them. So, as you can see, they are
an attached unit, but they have a very good single-family look and that's what we want
to provide and the residents seem to be happy with that. We also -- one thing we did is
brought in some different elevations of the four-plexes and asked them what they
preferred. This was the type of unit that they preferred, it was a stucco type unit, they
were not happy with some of the ones with siding that we showed them, but they were
very pleased with this. One of the things that I was first concerned about was,
obviously, access. Typically, with these four-plex projects we have difficulty in meeting
fire department regulations for -- for good access. Luckily with this project we had
access to Pine and Ten Mile. This aligns with the Courtyards. This aligns with the
Meridian City Council
January 4,2005
Page 23 of 43
Mosher Farms, so we are in alignment. We have a nice little roadway as they come in
in both directions. They would have a water feature in the center. And, then, we
created a loop system, so all of these are your 25-foot minimum width and any
emergency vehicles or residents would, obviously, have a good circulation pattern and
have the option of going out either Pine or Ten Mile. Because of the zoning that the
Council placed on this, we had a restriction of where this office could go. The L-O zone
is in an L-shape like this and the remainder is the R-15. So, we came up with these
separate type residential compatible type office buildings and they are ranging from
2,500 to 3,500 square feet, approximately, and they would ring the exterior. We will
have a detached sidewalk running along Pine and, then, up to -- up Ten Mile. We
would have sidewalks and pathways. As you can see, we have got pathways that go
around through the common area. This is the activity court, the playground equipment,
the gazebos. We have a park here, a little plaza here, a hard surface with a picnic area
for the office people. We anticipate this to be a four-phase project. Phase one and two
would be the town-homes. Obviously, completing these -- these public street
connections and, then, phase three was this -- this portion of the project here and, then,
phase four was the eight-plexes or attached four-plexes here and the office buildings.
Now, Pine Street is a collector, not an arterial, as is Ten Mile. Therefore, the
improvements on Pine Street must be borne by the developer. So, the sewer district,
since they have a -- they tell me that their plan for Ten Mile improvement, Pine
improvement, and the intersection is 95 percent complete. That design. It is in their
five-year work plan. It's anticipated for the calendar year 2007. So, the debate that we
had at the highway district is they do not want us to put in improvements that they will
have to come back in and tear out, because they, obviously, don't fit in with the overall
rebuild of the arterial the collector, the intersection. So, in the highway district staff
report they had asked us to trust fund for 24,000 dollars for the improvements along
Pine, which will have curb, gutter, pavement widened. The sidewalk -- the detached
sidewalk we would be installing, because it is outside the right of way in the open space
that we are providing. Therefore, we would not have any conflict with ACHD's
improvements. The same holds true for the sidewalk along Ten Mile. It would be
detached, outside that right of way, therefore, not conflicting with what ACHD is doing.
As you can see tonight, we don't have standing room only. We also met with the
neighbors out at one of the residents, who was my contact person, out at their home,
oh, some of the -- the board members from the Thunder Creek homeowners association
are covered. And they -- we took the plat back to it one more time, so that they -- one
more time for more feedback before we submitted this and they were very pleased.
And, honestly, I think we have done our work and we got a good viable project, unlike
that Valerie Heights project. It was not a good viable project. It was -- the buildings
were too massive. Neighbors did not feel that it was compatible with the single-family
development. One of the other things that that prompted us to ask for deviations in that
development agreement was the fact that this area has changed. It has changed since
substantially. When Valerie Heights came through, there was no Mosher Farms, there
was no Courtyards at Ten Mile, there is a new church out there, as Anna indicated,
there are patio homes under construction, so this area is what -- just had predominately
single family dwellings, so -- and there is no plans for expansion or rebuild of the
intersection of Ten Mile, Pine, or the arterials. Now we have, obviously, have a plan
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 24 of 43
and construction plans from the highway district and as far as a design -- a construction
schedule. So, therefore, we feel that in order have a viable project we have to be able
to construct some of it. In realistic terms, if this project were approved this evening, I
would anticipate probably the infrastructure going in on phase one and two and phase
three this summer, probably wrapping up in the fall. It probably would build the town-
homes, the four-plexes, fall, through the winter, possibly occupying in mid 2006,
depending on the market. We are not opposed to restricting like phase four, the eight-
plexes, the offices, until such time as the highway district completes their rebuild, to put
the burden on this project that you have not put on any other project that you have --
that the city has approved in this area, I think is not fair. We have a very nice project.
The fire department complimented us on it, as far as our access points. We have
worked with your staff for sewer out in this area. We have two options. There is an
existing lift station that just went in. There was a possibility of going into that and, then,
it will go off line when the trunk line comes down Pine. Also, there is an existing gravity
line out there, we do have to do some fill in one of the corners, there is a low spot, in
order to get into that manhole. But a lot of the infrastructure has gone in out here and,
as you can see, you know, we have the Albertson's complex, St. AI's, we have two
churches, Berkeley Square, Mosher Farms, the Courtyards at Ten Mile, none of those
projects were required to make any off-site improvements, only the Valerie Heights, and
in discussing with the staff, because it was very usable at the time, I had never had a
project that off-site improvements were mandated prior to issuance of any permits. And
the staff believed at that time that those were required because this area was
substandard and, secondly, they believed the Council really didn't want to see that
project constructed. And the conditions were -- and we do see that from time to time,
that the conditions were so stringent and so costly, that the project was abandoned.
And that's exactly what transpired. And so I guess I would ask the Council to, please,
don't specify conditions in the development agreement that will kill it again, when we
have worked so diligently with the neighbors, with the staff, to come up with a project
that is viable here. One of the things that staff wanted me to address I think was the
issue of the open space. We had a -- with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
plan that we submitted, the second story of the four-plexes, we did not meet the one
hundred square foot private open space per unit. The bottom floor met the requirement,
the eight-plex units will meet the requirement, so we did agree to meet that requirement
once the Planning and Zoning Commission believed that it was important that we
provide that open space and that the ordinance did not allow for any deviation, even
under a planned development. So, therefore, we agreed to that and we -- trying to find
that one drawing. We agreed to come up with an idea of how to satisfy that
requirement. This is the rear of the structure. As you can see here, the second story
patio, it -- with that and, then, some open space -- or private open space that we had on
the front patio, which are little storage areas on the front deck, we had, I think,
approximately, 57 odd square feet. So, what we -- what we intend to do is these will
extend outward three feet in two directions, therefore, we would meet that one hundred
square feet private open space and meet the intent of the ordinance. It's very easy to
do, we would just have -- these posts would be set out three feet, but we would be
meeting that requirement. Does Council have any questions?
Meridian City Councii
January 4. 2005
Page 25 of 43
Bird: Council, any questions? Because I certainly do. Becky, first, let me tell you that
this is a very very nice project and I'm the one that sat through the Valeri Heights. You
have done a good job, but I wanted to know when you met with the -- when you met
with the neighbors out there, did you tell them you were going in and getting the
development agreement changed?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Bird: And they agreed to that?
McKay: Yes, sir. We talked in great length about the highway district plans, where
those were, that's why we went down and found out they were 95 percent done at that
time and what that time line was and funds were allocated for this. Yes, sir.
Bird: You're guaranteeing 2007?
McKay: That's what the highway district --
Bird: If not, you buy me lunch, right?
McKay: That's what the highway -- maybe Mr. Inselman can tell you.
Bird: And I have no problem with the conditions if you did talk to the neighbors and stuff
on that.
McKay: Yes.
Bird: And we will -- on the deal. And I realize we have allowed a couple developments
there without putting those conditions on it, but at that time Valerie -- those were not
even thought of when Valerie Heights come in and, as you know, the traffic on Ten Mile
and Pine is horrific.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Bird: And that's -- that was one of the reasons we put that on there. The sidewalk I'm
still not -- I still would like to see the sidewalk continue, whether it's through other
developments or something, to the church. I think we need sidewalk on the east side,
but that's something that can be worked out. But you did talk to the people and I was
sure you had --
McKay: Yes, I did.
Bird: -- it's a nice looking project. I have no problem with the project.
McKay: Councilman Bird, when the city does that rebuild of Ten Mile, you know,
obviously, they will fill in those gaps of the sidewalk. One of the things that was brought
Meridian City Councii
January 4,2005
Page 26 of 43
to my attention by one of the residents at Thunder Creek, because I guess he spoke to
the developer after all the big battle was finished with the city, there was not enough
room with the existing right of way for them to install sidewalks, so I guess they had
gone to one of the property owners to see if they could get like an easement for the
sidewalk and they were told no. So, I mean right there that was a condition in their
development agreement and, therefore, that -- I mean that one little condition sunk it.
And if you look through this, there are many things in here that, you know, need to be
revised in order to make this viable.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Yes, Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Just for clarification, Mr. Canning, again, across the street from this proposed
development is Mosher Farms or something like that?
Canning: Moshers Farms.
Donnell: Moshers Farms. And, then, Berkeley -- okay right --
Canning: And, then, Berkeley Square. And, then, there is the Courtyards at Ten Mile.
Donnell: Uh-huh.
Canning: And with the Courtyards at Ten Mile, they did do off-site improvements to get
a sidewalk up to their path that goes through Moshers Farm. They didn't -- they went on
the side of the street, because they knew Valerie Heights was going to --
Donnell: Where is Thunder Creek?
Canning: Thunder Creek is here.
Donnell: Okay. So, Moshers Farm and Berkeley Square, neither one were asked to
make off-site improvements when they came before Council?
Canning: No. The only one that I'm aware of is the Courtyards at Ten Mile was asked.
Bird: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Thank
you, Becky.
McKay: Thank you.
Bird: And we have got Irma Atkinson signed up. She would like to testify. And she is
neutral.
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 27 of 43
Atkinson: More neutral than I have ever been. I'm Irma Atkinson, I live at 1124 North
Lightning Place, which is in Thunder Creek. Our property would abut this proposed
development. And it has been a long five and a half years, actually, of coming here, so
we have got good news and not so good news, I guess. The good news is -- and I'm
referencing my letter of November 15th, which should be in the Planning and Zoning
file, that as for us, we are pleased that the developer listened to our concerns and
extended Lightning Place into the cul-de-sac. The prior proposal had put it through Ten
Mile and we just realized we could become part of the main drag, to avoid a right turn
there. So, we are pleased that they paid attention to requests for buffering and so, yes,
this looks better than anything we have ever seen proposed for this property. Now, that
that's been said, you know, getting back to those additional off-site improvements that
were requested for Valeri Heights, I was at at least one of the meetings that Becky had -
- not I guess the later invitational meeting, darn it, okay, but I went to the first meeting
and there was so much information brought up, there wasn't a lot of time for debating
specific issues. I think people were there just to see what the proposal was. You know,
I vaguely remember there was some discussion about, yeah, it's on the -- the traffic light
is on there for 2007. I don't remember a point being made that everyone there knew or
was in agreement that it was okay for them not to be held responsible for those
conditions. As for Mosher Farms and Berkeley Square, these are much smaller
projects, they are like 20 homes each or something, and they did provide access to the
school property, rather than other off-site improvements, but the rationale, sitting
through all those meetings -- I have spent a lot of my life here -- is that they weren't
large enough to create large traffic problems. Okay. So, the two issues I have concern
are traffic, one is auto traffic, and the developer of the Courtyards at Ten Mile
volunteered to put in turning lanes off of Ten Mile and Pine to address the traffic issue,
because Meridian High is so close there. I sat through those meetings, I remember Mr.
Bird saying in response to the question, well, when would those traffic lanes have to be
in there, I remember the answer was there would be no building permits issued until the
traffic lanes were there. Obviously, there is a lot of building going on out there and
there is no turn lanes, So, my one question I have is what happened to that? And I
went to ACHD and I came here and I said nice things about the developer, which totally,
of course, went against my grain, but I'm feeling kind of let down there and certainly if
the Courtyards isn't held responsible for some of the traffic that this -- a project of this
magnitude would add, then, Sommersby needs to be held accountable. More dear to
my heart is I'm a mother of three children -- I am a neurotic mother of three children, I
stand there at Lightning and Forecast, just off Ten Mile, every morning at 8:40 with my
youngest child to put her on the bus, I see the children walking by and -- good morning,
Mrs. Atkinson -- they are going to Ten Mile to cut across the street to either go up to the
nearest crosswalk at Parkside Creek or to cut through Mosher Farms or Berkeley
Square to get onto the Chaparral property. This needs to be addressed. If there is no
sidewalk, you know there is no crosswalk, there is no crossing guards, you're dumping a
lot of children into a similar situation. Okay. Got any questions?
Bird: Any questions for Mrs. Atkinson?
Donnell: Thank you.
Meridian City Councii
January 4.2005
Page 28 of 43
Bird: Thank you, Irma.
Atkinson: Go back to my over-protective self.
Bird: Okay. Irma was the only one that signed up. Is there anybody -- this is a Public
Hearing. Anybody that would like to testify? Yes, sir. Were you sworn in?
Jepson: Yes.
Bird: Okay. State your name and address, please.
Jepson: My name is Dan Jepson and I live at 2820 West Pine, Meridian. We own the
piece of property right over to the side here. The undeveloped. I just have a couple of
questions. Mrs. Canning said that there was going to be a requirement for temporary
fence along there. What does that mean? Is that just to keep debris out while it's being
built? Is that what that means?
Bird: We will find out here.
Jepson: If that's the case, what about fencing after it's built? What type of permanent
fencing is required?
Bird: Anna, have you got an answer for the gentleman?
Canning: If he wants to finish his testimony, I can look up the exact discussion.
Bird: Okay.
Jepson: The only other question I had was if there is a requirement for a fence there,
which I hope there is, I hope it's noncombustible, because we still burn along the fence
lines and such. Those are my only concerns, really. Do I need to wait here for that?
Bird: Any questions for the gentleman?
Donnell: No.
Bird: Okay. No, you don't. We will -- either Anna or the applicant can address that.
Thank you. Is there any other testimony? Okay. Becky, would you like to address
that?
McKay: Members of the Council, I guess the question of like the turn lanes and so
forth, I don't know what's transpired with some of those other projects. Even though
they did have a limited residential component, I know the Courtyards at Ten Mile had a
commercial component, so, therefore, you know, not only was there residential traffic,
but commercial traffic, which far exceeds a lot of times, the residential. With these
Meridian City Council
January 4.2005
Page 29 of 43
improvements, my condition with the highway district -- Pine, for example, it mandates
that I trust fund for the curb, gutter, and the pavement widening in the amount of 24,000.
They do not give me the option of constructing, they want me to -- you know, or my
client to give them the money, then, they put that in their project -- you know, that pays
for that section within their project. As far as the turn lanes, I don't know whether the
district stopped them from installing the turn lanes, because of the rebuild that's going to
take place and said in lieu of that give us X number of dollars. or what has transpired,
but we always -- we always want to make sure that if monies are spent, they are spent
on improvements that aren't going to be ripped out in less than two years. And I mean
that's our goal, that's the district's goal. So, we need to keep that in mind. The
sidewalks all along the frontage of this property will be installed, because they are not
within the right of way. So, as far as the issue of pedestrian interconnectivity along the
arterial and the collector, that will be installed. That has to be installed. You may want
to talk to, you know, Mr. Inselman, but -- you know, about maybe he knows what's
transpired on the turn lane, but I really don't. The second issue about the fencing.
There was discussion about the fencing on that boundary there on that edge, whether it
be temporary or permanent. The applicant was going to put up a temporary
construction fence, but he will put up a permanent fence, if that's what the owner wants.
I know there was discussions about that property developing and -- but if they want a
permanent fence, they can. Our client would love to put up vinyl fencing, because,
obviously, it looks better, has a better life span than say wood and chain link -- it looks
better than chain link. It is combustible, though. So, we would need to, obviously, work
with him to make sure that -- you know, that they didn't burn up against it. The only
noncombustible is like chain link or wrought iron, which, then, doesn't provide him with
any privacy. So, we have to balance those two out.
Bird: Any questions for Becky?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Yeah. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mrs. McKay, do you have a projection as to the dollar figure for the impact fees
generated for this project? Just a ballpark.
McKay: I have not calculated that. I don't know whether Mr. Inselman knows the per
unit -- typically, I do single family residential. I do just a few multi-family, so if you can
give me the estimate of what it is, I can calculate it quickly for you.
Wardle: Okay.
McKay: The applicant, based on what he paid on his other multi-family project in
Meridian area, he anticipates 700,000 impact fee generated.
Wardle: Thank you.
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 30 of 43
Bird: Thank you, Becky. Did that answer your question regarding the fence, sir? Sir,
did that answer your -- regarding the fence? Okay. We can work it out. Okay. Council,
any questions or --
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I don't necessarily have any comments -- or questions per se. One of the
things that I -- is kind of running through my mind and the reason I asked the impact fee
question, is not that ACHD does it on every occasion, but other developments -- and to
address your question about when the light's going to go in, if it goes in, certainly, we
have a restriction in this development agreement that a certain number of units could be
built before -- before the light has to be there and an additional building permit being
issued. Just looking at it economically, some other developers have worked with ACHD
to find that their project is important enough for them to negotiate putting in some of
those improvements, such as lights, so that they can continue on with their project and I
don't know if this one would qualify for something like that, but I know it's a concern that
that light goes in. It is in the 2007 work program, but, again, we have seen those work
programs change, so certainly it is in the economic best interest of this project to have
those -- to have that light there, so they can continue forward.
Bird: Thank you. Any other discussion? Any other questions for staff or applicant? If
not, Council, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on 16, 17, and 18.
Wardle: So moved.
Donnell: Oh, second.
Bird: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on 16, 17, and 18. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay. Council, what's your pleasure on MI 04-011?
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Yes, Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I would like to make a motion to approve the request to amend or replace the
existing development agreement for the former Valeri Heights Subdivision for the
Sommersby Subdivision, MI 04-011.
Wardle: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 4,2005
Page 31 of 43
Bird: Okay. It's moved been and seconded. Any discussion?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Yes.
Wardle: Just a moment of discussion before we vote on looking to remove these
conditions and that is just simply a suggestion between the developer and certainly the
neighbors, who have been working together. I do think that there is probably a -- as
Mrs. Atkinson has pointed out, a problem with crossing the street, children getting to
school, and certainly that's an issue that could be worked together, some sort of
crossing guard situation or -- and I don't know all of the legalities that -- to make that
happen, but I think that there is probably a solution out there that could -- that could help
when some of these dwellings begin to have children with them. So, I would just
suggest that everyone work together to make a better situation at that corner.
Bird: Council, Mrs. Donnell, I have got a question. You made the motion.
Donnell: Yes.
Bird: What kind of conditions -- we are taking out these conditions. What are we
putting in? Are we putting any conditions in?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: The conditions that I was expecting would be in the CUP, which would restrict
the number of build-able lots until the improvements by the highway district were in.
Bird: Okay. That's your CUP. But now we got to have something we can have for the
development agreement, too. I guess we could say the ones that -- that are included in
the CUP, but 'lIlet the attorney address that.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I guess one of the questions before you
is what -- they have asked us to amend the agreement, so they can include the CU
conditions. The development agreement, as all of you know, when property wants to be
annexed into the city, that's your opportunity to place conditions that may not be -- may
not be incorporated into a Conditional Use Permit. In this particular development
agreement, the ones that probably are the most critical, the ones you have talked about
tonight, was the light and the sidewalk that really isn't the sidewalk abutting this
property, it's the sidewalk north of this property from Thunder Creek. If you don't want
to require that any longer, you don't need to do that. Essentially, what we would be
doing is rescinding those conditions in the development agreement, you don't have to
add the conditions back in. There won't be any sidewalk, though, then, from north of
this property in front of Thunder Creek, but we can simply rescind those conditions, you
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 32 of 43
could put whatever other conditions you want as part of the conditional use and the
preliminary plat requirements of this property and you don't have to do it as part of this
development agreement.
Donnell: Thank you.
Nary: Just to make it a little less complicated, if that's what you're desiring to do, then,
you can simply do it that way.
Donnell: Mr. President, that was my intent.
Bird: Okay. Does second agree?
Wardle: Second agrees.
Bird: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, Mr. Clerk, roll call, please?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
Bird: I'm going to vote aye, but I also want to make a statement. I -- the reason I'm
voting aye on this is because Becky did do her homework, did go to -- as Mrs. Atkinson
confirmed, did take this before the neighbors and stuff and they were in agreement with
it, so I can back it because of that.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay, Council, PP 04-035. What's your pleasure?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 17, PP 04-035, preliminary plat for
Sommersby Subdivision.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve PP 04-035. Any
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay. Council, CUP 04-040. Your desire?
Meridian City Council
January 4.2005
Page 33 of 43
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 18, CUP 04-040, Conditional Use Permit for
Sommersby Subdivision, specifically noting the restrictions on building permits until
certain improvements are in. And also noting the applicant's comments regarding the
one hundred feet of usable space specific to the second story construction of the multi-
family units.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion?
Canning: President Bird? President Bird, just to understand the motion, the reference
you made to a certain number of units being built until certain improvements were done,
are you referring to Brad Hawkins-Clark's suggestion on the miscellaneous application
for the --
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Do I need to spell those out?
Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I would certainly recommend that you
spell that out as part of your approval of the CUP and you do have a completed
interaction between that miscellaneous application and the CUP and I would entertain
an opinion from Mrs. Canning or Mr. Nary on whether we should go back and revisit the
recommendation on the miscellaneous application to make sure that would be included
there as well.
Canning: I would think that that's the most appropriate way to do it. It was discussed
with that application, at least as far as the staff -- the written analysis of it. It may be
appropriate to go back and revisit that one. And, then, while you're on that, I hate to
mention that I was having a hard time following the motions they were going so fast. On
the preliminary plat motion did we add the site-specific comments from Brad Hawkins-
Clark? I'm sorry?
Bird: The memo?
Canning: Yeah.
Bird: I believe that was -- I think that was stated in public comments, so it would be.
Canning: I'm sorry, I just couldn't --
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 34 of 43
B.ird: It would be part of it.
Canning: I didn't hear the full motion. I apologize, Okay.
Bird: Now, on -- we are at the CUP, so do we need to state--
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think to be safe and clear as to what
your intent is, you should probably put it in the Conditional Use Permit, if you want to put
limitations as to the level of development until the improvements are done, as
recommended by staff, the CU is certainly an appropriate place to put that and since we
are going to be amending the development agreement anyway to reflect this project and
deleting the conditions of the prior project, you should probably include that as part of
the conditions as well of that agreement. So, we can certainly -- after you're done with
this motion, you can certainly go back, move to reconsider just that miscellaneous
application, insert that condition if you'd like, and make -- so now that it's clear to
everybody that what was in discussion was the way it was presented to the applicant.
So, I don't think there would be any objection to that.
Bird: Motion maker.
Wardle: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: For whoever is writing the findings on this, if I utilize the terms staff conditions
placed upon that, will that be clear enough within our discussion or do I need to spell out
the other--
Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I would suggest that you specifically
reference the staff recommendation from Brad Hawkins-Clark's December 29th
memorandum on the miscellaneous application and those recommendations do, indeed
-- would apply if you do decide to reconsider the miscellaneous application, but I would
also suggest that you specifically reference them here in your motion on the CUP.
Wardle: Okay. Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Noting that, I would move to amend my motion for approval of CUP 04-040 to
specifically include the comments -- the site-specific comments, conditions of approval
noted in the memo from Brad Hawkins-Clark on December 29th, 2004.
Bird: Second agree?
Donnell: Second. Yes.
Maridian City Council
January 4,2005
Page 35 of 43
Bird: Okay. Any discussion? It's been moved and seconded. Mr. Clerk, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay, Council, I guess we need to go back and amend MI 04-011. Would you like
to do that, Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Mr. President, I move that we reconsider MI 04-011, miscellaneous --
miscellaneous use for Sommersby Subdivision.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. Moved and seconded to reconsider. And we need conditions, don't we?
Baird: Mr. President and Members of the Council, I'd recommend that you do this in two
phases. The motion that you have before you is to reconsider. Once that
reconsideration is granted, you can consider a motion on the miscellaneous application
itself.
Bird: Okay. We have got a motion for reconsideration of the MI 04-011. Any
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, would you do roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay. Now, Council, we need a -- now we need a --
Wardle: Mr. President, I'll give this a shot. I move that we approve Item 16, MI 04-011,
request to amend or replace existing development agreement for Sommersby
Subdivision and to include site-specific conditions noted in a December 29th, 2004,
memo from Brad Hawkins-Clark as to restrictions for building permit for the project.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. Any discussion, Council? Okay. Mr. Clerk would you, please, have roll
call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 36 of 43
Item 19:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-015 Request for a Rezone of 4.9 acres from R-40
to R-15 zone for the retirement complex at Devon Park Subdivision No.
~ by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue:
Item 20:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-049 Request for detailed Conditional Use
Permit approval for Fairview Lakes Phase II of the commercial
development along East Fairview Avenue, which includes two drive-up
windows; also, for the residential portion, a 30-unit Alzheimer facility with
the retirement complex by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview
Avenue:
Bird: Okay. Thank you, Council. Item No. 19, Public Hearing for Devon Park
Subdivision No.2 by Fairview Lakes, LLC, and also I guess -- are those two -- those
are separate applications, aren't they? Okay. We will just open Item No. 19. Okay.
Staff.
Canning: Mr. President, actually, there is just one file and one staff report, so if you
could open both hearings it would help.
"
Bird: Okay. With permission of Council, we will open 19 and 20. Is that okay?
Canning: Thank you, Council. Here we are on Devon Park Fairview Lakes 2. Familiar
territory. This is located on the north side of Fairview Avenue. The rezone that's being
requested is only in the northern portion of the property. This is the detailed Conditional
Use Permit approval thus far for this site. Okay. And the proposal before you tonight is
to rezone the top portion, the 4.9 acres at the north end of the property, to allow for a 30
unit Alzheimer's care facility. The existing zoning is currently R-40, which would allow
the retirement center that came before you I believe last month -- or in October,
actually, but it wouldn't have allowed the Alzheimer's unit, so the R-15 actually allows
the more intensive care associated with the Alzheimer's unit. That rezone was noted as
a requirement in past applications, so this is part of their conditions of approval for prior
applications as well. The second request before you tonight is to construct four new
commercial buildings on two platted lots within Devon Park Subdivision, which is on the
south portion of the property. Two of the proposed buildings include drive-thrus and I
have got elevations. They already have conceptual approval and they are coming
before you tonight for a detailed approval. Here are the building elevations for those
stores and some of the smaller pads. And this is the one building that has a specific
use proposed and that's the Banner Bank. The only difference between this detailed
Conditional Use Permit application and the previously approved conceptual plan was
the number of building pads, the -- sorry. Well, the overall building square footage is
reduced, the detailed site plan does add two new building pads from what was
approved under the original file. Staff feels it's still consistent, because the overall
number of commercial square footage has not changed and has actually been reduced.
Okay. At the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, Doug Tamura spoke in favor of
the application. No one spoke in opposition. And the key issues of discussion were the
landscape buffer width on the north boundary adjacent to the Willows Subdivision and
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 37 of 43
that is here. The Willows is just north of there. And the location of the trash enclosure
north of Banner Bank. And that is in this location here. And I have a blowup of that I'll
get to. The Commission requested the trash enclosure north of Banner Bank be
relocated to a less conspicuous position. Here it is. This is Banner Bank. Here is the
drive-thru. Here is the trash enclosure. So, you can see it right there. They left that up
to the City Council to decide, so that's the one outstanding issue before the Council
tonight is the proposed location for the Banner Bank trash enclosure and to approve or
provide new direction to staff and the applicant. We have not. received anything from
the applicant as far as relocating that trash enclosure. The only thing of note, I think, is
the date of the revised site plan is December 1 st, 2004, for both plans. And the
Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of these applications.
With that I will end staff's presentation.
Bird: Council, any questions for staff?
Donnell: No.
Bird: Okay. Applicant? Were you here for the swearing in? Is the testimony you give
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Tamura: I do.
Bird: Okay. Name and address, please.
Tamura: Mr. President, Members of the Council, my name is Doug Tamura, my office is
at 499 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. I'm with the architect and developers of this project.
We pretty much concur with staff's conditions of approval. I have to apologize that there
was some miscommunication with the holidays that we didn't get this over to you
sooner, but -- what I just gave you is an exhibit of a proposal of relocating the trash
enclosure and just moving it over in -- as part of the parking lot and taking it out of that
island. The other issue that I wanted to address that was -- that had considerable -- that
had considerable discussion at Planning and Zoning was site specific condition number
two, where it shows a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer along the north property line.
What was approved at Planning and Zoning -- or our understanding was what they
called alternate compliance. What we have -- Anna, can you put up the site plan for the
retirement center? What we had is we proposed a 15 foot landscape -- because this is
just a fire truck turnaround only, we told them that we could comply with the 20 foot
condition, but what it would do is it would put the fire truck turnaround right next to our
building and so what we had hoped we could do is go 15 and 20 driving aisle and, then,
a five to eight foot landscape buffer between the turnaround and the end of our building.
Planning and Zoning Commission thought that that was considered an alternate
compliance and so what we would like to do is address condition number two where it
says to show a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer. It will be referenced in the site plan
that we originally submitted at Planning and Zoning where we. showed the 15, 20 and
the eight is -- would be the only other condition we'd like to change. Are there any
questions?
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 38 of 43
Bird: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Mr. Tamura, can you show me - I guess I need to get to the trash container.
You addressed the issues that they had -- the issue they had with the trash?
Tamura: Show the -- Anna, can you put up the commercial portion? Originally we had
the trash enclosure located in this island, but they thought it was too visible, because
the main driving aisle, so what we have done is taken out that one parking space right
there and incorporated the trash enclosure there. So, if you look at your site plan, you
see the trash enclosure. One of the things that we found in managing the shopping
center is that it almost causes a feud over these trash enclosures and so we decided
instead of trying to incorporate a joint trash enclosure with this building and with the
bank, that it made more sense that each one have their own facility.
Donnell: Thank you.
Bird: Any other questions?
Canning: President Bird?
Bird: Anna.
Canning: Members of the Council, I don't have the code memorized as far as trash
enclosures, but I believe they need to have a landscape island around them, so as long
as the applicant is aware that there may be additional modifications, they need to have
it in that proposed location.
Tamura: We can provide that.
Bird: Okay. And the applicant is in agreement with that, Anna.
Canning: Okay.
Bird: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. This is a Public Hearing.
Anybody like to testify? Okay. Council, I don't see any other testimony, so what's your
pleasure on the Public Hearing?
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 39 of 43
Donnell: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items No. 19 and 20.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Items 19 and 20, Public Hearing.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Okay. Council, any discussion? If not, hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I would move that we approve RZ 04-015, request for rezone of -- for the
retirement complex at Devon Park Subdivision No.2 by Fairview Lakes, with all staff
conditions.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 04-015 with staff comments. Any
discussion, Council? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, can we have roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Donnell: And Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Canning: Mr. President, can I -- the applicant asked me to address on the Conditional
Use Permit item number two. In reading the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes,
I believe what they decided was that I would approve it as alternative compliance and
that's why that item number two was not changed. But they gave clear direction that I
was to approve it as alternative compliance, so you can either amend that condition to
specify what the applicant had originally proposed or you can leave it that way and I will
have Mr. Tamura submit an alternative compliance request.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'm not sure I understood where you were going with that, Anna. Are we
talking about the rezone? Are you going to item number 20?
Meridian City Coundi
January 4, 2005
Page 40 of 43
Canning: No. It's the next one.
Donnell: The CUP?
Canning: I wanted to sneak in there before you --
Donnell: Oh, you wanted to get that in before I made a motion. Now that you did that,
help me understand exactly what the motion needs to say, then, in regard to whether it
is an alternative compliance in condition number two or not, so --
Canning: Okay. I'll do my best.
Donnell: Whatever is easiest.
Canning: Well, the easiest thing would be just to leave it the way that it is and I'll have
Mr. Tamura submit a request for alternative compliance. If you want to change it to
reflect what he has presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission, as I understand
it was 15 feet north of the driveway and eight feet south of the driveway and, then, the
driveway is 20 feet wide. So, that it was really alternative compliance -- the five feet that
would have normally been required north of the driveway, some of that was shifted
south of the driveway and that was the alternative compliance.
Bird: Anna, wouldn't it be best in our motion if we did make that clear? If we specified
that in our motion, that it was alternative and that we had 15 feet, plus 20, plus eight?
Canning: Yes, so --
Bird: Then there is no question.
Canning: It provides a clearer record, there is no doubt, and to do that, then, the
condition would be revised to state that they should show a minimum 15 foot landscape
buffer along the north property line and, then, the eight feet south of the drive aisle.
Bird: Okay.
Canning: An additional eight feet south of the drive aisle.
Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Council, just to clarify, is it your intent, then, that
there be the 15 foot buffer, the eight foot drive aisle and an additional five foot buffer to
total 20?
Canning: No. It's a 15 foot buffer, a 20-foot drive aisle, and, then, an eight foot
landscape island.
Baird: Okay.
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 41 of 43
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just so that I make it clear for us and the applicant, if we include this in our
motion, then, that would preclude the applicant from having to submit a separate
alternative compliance -- okay.
Canning: It would.
Wardle: With that, Mr. President, I move that we approve CUP 04-049, Conditional Use
Permit for Fairview Lakes Phase 2 and to include all staff and applicant comments in
regard to condition number two, specifically to approve as alternative compliance a
minimum 15 foot landscape setback on the north and, then, a 20 foot drive aisle and an
eight foot setback between the drive aisle. And in addition the applicant's proposed
relocation of the trash enclosure, with a required landscape buffer, if code requires.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk,
roll call, please.
Bird: Thank you, Mr. President, but can I ask you that -- we didn't really take a roll call
vote on the first motion?
Donnell: We didn't?
Bird: We didn't?
Donnell: Yeah, we did. Did we? Yeah, we did.
Bird: I could make a mistake.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 21:
Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies:
Bird: Okay. Thank you. That ends our public hearings. Item No. 21 is water, sewer,
and trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have
the right to a pre-termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 4th, 2005, before
the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend
the claim made by this city that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may
retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on January 5th, 2005, unless payment
Meridian City Council
January 4, 2005
Page 42 of 43
is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water,
sewer, and trash delinquency? Okay. They are hereby informed that they may appeal
and have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant
to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount
of the turn-off list is $33,940.57. Council?
Wardle: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 21, delinquency for turn-off schedule for
January 5th, 2005.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk,
roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 22:
Ordinance No. 05-1121 : AZ 04-027 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 4.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Christian Familv
Matters. Inc. by Don Weber - east of South Linder Road and south of
West Overland Road:
Bird: Okay. Item No. 22 is Ordinance No. 05-1121, the request for Christian Family
Matters, Incorporated, for annexation and zoning. Mr. Clerk, will you read 05-1121 by
title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council, Ordinance No. 05-1121, an
Ordinance known as Donald Weber or Christian Family Matters, Inc., for property
located as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and annexing certain lands and
territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent 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-8, medium density, 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 a waiver of
the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Bird: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like the ordinance read in its
entirety? Hearing none, Council, I would entertain a motion.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Meridian City Councii
January 4, 2005
Page 43 of 43
Bird: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 22, Ordinance No. 05-1121, with suspension
of rules.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve 05-1121 ordinance number.
Clerk, roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Council, anybody got anything for the good of the city? If not, I would entertain a
motion to adjourn.
Donnell: So moved.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Let it be shown that we adjourned 8:56.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:56 P,M.