HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 10-04
Meridian City Council Meetina
October 4. 2005
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:20 P.M.,
Tuesday, October 4,2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, and Charlie Rountree.
Members Absent: Christine Donnell.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Ron Anderson, Joe
Silva, Doug Strong, Bill Musser, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
Christine Donnell
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the City Council regular meeting to order. It
is Tuesday, October 4th. It is 7:20. I'd like to welcome you all. We will start the
meeting tonight with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2. We will be led tonight by Alex Scott. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Thank you, Alex. Hey, do you want to let us know why we have you in our
audience tonight?
Scott: It's for citizen action points for our American government class.
De Weerd: All right. Well, thanks for joining us. I do have a pin for you.
Bird: What school are you representing?
Scott: Meridian High.
Bird: Warriors. Meridian High. All right.
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Regan:
De Weerd: We could talk about the football team, but, no, we have a business meeting.
Item No.3 is our community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Shawn Regan
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 2 of 61
and if you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a
moment of silence. Thank you for joining us.
Regan: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, shall we pray. Father, we come
before you tonight, Lord, thankful for this time that we have. Lord, we thank you for the
time that these individuals have, Lord, to gather here tonight in service to our city.
Father, we pray as they are gathered here tonight to discuss the business of our
community, Lord, you might give each one of them wisdom and guidance in the
decisions that are made. Father, help them to know what's best for our community and
for our city. Father, give them guidance and direction down that path. Father, we pray
that your spirit might lead and guide each one of them. Lord, once again thank you for
the time. We thank you for our community. Lord, we play that you might help us in the
individual problems that our community faces, Father, that you might help us to remedy
those, Father, and give wisdom and guidance. Father, once again we thank you and
we praise you in Jesus precious name, amen. Thank you.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We do have on the regular agenda one request by the city attorney, so we will
add -- Item No. 21 will be changed to the ordinance 05-1188, the first reading of that
ordinance for the psuedophedrine legislation and that will term Item No. 22, the
Executive Session, and we will also be passing on Ordinances 05-1187 and 05-1188.
And with that I move we approve the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: And, Council, the pseudoephedrine ordinance in front of you is what we
discussed last week.
Bird: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve the adoption of the agenda as
amended. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of July 26,2005 City Council Special Meeting:
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 3 of 61
G.
J.
B.
Approve minutes of September 6, 2005 City Council Regular
Meeting:
F.
Development Agreement: AZ 05-018 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for
Westborouah SQuare Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. -
SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Development Agreement: AZ 05-027 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.502 acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision
by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive:
H.
Water Main Easement Aareement for Track Utilities Office by
Buffalo Hump, LLC:
I.
Water Main Easement Aareement for Mountain West Bank:
Water Main Easement Aareement for Chicaao Connection by
CC Investment Properties:
K.
Water Main Easement Aareement for Stow-It Mini Storaae:
L.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Aareement for
Redfeather Estates No.2 by Packard Estates Development,
LLC:
M.
Award of Bid for Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility
Expansion to JC Constructors, Inc.:
N.
License Aareement with Nampa Meridian Irriaation for the
Black Cat Trunk Sewer Phase 1 Project.:
O.
Black Cat Trunk Sewer and Lift Station Project Addendum No.
~ with JUB Engineers:
P.
Aareement for Professional Services with BRS Architects for
Scope of Services for Water Division Building:
Q.
Water Main Easement Aareement for Carrabba's Italian
Restaurant by EP Crossing, LLC:
R.
Memorandum of Understandina for Hookup to the City of
Meridian's Sewer I Water System Outside the City Limits with
JLJ Enterprises. Inc.:
S.
Approve August Financial Report:
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 4 of 61
T.
Approve Contract for Economic Development Coordinator:
De Weerd: Item No.5 is our Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, I forgot to let Mr. Bird know that we need to table
Silver Oaks for one week.
Bird: Which one? Oh. Item B -- C, D, and E. Okay. I will withdraw that motion, if the
second would agree.
Rountree: I agree.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we remove Items C, D, and E from the Consent Agenda until
October the 11th, 2005, and with that approve the revised Consent Agenda and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any discussion?
Approve as amended. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
Human Resources Department - Bill Nary
1.
Benefits for Fjscal Year 2006:
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 5 of 61
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.6, Department Reports. We will start with Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I handed out a memo to you tonight with
the benefit costs for fiscal year '06. We did get our final increase from our different
providers. I did provide you with an executive summary. Just the highlights. Our Blue
Cross increase was significantly less than we had originally anticipated. We did receive
a renewal for an 8.92 percent increase for the cost of medical benefits. We were
anticipating it to be significantly larger. Based on our usage and history we were able to
keep it under ten percent. The Delta dental renewal is at 13 percent -- 13.5 percent.
The executive summary that you have in front of you was prepared before we got the
final numbers in. The average -- as you see in here, the average pool that they were --
trend that they had for the Delta dental was 12 and a half percent. Ours is a little
higher, because our actual usage is around 22 percent. They were able, based on our
past history, as well as -- to keep it at 13 and a half. So, we have some good benefits
that are affordable still. We have budgeted for these amounts to be able to cover that. I
just needed your approval, if you find it satisfactory. The other thing that's in front of
you, there is a document regarding the flex plan proposal. If you recall last year, I had
asked you to fund the employee portion of the administrative fee, which was $5.50 per
employee per month for the year. Last year we had 47 participants in the flex plan
proposal. We now have 83 participants in the flex plan. Many of those, by our benefits
specialist, indicate that by the city covering that cost of that benefit was their incentive to
participate in it. What I'm asking for you to do this year is to continue to provide that
administrative fee, but, additionally, what we have worked out with Flex Express, if the
Council is willing to do this, is they are willing to lower the administrative fee by 50 cents
to cover the $1.50 cost to have a debit card program added to our flex plan. What that
benefit card program does was allows the employee to receive a debit card that they
can use at either their doctor's office, dentist office, or even at the pharmacy to acquire
their medication or pay for their doctor visits. It comes off the benefit card, so no
reimbursement process is necessary, it automatically gets done. There is some
verification that needs to be done for pharmacy reimbursement, just some receipting
and things like that. But it's a fairly inexpensive addition. Basically, it's a dollar more
per employee. As we told you last year, we did realize some savings that were
unanticipated and unaccounted for previously by having participants in the plan, so,
essentially, by even this particular -- in this particular budget year, if we have been -- if
we had been providing it this year, we still would have had an additional 3,800 dollars of
savings to the city by providing that one dollar extra. If we increased the number of
participants, of course, then, the savings are higher. Based upon that we are -- you
know, we have authorized 22 new positions in this coming budget year, I would be very
surprised that we wouldn't have a high usage among new participants. Most of the
ones we have hired in the last three months have opted to wait to open enrollment, but
prior to that period we have had pretty high usage by all new employees, more than 50
percent of the new employees have opted into it. So, it's a very successful program that
benefits both the employees and the city and if the Council's willing to fund the
additional dollar, I think it would be a benefit to everybody if you would be willing to do
that, but, again, I need your approval to go forward with that.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 6 of 61
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Comments?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a comment on the additional dollar. I would like to commend Mr. Nary for
putting together the summary on the benefits package. Thanks, obviously, that the
increase is certainly not much more and my opinion of the additional dollar is something
that I see coming out of the Human Resources Department and that is to find low cost
ways to increase use and benefits within our program. So, I think the additional dollar
would be warranted and probably help use.
Bird: Is that a motion?
De Weerd: Thank you. Do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would move that we accept the executive summary of our
benefits from the city attorney and to include the additional one dollar per month per
employee for the benefits card as an additional benefit.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the request by the HR Department. If there is no
further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B.
Mayor's Office
1.
Proclamation for Crime Prevention Month:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6-B under Mayor's office. I have several proclamations
tonight. Certainly it's to have reminders of the prevention and the involvement or the
importance of involvement of our citizens in maintaining a healthy and safe community.
So, I will start this evening with the crime prevention proclamation. Whereas the vitality
of our city depends on how safe we keep our homes, neighborhoods, schools, work
Meridian City Council
October 4. 2005
Page 7 of 61
places, and communities, whereas people of all ages must be aware of what they can
do to prevent themselves, their families, neighbors, and coworkers from being harmed
by crime, whereas prevention initiatives must include self protection and security, but
they must go beyond these to promote collaborative efforts to make neighborhoods
safer for all ages and to develop positive opportunities for young people, whereas adults
must invest time, resources, and policy support and effective prevention and
intervention strategies for youth and teens, must be engaged in driving crime from their
communities, whereas this year marks the 25th anniversary of McGruff, the crime dog,
whereas effective crime prevention programs excel because of partnerships among law
enforcement, other government agencies, civic groups, schools, faith communities,
businesses, and individuals as they help to nurture mutual responsibility and instill pride.
Now, therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim
October 2005 as Crime Prevention Month in the City of Meridian and urge all citizens,
government agencies, public and private institutions and businesses to work together to
make Meridian a safer, stronger, more caring community. Chief, I'd like to present you
this proclamation.
Musser: Thank you.
2.
Parks and Recreation Commission Appointments:
Stockton, Creg Steele
Andee
De Weerd: Item No.2 in front of you is a request for reappointment to the Parks and
Recreation Commission, Andee Stockton and Creg Steele, and those terms would be
three years in length. So, those would go until 2008.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve your appointments of Andee Stockton and Creg Steele to the
Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission for a three year appointment.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. A motion to approve the reappointment of Andee Stockton and Creg
Steele to October of 2008. All of those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Next week I will bring to you a couple of items on our citizen commissions
and committees. We do have an opening for a representative in the south portion of our
community for a citizen on our traffic safety committee and we have a couple of clean-
up items that I have spoke to our city attorney on as far as that goes. Also, I need to
reappoint Frank Thomason and Tom Hammond on the Historical Preservation
Commission. Their terms expired quite a while ago and, you know, being good faith we
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 8 of 61
have allowed them to continue to serve. Thank you, Frank. But I do want to make
those official, if you will bear with me on this, and we did have one of our citizen
representatives, who is on the ACHD neighborhood advisory committee, step off, he is
going to have another child and his plate is full. And so I will be seeking another citizen
rep for that neighborhood advisory committee for ACHD. So, I will be giving more detail
to you next week. Also, I will provide you a list of the names that are on our Process
Improvement Group Two, PIG Two, and let you know the stakeholders that are helping
our building department look at their processes and recommend some better
efficiencies.
3.
Special Meeting with Kuna City Council and DEQ:
De Weerd: So, with that said, I will move onto Item No.3. We have arranged with the
Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, to facilitate a meeting between Meridian
and Kuna to discuss sewer issues in the south part of our county and so that will be
held on October 25th, 11 :30, at the DEQ building. We would certainly appreciate good
attendance as this will be very important. Staff will be prepared to give an update on
some of the options we presented to Council earlier, six different options, and some of
those items will be discussed.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Which building? The southwest Idaho office or the main office?
Bird: It's the one on Orchard. It's the front one.
De Weerd: 1445 North Orchard.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: It's the building across from Idaho Public TV. Okay. And, lastly, I will read
the proclamation and, then, I will present this to Chief Anderson and Deputy Chief Silva
and a special guest.
Rountree: Sparky's here.
De Weerd: Sparky. Chief, if you would like to come stand front and center and with
your guest. Chief Silva, you want to join us.
Rountree: Which one's the chief?
Bird: Yeah. Which one's the chief?
4.
Proclamation for Fire Prevention Month:
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 9 of 61
De Weerd: You always cause a disturbance, don't you. Okay. It is Fire Prevention
Month in October and the proclamation reads as follows: Whereas the City of Meridian
is committed to insuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our city,
and whereas' fire is a serious public safety concern, both locally and nationally, and
homes are the location where people are at greatest risk for fire -- I shouldn't have
invited you up here. Whereas Meridian's first responders are dedicated to reducing the
occurrence of home fires and fire -- home fire injuries through prevention and protection
education and whereas Meridian's residents are responsive to public education
measures and are able to take personal steps to increase their safety from fire, and
whereas the 2005 Fire Prevention Month theme: Use Candles with Care. When you go
out, blowout. That's catchy. Effectively serves to remind us all of the simple actions we
can take to stay safer from fire during fire prevention month and year around.
Therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim
October 2005 as Fire Prevention Month throughout the city and I urge all people of
Meridian to heed the important safety messages of fire prevention and to support the
many public safety activities and efforts of the Meridian fire and emergency services.
Thank you for joining us, Sparky, and we appreciate you being here. Thank you.
Rountree: Thanks, Sparky.
De Weerd: If you -- I know you have some exciting announcements for Council and just
a brief update of our firefighter paramedic program.
Anderson: Okay. Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the
proclamation and also to update you real quickly on a couple things going on in the fire
department. When you folks hired me about six months ago -- six months ago
tomorrow, actually, will be my six months anniversary -- you gave me a couple of real
strong directives and one of those was get our fire department more grant money and
the other is get some paramedics hired and let's start an ALS, Advanced Life Support,
paramedic engine company program. So, I'm pleased tonight to report some progress
on both of those. Last Friday, Meridian was notified by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security that we are going to be receiving a 165,000 dollar grant for some
much needed equipment in the area of safety and operations, which will include hand-
held radios that will allow inter-operability between police, fire, and EMS. So, we are
looking forward to that and we also can report that we do have our 12 paramedics hired.
They have started in on recruit academy. They have been in that for two weeks now.
They are in a 12-week academy. And, then, earlier this -- or, actually, last week, we
also had a commitment from a physician who will be our medical director. So, we are
about halfway through the process now of getting the ALS paramedic engine companies
up and running and, hopefully, by the end of this year, shortly into the next year, we will
have that program up and running. So, I wanted to bring you up to date on that and
things are progressing well. So, thank you for your support.
De Weerd: Congratulations, chief. Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 10of61
Bird: Yeah. Chief, would you state how an ALS is different than what we are doing
right now, what the paramedics can do for -- because we see letters to the editor saying
that we are not staying up with our safety and stuff.
Anderson: Sure. I would be glad to. All of our personnel in the fire department now are
trained to what we call basic life support and they are all emergency medical
technicians. What that is, basically, it's about 150 hours of first-aid type of training and
we also do auto extraction and those types of things. So, in a city such as Meridian, the
fire department is the first line of defense and we are normally the first responders and
normally arrive, in the case of an emergency, within about three or four minutes from
the time you dial 911. Our scope of practice under that EMT basic is very limited as far
as what we can do. With this additional skill set, instead of a 150-hour course, most of
the paramedics will have in the neighborhood of about 1,500 hours of training. They will
be able to do a number of advanced life-saving measures from starting IV's to
intubations, cardiac monitoring, administering drugs. So, it will be a significant
improvement to the level of service to our citizens and when somebody has a life
threatening emergency like that, seconds literally count. So, the higher level of training
that our folks can provide to the citizens is going to mean lives saved in the long run.
So, thanks for asking that.
Bird: Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would just like to thank the chief for his hard work and efforts on that front, as
well as Station Four, and say that you have far surpassed all of this city's expectations
for your six month money back guarantee and have done a great job.
De Weerd: I don't know, I was going to say he survived the first six months, but more I
survived his first six months.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Chief, could you give us just kind of a time line on the new station?
Anderson: The new station is proceeding along as scheduled. It did get bumped back
about 30 days. We were anticipating a middle of December opening and now we are
looking at a middle of January, just due to construction delays.
Rountree: Thank you.
c.
Parks Department - Doug Strong
Meridian City Council
October4,2005
Page 11 of 61
1.
Discussion of Land and Water Conservation Fund grant
for Splash pad at Meridian Settler's Park:
De Weerd: Thank you, Council. Thank you, chief. And congratulations. Those are
great announcements. Item 6-C, our Parks Department. This is another grant that the
city received and in reviewing the documentation, our director came to us with some
concerns. We had our city attorney do a review of the contract that is in front of you and
I will turn this over to Doug.
Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This grant, as grants go,
has been in progress for about a year now and we are working through a variety of
issues that you deal with, certainly, when you look for any kind of federal grant dollars
into a project. What we were looking for initially was funding for phase two development
of Adventure Island playground, which is a water splash pad portion of that playground.
Our initial cost estimates would be about 90,000 dollars to complete that project. It's a
50-50 match. So, that's what we went after and to make a long story short, we were
successful in that in going through the process -- and one of the few projects funded in
the state, which pleased us, but as we looked at some of the requirements of receiving
the dollars, we had reservations continue to grow for a 45,000 dollar grant for,
essentially, a million dollar playground and how it encumbers the city for the future. So,
we feel it's very important before any signing on the line for the Council, certainly, to
either say yeah or nay to this project before we commit in perpetuity, our requirements
under this grant. So, that's where we are at this point.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Nary, do you have anything to add to that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I think some of you are familiar
with land on conservation fund restrictions that go along with property and the language
that was concerning to us was the -- the original requirement was that this would -- this
grant would encumber the entire parcel, the entire 56 acres of ground, even though the
portion that's being developed under this grant is not the entire 56 acres. The contract
that's in front of you, that's -- the language is still there. Mr. Strong has negotiated a
different outcome, but it's still a significant portion of the park ground that's being
encumbered, basically all of the developed property. So, future uses as we have
experienced with Storey Park and these things never go away and 40 years later we still
address these concerns with Storey Park about use and conservation and the usability
of that property in the future and that is a requirement if you accept the grant, so --
De Weerd: Council, I guess we knew of the encumbrance and during the presentation it
was noted and also discussed that it would be limited to just the area of park lands that
this portion would be funding. So, Adventure Island and the splash pad, in particular.
What Director Strong was able to do is to narrow that down from the 56 acres to 21,
which we think is still extremely unreasonable, when it only pertains to the minimally
one-acre or two acre playground site. So, Councilor Doug is in front of us tonight to
recommend or seek your comments and direction.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 12 of61
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I'm the only one that was here with the 1968 purchase of the Storey park deal
and being involved with that very heavily. I'm not for getting a penny from them,
because they take control. You're limited to what you can do, as we all know. I think
Mr. Nary just stated that. I think we can find the $45,000 -- I don't think it's worth the
trouble that it will cause us down the road. Everybody knows what I feel about federal
grants. There is always string attached to it and it's usually in their benefit. So, I think
we can find the $45,000 somewhere else. That would be my opinion.
Rountree: I would agree.
De Weerd: Council, perhaps we can put this as an agenda item next week with a
recommendation from Director Strong as to how we can move forward and I believe that
we need to consider looking at our park impact fees to make up the difference of what is
not in our budget.
Strong: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, just for my guidance this week, it
would be I think prudent for me to respond to the grant folks at state parks to let them
know where we are with this. They are expecting a signature on the form to come back
and, then, proceed with a contract. If we are not going to move ahead, they would be
able to make the money available to some other applicant next in line on the list. So, as
soon as we can accomplish this -- and I'll call state parks and let them know and send
appropriate correspondence to that effect.
De Weerd: And, Doug, I do have a message into the state director. He's been out of
town and he returns tomorrow morning. So, I will --
Strong: Director Minen?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Strong: Okay. Regarding this matter?
De Weerd: Yes.
Strong: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
October 4.2005
Page 13 of61
Rountree: Question for Doug. Didn't we include the completion of this particular activity
in the budget increase that was presented at budget time?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, we did, including a projected 45,000
dollars from Land and Water Fund.
Rountree: Okay.
Strong: So, we backed this portion -- this 45,000 out of the cost we thought it would
take to finish the playground.
Rountree: Thank you.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 7. We did not have any items moved from the
Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Item 9:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from September 13, 2005: AZ 05-015
Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8
zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC
- 955 West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from September 13, 2005: PP 05-017
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential
units, 1 daycare & 1 pool/locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots
on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from September 13, 2005: CUP 05-022
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks,
reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block
lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield
Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick
Road:
De Weerd: So, I will move to Item 8 is a continued Public Hearing from September
13th, AZ 05-015. I will open this item. Also Item 9, PP 05-017, and as well as Item 10,
CUP 05-022, with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Crossfield project. It's
located south of Ustick, west of Venable Lane. Venable Lane right now is on the north
side of Ustick, but it's in that location. The highlights of this development -- I've shown
this, because this is the easiest one to see at this level. It is a large project. It's 245
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 14 of61
single family residential building lots and 27 common lots on 59.3 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone. There is an existing home that is proposed to be converted to a day care and
that's the only proposed nonresidential use. Of those 246 proposed buildable lots, the
applicant is proposing 18 zero lot line lots, 67 alley loaded, 31 detached, and 128
single-family lots. So, there is quite a bit of variety and I will go over those a little bit
more. There is the one daycare lot and one clubhouse lot and pool lot. The applicant
has requested a planned development and with that they are asking for reduced
building setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced lot frontages and reduced minimum house
and increased maximum block length. The lot sizes -- this is the area north of Jasper. I
broke it up, so you could see it a little bit better. These are where generally the smaller
homes are located. As far as the PD goes, they have basically four different house
types and staff in the staff report has detailed what the minimum lot size is for each of
those types of homes. So, for like a detached home, the minimum lot size is 6,380
square feet. For a patio home it's 5,000 square feet. Again, that's a detached unit. For
a detached alley unit, it would be 4,200. And, then, for an attached unit it would be
3,950, which is just a little bit less than the 4,000 square feet required. Similarly, the
frontages are detailed for each type of lot. I'm going to let the applicant go over the
different product types and where they are located, but, generally, just to give you some
bearings, this is an alley here, so these are the alley loaded portions. This is also an
alley. These would be the detached. This is the area north of Jasper. Did want to
mention or point out that on the alley-loaded lots they are asking for a reduced setback
on the rear of that alley for only five feet from the edge of the alley to the -- the right of
way to the garage structure. This is the area south of Jasper. Jasper is this east-west
one. And this is where the lots transition into larger sizes to better match what is in the
existing subdivisions around them. I might go up and point that out, so -- the northern
part of this is still largely undeveloped areas within Ada county, but, then, as you move
south you will see that the residential neighborhoods start to surround it and, then, there
is one five acre out parcel owned by the Simuniches. Again, this area north of Jasper,
the access to the alley-loaded lots is proposed from 14 feet of pavement within a 20 foot
wide easement and, then, all patio home lots, alley-loaded lots, and attached lots are --
ail those types of lots are located north of Jasper. There is none of those south of
Jasper. And there is also 12 secondary dwelling units requested north of Jasper and
those are designated at specific locations on the plat. This area is within a
neighborhood center. The original proposal had additional homes in this large lot here,
shown as phase four. At staffs request they have made that a single lot to be
developed in the future. Staffs concern was that because this was the center or the --
half of the neighborhood center, we weren't seeing any nonresidential uses in it and we
were concerned that it didn't match the intended character of the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has agreed to hold off for awhile on that, so we can see what happens on
the other side of Venable Lane or to have a market study done for this area that
indicates that there is no market for nonresidential uses or if two years goes by. So,
there is a number of things that can happen to trigger that plat coming in, but if nothing
happens, then -- and the two years just goes by, then, they could come back in. And it
wasn't that staff disagreed with the type of development that was going in there,
necessarily, it was just that we were concerned that it wasn't meeting the intent of the
neighborhood center. The area south of Jasper, the clubhouse and the pool house, are
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 15 of61
in this area, as well as a large open space -- central open space. And there is 128
single family detached lots in this area. The amenities for the PD do include a ten foot
wide asphalt pathway along the Five Mile. I hope I picked the right one there for the
Five Mile. I think I did. And four -- or 5.45 acres of common area with pool and
restrooms and changing areas and splash pad area and a play area. The gross
residential density is 4.13 units per acre. I didn't have the -- I didn't look up the square
footage on the existing home, but they have proposed that that be converted to a day
care, as I mentioned before. And I do have elevations and the landscape plan as we go
down. These are some of the elevations of the units. And, then, you have some
pictures from the alley side, so that you can get an idea of those distances and
separations. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their
August 18th hearing. Becky McKay, Craig Groves and Alecia Lopez and Joe Simunich
all testified in support of the application. Chris Brower testified in opposition. The key
issues of discussion were the Comprehensive Plan designation for the neighborhood
center, as I mentioned before, the stub streets to the adjacent properties and cut-
through traffic, the alley-loaded lots and setbacks to livable areas and garage faces,
groundwater, phasing, and density. The Commission made three key changes to the
original conditions of approval and the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary
plat that is in your packet tonight reflecting all of those changes. The applicant has
provided you with a letter addressing their concerns with regard to the conditions of
approval and they do list several items. In general, staff still recommends the Council
adopt the conditions in the staff report. Public Works will address the flood elevation
and master grading and drainage report and the fire department will address the
secondary access issues and, then, my one issue was the stub street. So, I will
address that one. The area south of Jasper is the five acre Simunich out-parcel, which
will be an enclave with the approval of -- or development of this property. There is
currently a stub street coming up from the south. From Waterbury Park Subdivision, I
believe. The applicant is proposing a stub street from the north to meet the conditions
of approval for the Planning and Zoning Commission, they have also shown a stub
coming from the west. However, they don't want to provide the stub from the west.
Staff anticipates that this one would not get built and that's why we asked for this one.
This one requires basically crossing that drain, whereas as this access would not. So,
this would be the easiest one to develop. There was also a lot of public testimony from
the existing residents, that they didn't want to open up that stub street. So, we would
anticipate that that stub street wouldn't be opened, therefore, we wanted two access
points. If Council feels it's more appropriate to open up this stub street, then, that could
certainly be appropriate. It's just staff feels that there should be two stub streets to that
five acre property. With that I will hand it over to Mr. Grady to talk about some of the
other issues.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to groundwater, staff
submitted comments to require that the applicant submit a master grading and drainage
plan. The applicant has requested that this requirement be waived. We are aware of
some groundwater issues in that area, some of which have been going back and forth
between Mr. Simunich for years. Some of you might remember that. So, staff would
recommend that that requirement remain.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 16of61
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Anna? Joe.
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the points that the developer had
was a concern of -- of theirs was that two entrances that should be separated by one
half the diagonal measurement and this is so that all -- if we have anyone point of
access that's not passable due to road construction or any other obstacle, that we still
would have access from one remote point. Most typically in Meridian, it's road
construction, your sewer, water, and street construction. So, that's why we request that
and that's been consistent with other developments that have come before Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Staff, any further questions or comments?
Canning: Madam Mayor, just to help Mr. Grady out a little bit, he forgot his flood plane
issue. They contested having to do flood elevations certificates and -- they didn't? Oh, I
misunderstood. Sorry. I take back everything I just said.
De Weerd: He forgot nothing. Council, any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Applicant?
McKay: Sorry. Don't start my time yet.
De Weerd: It already started.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm
representing the applicant on this particular project. As Anna indicated, this parcel is
approximately 51 acres in size. We had some definite site challenges that we had to
contend with, because there is substantial amount of existing residential development
around us. We have two existing stub streets to the west that we had to link into and,
then, obviously, extend ten inch water into the project. We also had one stub street to
the east here and, then, there is a 21-inch existing sewer trunk that the city installed
years ago. Mr. Simunich granted an easement to the city. It comes across like this
and, then, comes up this street and exits where the Creason Lateral is. We have Five
Mile Creek right here on our south boundary. You're existing multi-use pathway here.
The Creason Lateral running diagonally across the property in this location. This is the
Venable Lane intersection that goes north up to Cedar Springs as a public street. This
Is just a private road. ACHD, according to their records, has approximately 20 feet of
right of way east of us, but not abutting us. Then, there is another 20-foot strip here that
belongs to Mr. Venable that I assume this parcel here would access it via this Venable.
That is owned by Mr. Simunich. He's currently constructing a home for himself right
here on this property. I believe he came before the Council a few months ago asking
for -- to be able to hook central sewer and central water for that new home on this. I
believe it's almost seven acres. So, one of the challenges that we had was we don't
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 17of61
have the ability to dedicate any additional right of way for Venable, because we don't
abut it. It also does not align with where the public street section of Venable was
located. There is a 12-foot offset to the east north of us. So, we have no ability to even
realign it, because it's off our property on the property to the east, which is not
developed at this time. So, we struggled with trying to comply with the neighborhood
center and meet that intent. Your neighborhood center designation is kind of like a -- it's
a half circle through us and, then, it extends over here and, then, the rest of the property
is designated medium density residential. So, we look at, obviously, the key
components in your Comprehensive Plan under the neighborhood center section and
tried to, obviously, incorporate those. We tried to build a short block, which it's
promoted in your neighborhood centers, interconnected a more grid pattern circulation,
which we accomplished that. We came up with this east-west design of this particular
street here in order to facilitate in the event Venable were to develop where you would
also have an east-west connection here, so that could potentially reduce the number of
vehicle trips on Ustick Road in the future. There is an existing home here on -- it's a
relatively nice home. We wanted to keep it in the project. We have taken the access off
of Ustick. We made the island short enough that you could have a loop drive through
here, so traffic can come in and, then, loop in here and the idea that we came up for
that particular lot would be a future day care. We understand it would take a
Conditional Use Permit and that's fine, but we felt that that would be a good use for this
neighborhood and that would be able to service this particular neighborhood and
possibly some adjoining neighborhoods. So, with all of these site constraints, we came
in and came up with an idea of the more intensive density would be up here by Ustick,
up by the arterial. We come in with a center collector that terminates here. It's a non-
continuous collector. This is about a 1.79 acre parcel here on a lot. We will have a
pool, a parking facility here, a splash pad for the kids to play, playground equipment,
and, then, a pathway. And, then, we had other pathways that lead, obviously, up to the
center -- kind of the central recreational center. We are making an interconnection to
the Five Mile Creek pathway here. We have left an open space lot where your sewer
diagonals cross this area and, then, we have got a shortcut up through here. Now,
originally, we intended to pipe the Creason Lateral. The staff recommended that we
leave it open. Mr. Simunich asked that we leave it open. So, we did agree at the
Planning and Zoning Commission to leave that open. The other thing the Planning and
Zoning Commission asked us to do was -- if I can show you. This is what the project
looked like when the Planning and Zoning Commission first reviewed it. Obviously, you
can see we had the alley-loaded lots here and, then, as we transitioned south the lots
get larger and larger. These are around 3,700, 3,800 square feet. As we go down they
go to 6,000, 7,000, and, then, as we get down in this southern portion, eight and nine
thousand square feet. Now, what the Planning and Zoning Commission asked us to do
was if we could reserve this five and a half acres up in here, so that at some point in
time when this property developed, there would be the potential for that neighborhood
center to have that west portion. And the applicant agreed, so we took that area out.
They also asked me to give another stub to Mr. Simunich. The only reason we put any
objection to that stub street is because Mr. Simunich doesn't want it. We looked at his
property, how many lots he could potentially develop this partial with, if this street were
to extend and we created a loop, and we estimated around 24 to 25 lots. And so what I
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 18 of 61
told Mr. Simunich is if secondary emergency access was imperative here, we could
provide that via a widened pedestrian path, but the Planning and Zoning Commission
believed that another access point here was necessary. There is a stub street to the
south, as Anna indicated, but that is the Creason Lateral that's open along Waterbury.
So, they have concerns that that may not be extended. But what Mr. Simunich has
indicated is this property drops dramatically toward the Creason, so this is the low point,
the southwest corner. So, it is his belief -- and in his discussions with Public Works, that
the only way he could redevelop and sewer this would be down to this trunk here in
Northwest 10th Avenue. So, I guess, you know, it's up to Council to determine if that's
necessary. It was for his benefit. I'm only objecting on his behalf, because it was what
he requested. As far as the types of lots -- or homes that would go on these lots, we did
want to submit some pictures. As you can see, these are alley loaded type product,
with a lot of porches. This was discussed in length at the Planning and Zoning
Commission on what should our setback be from the alley. The alleys are 20 foot wide
with a 16-foot improved width with landscaping on each side. Now, they determined
that it was best if we didn't provide parking in front of the units, because, then, that
would allow us to have more interior open space, like plaza space. So, what the
Planning and Zoning Commission wanted us to do -- and it was -- we were in
agreement -- was to come up with this type of a design. As you can see, we have
approximately a five foot offset from the edge of the alley, so there is no ability for
anyone to park there, because I think a big concern the Planning and Zoning
Commission had is if you're going to provide parking there, we need to make sure it's,
obviously, adequate, like 20 feet. And our setbacks were specified that this setback is
five and, then, I believe the living space would be 20. Now, what we did here is we took
this center block, this little short block here, and you can see that -- how we orient the
garages. The accessory use structures are kind of like a mother-in-law flat, a single
bedroom studio type apartment. They are over -- typically over the garage. As you can
see here is the stairs and those units there would have a three-car garage. This space
here -- you see this is the garage. The unit is over here. And, then, this is the central
dwelling. It allows for like a little plaza area and more open space and Mr. Grove's
architect came up with these. But it keeps on staff to kind of delineate to the Council
how these units could develop. Some of them are completely attached with, obviously,
the open space being to the side. And, then, the other would have these, like I said,
plaza areas. They have landscaping along there. We looked at some of the product
that's out there. Where you have the 20-foot setback from the garage to the edge of the
alley -- and in those instances they looked very plain and very blah and so the Planning
and Zoning Commission deemed that this was the desired look that they wanted to see.
This project -- our density, we did have to drop density when we cut out that corner. We
lost about 30 -- I think roughly 31 lots, approximately, up in that northeast corner. We
would like, you know, obviously, the condition to state that in the event that that
neighborhood center is ever eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan, because that is a
mid section, or if this were to be approved for a development, that, obviously, did not
incorporate the neighborhood center, then, we have got it stubbed here, so that it could
develop as we originally planned. Or, like I said, it also has the ability of being
incorporated into another development adjoining us on the east. As far as the
conditions of approval, we did -- if you -- in your packet you should have our comments.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 190f61
I think we are pretty much in agreement with the staff. The one concern that we had
was the master grading and drainage plan. We have never had to do that on any of our
projects. We have had multiple projects in the north Meridian area where we had to
contend with fluctuating groundwater. We have historically seen that our groundwater
levels drop when we take these parcels out of agricultural production. We have 13 test
holes on this property and we have been monitoring it since March of '04. We have had
our geo tech give us estimates where they think the groundwater will stabilize. It was
not in agricultural production this year, so we did see substantial improvements on the
property and we are continuing to monitor it. The project engineer -- I showed her the
condition that your Public Works staff came up with. Her concern was that it's a lot of
work and as far as the benefit -- the benefit is very little. We have intended to do kind of
the swale concept here. We are using them in another project. They have been quite
successful. So, she indicated that there would be like a 4.7 foot separation from the
center line of the road to, obviously, any groundwater levels. We are seeing that the
groundwater is between four and five feet. The worst reading we received was an
existing test hole that the city put in when they put the trunk in and in talking with Mr.
Simunich and based on the geo technical engineer's analysis, we are getting unusual
reading there, because the water is kind of like perched right there and that was the way
they backfilled that 21 inch sewer line. It's kind of blocked and perched the water in that
area. So, we feel that, obviously, with our normal requirements with ACHD, Public
Works review, certification by the project engineer, we just think that the master grading
and drainage plan in this instance should not be necessary. We do have a flood plane
that comes from Five Mile Creek. The flood way is in alignment pretty much with the
bank -- top of bank, but we do have some lots that are reflected by the flood plane. We
will have to, obviously, do the certification and so forth to meet the requirements of
FEMA and your policy. One other thing I'd like to state for the record. I have got flack
from Nampa-Meridian about leaving this Creason open and putting a pathway next to it.
Your staff calls it like -- I think they called it the -- or, yeah, you guys call it the South
Slough and they indicated that the South Slough is east of the Venable and this is what
they call the Finch Lateral. So, there is a debate on their part whether they will allow us
to put that pathway next to their facility. So, I would ask, obviously, for the staff to help
us in bringing Nampa-Meridian around, because sometimes they dig their heels in.
They said if I piped it they didn't care if we put a pathway. But if I don't pipe it, they had
concerns. So, I will have to struggle with that and I just want to make sure that I don't
have conditional approval that states I have to have that pathway right next to there and
-- because if they won't allow me to install it, I'm stuck. I can always move it outside of
their easement. Their easement there is 60 feet, which we do have as a separate lot.
Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Very good. Council, any questions for Becky at this point?
Bird: Not at this time.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 20 of 61
Rountree: You mentioned a swale concept. Explain that to me.
McKay: The swale concept -- we are using it in Bridgetower Phase 10 is the first time
we have designed -- it's an ACHD option for drainage, instead of concentrating our
drainage in like these ponds where you're seeing in some instances throughout the city
they are having problems. It's normally due to nuisance water from irrigation -- over
irrigation. But some of it is due to some groundwater spiking in some vicinity. This
distributes that storm drainage through a swale that's about eight feet wide, it runs on
both sides of the public street, we enlarge our right of ways and we have a detached
sidewalk. So, you have what you call a -- we call a ribbon curb, you have the same
section width, ribbon curb, two foot ribbon curb, the water would just shed off of the
crown, cross the ribbon curb into the swale and, then, underneath the swale we have to
have sand -- a specific type of sand, approved by ACHD. We have to do percolation
tests. They make us trust fund -- not bond, but trust fund 500 dollars per lot -- as each
lot -- a home is built, we have to provide testing to make sure that they haven't
compacted that swale, that they haven't filled in it or altered it and it's meeting ACHD
requirement. They came up with that policy here a few months ago when we have
certain soil conditions or if there is a concern on groundwater, they are allowing us to try
that option. So, we are testing it out in Bridgetower 10 for the first time. So, we will find
out how successful it is.
Rountree: Homeowners maintain? Homeowners landscape? ACHD maintain?
Landscape?
McKay: The landscaping I think is by the association. I think that's how it is, Gary, isn't
it? Yeah. They don't let the individual homeowner -- it's got to be under the association.
Rountree: So, those swales become a common lot?
McKay: No. They are an easement. They overlap outside -- I believe outside that right
of way. No. They are within the right of way. We do a swale agreement that's about
this thick --
Rountree: I hope so.
McKay: -- that indicates what can and can't be done, who maintains, and what's got to
be put in the CC&Rs. Gary may be able to elaborate more. Like I said, we are doing it
for the first time in Bridgetower Phase 10.
De Weerd: So, who is the agreement between?
McKay: It would be between the developer, the association, future homeowners, and
ACHD. It's--
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 21 of 61
De Weerd: And so turning it over to the homeowners, they are going to understand that
document? .
McKay: It's pretty clear. It's a pretty clear -- well --
De Weerd: I don't know. We have all been on homeowners associations, so--
McKay: We are testing this. We are testing it for the first time. But they think that by
distributing the storm drainage versus concentrating it, we are going to not have some
of the nuisance water problems that we have seen in the past.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: What's the pipe size for piping the Finch Lateral?
McKay: Forty-eight is what Nampa-Meridian quoted me. Forty-eight inch reinforced
concrete.
Rountree: What happens to Venable Lane? And you know our history with lanes.
McKay: Councilman Rountree, yes, anything that has a lane has a really bad
reputation. I realize that. This property -- luckily, the property to the east of Venable is
not developed. It is a size that it has development potential. And my understanding
from Mr. Simunich, an elderly lady owns it, so at some point in time I believe it will-- you
know, will develop. It's got one house on it. That will allow Venable to come in south
and align with where Cedar Springs put that center line, because it moved 12 feet east.
The 20 foot is -- of rate of way is already exist -- preexisting. Mr. Simunich owns a 22
foot strip that's a driveway down to this seven acres. So, what we are doing is not
impacting Venable as far as could it ever be developed. Now, what I pointed out to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, when the Council approved -- or a previous Council
approved Waterbury Park, they did not allow for any interconnectivity north. So, ACHD
-- the staff indicated to me that they thought Venable, as a collector roadway going
south of Ustick, was flawed. Even though it's in your Comprehensive Plan, it's shown
on your transportation map as a future collector, they don't believe that, because there
is nothing connecting to it, but just a few subdivisions, it would never warrant a signal.
So, I don't know how viable Venable is. Now, there is the Flack Drain that also runs
next to Venable. We are piping that. So, that is one good thing that will be coming out
of this is when this is developed we will have to pipe that Flack Drain. And I have
already talked to Nampa-Meridian about that and they said that -- that that would be
acceptable. But what we are doing is not going to cause a hurt or a problem for
Venable, if the Council wants that to go south. In fact, I'm stubbing right here, so that
we could get a west connection -- this property is not developed either. I think it's like
ten acres. Then, if this were ever signalized and Venable did come down as a public
collector, that traffic would come to the signal. So, we have tried to plan for all options.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 22 of 61
If Venable never happens, they could come in and come through our collector there to
Ustick. But we have minimized our approaches and I think we have maximized the
interconnectivity. I have got stub streets everywhere that are really, really hard to work
around and try to come up with a good design.
De Weerd: Well, Venable Lane has been a real nightmare. I guess I remember
something different, that Waterbury took the ACHD's recommendation and I had gotten
it, but I think in another application we heard that a light would be there at some point.
So, now you really have me totally confused on Venable Lane, so I am not looking
forward to another Wingate, so --
McKay: Madam Mayor, to answer your question, I think you're recalling discussions
when Cedar Springs came in and the elementary -- you know, there is an elementary up
there. They have some office, some neighborhood commercial --
De Weerd: Well, we have like a Maverick just across the street--
McKay: So, what the discussions were is if ACHD were to signalize that stretch of
Ustick between Meridian Road and Linder, it would be preferred at the half mile,
because of the elementary and the retail. But ACHD's comments are they are
concerned that -- you know, whether it will meet I guess the criteria or the warrant. So, I
guess that remains to be seen, how much traffic that goes into the commercial.
De Weerd: Now, Becky, I thought Mr. Simunich bought that, so that this road could
exist. And, again, I'm relying on my memory, which is not always reliable.
McKay: I think Mr. Simunich testified when Cedar Springs came through -- he may
correct me -- that he wanted the northbound Venable to align with the southbound, but
they allowed it to shift over 12 feet. I don't know how that happened. It wasn't my
application. So, Mr. Simunich has been discussing options with ACHD, talking about
his 20 feet, and if that could be allocated to right of way in the future. You will need to
ask him, because, you know, he kind of controls that west 20 feet. He is between me
and the right of way and that was owned by Mr. Venable and for some reason Mr.
Venable kept ownership of that for years.
De Weerd: And I guess I was kind of under the impression that Venable Lane would go
with his land and that would be something that we saw as one big picture. So, yes,
you're right, we need to ask Mr. Simunich.
McKay: Yeah. This was separate -- this was under separate ownership. My
understanding this seven acre parcel is a separate ownership. It was not part of this
parent parcel you see. And, then, Mr. Venable owned that 20 feet I believe separate of
that --
De Weerd: Oh, I understand that.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 23 of 61
McKay: It's a messy deal. And Mr. Venable sold to Mr. Jorgason and that's where
Waterbury Park is. So, it was kind of like something that happened -- I don't know why
the Council allowed the 20 foot to remain. I don't know. You'd have to ask Mr.
Simunich. He was -- he was around then.
De Weerd: Any further questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none right now.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing and I have two people
that have signed up. When I read your name and you're for or against, if you would like
to provide testimony, please, do that at that time. Chris Brower. Against. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Brower: Chris Brower, 387 West Woodbury Drive in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brower: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you have my written testimony
as a spokesperson for Waterbury Park and I just wanted to mention a couple of key
points. We are primarily concerned about the proposed additional road from Crossfield
to the west of this seven-acre enclave. I think the Commissioners were trying to help
and thought by adding the extra road there would be less need to send and develop our
stub street from Waterbury Park to the enclave. But now ACHD is saying whether the
extra road is added or not, it wants to develop our stub street. Could I see the overview
of Waterbury Park, please? Thank you. You can see if the proposed extra road is left
in, what a straight shot it would provide to our stub street and, then, through our
neighborhood straight to Meridian Road. There is no stop sign or other impediment. In
other words, the high density would go to the proposed additional stub street, which
would be just a few feet away from this stub street of our subdivision and, then, a
straight shot to Meridian Road, as we are in the primary direction of travel. Our other
concern is the same one Mark Snodgrass spoke on as their spokesperson last year,
when higher density Valen Court was proposed adjacent to our subdivisions. After he
explained our concerns to the Council, Valen Court was redrawn, so density near
existing homes was the same or less than Salisbury One and higher density was
pushed, so it was only near the neighborhood center part of the parcel. But now for
Crossfield there are eight proposed lots to our immediate west, where we have seven.
In the entire southern part of the parcel, would have higher density than us, even though
it is interior to us. Finally, I want to mention that our subdivision was completed before
any high density neighborhood center was even proposed. We are only here because
many more of the 1,900 vehicle trips per day from Crossfield would wind up taking a
straight shot through our subdivision, if the additional road isn't taken out. Thank you.
And I would be happy to answer any questions.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 24 of 61
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Also signed up is Mr. Simunich. For. If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Simunich: Yes. I'm Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road in Meridian.
We have sold this property to Crossfield. I'd like to see them develop it. We were
having a problem with the seven acres and primarily an access from the Waterbury
Subdivision. When Waterbury Subdivision was put in, everybody agreed there should
be a stub street to the property at that time, which was owned by Mr. Sanford. Water
and sewer is stubbed there to the Creason Lateral. That's not the Finch Lateral, that's
the Creason Lateral. So, that street could connect -- should connect. Crossing that
Creason Lateral is no big problem. Waterbury is going to -- or Crossfield is also going
to cross it. I don't see that there is a need for another street to have -- to have this
street from -- would be right here -- to come into that seven acres. We have one here
where we are building our residence. We put the street where it will accommodate this
residence without any problem. I don't know that there will be an excess amount of
traffic. If this street is not put in here, the traffic would have to come from here, down
through here, and out here. Ada county says one access is enough for that seven
acres. But the sewer and water are right there at that point. That street should be
connected and when those people bought those lots in those subdivisions, they should
know that these streets are going to be connected, because now they put signs up, this
street is going to be connected in the future. I think most people understand that. As
for the path, the South Slough is -- has a path from Meridian Road to Venable Lane,
which is right there. That path could continue on down the Creason, go over to Linder
Road and connect with the main bike path at Five Mile. It would make a real nice,
attractive loop there for people to pass. One Sunday I was there in the afternoon, the
Five Mile bike path had 47 people used it in one hour. So, it's a nice amenity to the city.
I think that's all I have, but I don't think we -- I think we need that street to connect to
Waterbury. And if Council has any questions, I would be glad to answer them, if I can.
De Weerd: Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Simunich, do you plan on accessing your seven acres down Venable
Lane or through the subdivision?
Simunich: At the present time we will access it through Venable Lane.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 25 of 61
Rountree: Let me restate my question. At build out of the subdivision with all the
surface streets it would provide, would you continue to access your property on Venable
Lane or through the paved streets in the subdivision?
Simunich: No. We still plan to access them -- access through Venable Lane, until we
subdivide that piece of property. Then, there will be a road right in front of our
residence, if that one street is built. The one right there.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Rountree: That's alii have. Thank you.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Simunich: Thank you.
De Weerd: Staff, I guess I have a question.
Simunich's property, what was the agreement?
When we provided sewer to Mr.
Grady: I believe there was no agreement -- no requirement for annexation. It was just
to provide sewer and water as -- the best I can figure from the file, as compensation for
the South Slough going through there.
De Weerd: So, we are going to create another enclave if this is approved. Basically.
Okay. Is there any further testimony? Oh, I'm sorry, you have already been up here. If
you have a question you certainly would -- you can ask staff or -- is there any further
testimony? Becky, would you like to have final remarks?
McKay: Just to kind of address Chris's concern, you know, obviously, the way
Waterbury was designed, they to do have a very straight shot out to Meridian Road. In
our design we tried to orient everything going up to Ustick and that was done by
bringing in the non-continuous collector, keeping all of the higher density up here close
to the arterial, going with this east-west street here, where we don't have -- we don't
have any access off that street, because these are alley loaded. And, then, there is a
landscape strip here and everything orients off the local streets. Chris is right, we -- this
is -- our lowest density is in here. As far as density-wise, we are compatible with
Waterbury. These lots here are like 85 wide by a hundred deep, which puts it about
8,500 square feet. We are 80 -- around 80 by 97 and I couldn't match their depth
exactly, because of your sewer trunk. And right now where I set this street, I'm just at
the very edge of your sewer corridor and I had to get staffs permission to fudge a little
bit just to make this street work, so --
De Weerd: Fudge?
McKay: Fudge. Yeah. A little bit.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 26 of 61
Rountree: That's scientific, isn't it?
McKay: Yes, it is.
Bird: Yeah.
McKay: So, he's right, they have seven lots, I have eight, but as far as the density down
here, I've taken great effort to match -- you know, these are 77 to ten thousand square
feet down in here. I met with -- when I did the neighborhood meeting, these people
were very pleased with our lot sizes and our density, so I think, you know, we have
really tried to keep the lowest density, the largest lots, below this Creason Lateral,
matching and trying to coexist with these adjoining residences. The Venable Lane
issue, I can't solve the problem, but I'm not making it any worse by what I'm doing. I'm
trying to create options here. Where we put this stub street, I coordinated that with Mr.
Simunich to make sure that it would be able to go in front of his home and extend into
his property in the future, so he could eliminate this driveway and take access here.
And we told him we would set this -- because it's for his benefit where ever he needed
it. We also told him we'd give him another stub street if he wanted it. He doesn't want
this one and, obviously, the Waterbury people are concerned that they may get some
traffic dropping down through Mr. Simunich and going out to Meridian Road. So, I
guess that's up to the Council, you know, on how they want to view that. With only 24
lots, my past experience I think with the fire department is if we are less than 30, we can
go with one single point of access; is not that correct, Joe?
Silva: Fifty.
McKay: Fifty. And we estimate that this would definitely be less than 30 lots in there,
just based on the size. As far as the enclave, the Council made the decision to provide
him sewer and water without annexing, so that was a decision that predates our
application. I think what we are trying to provide here is, obviously, something that is in
line with the neighborhood center, the intent of diversity in lot sizes, access, garages,
giving different looks to the homes, to the lots, by changing the width and providing a
diversity in product and that's the whole point behind your neighborhood centers and
what is promoted in your Comprehensive Plan. This was not an easy parcel to design.
We had probably four or five different versions and concepts to try to figure out how to
make this work. There were so many constraints that a lot of our -- the way we design
some of these, our hands were just tied. With the stub streets, you got to match them.
Where the sewer is, we have to match it. Have to accommodate the Creason lateral.
Five Mile Creek. I think -- I think this is what -- you know, when you look at that graph in
the Comp Plan, this is what the Council had in mind when they incorporated that
neighborhood center and by, obviously, allowing this to just be one lot, this can come to
fruition, this neighborhood center. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 27 of 61
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Grady: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Len.
Grady: I'm looking at this agreement and it looks to me like what was waived was the
connection fees. I'm not so sure about the annexation. I'm not seeing that in here.
Rountree: I think that's correct.
Grady: It seems to indicate that that was not put in here. That he would be required to
annex.
Rountree: That was my understanding.
Grady: He would be required to annex.
De Weerd: That he would be required to annex. As this property developed or at what
point?
Grady: It says subject to any other standard agreement of the city for extension of
sewer services outside of the city limits, whatever that means.
De Weerd: So -- and he would be surrounded by three sides with this. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor -- three sides? Four.
De Weerd: Is that yellow?
Canning: Yes. That's Valen Court Subdivision.
Rountree: That's Valen Court. That's already been annexed.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: There are no stub streets going west from Valen Court. They all go north
toward the neighborhood center.
De Weerd: Okay. And we don't see the plats, because it's not final platted? Is that why
there are no lots on there?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 28 of 61
Canning: It just hasn't caught up with the drawing yet. I think it has final platted. Valen
Court.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm just going to inform you and the Council -- I mean under the -- under Idaho
Code 5222 and sub four, I mean once a property is hooked to your city municipal water
system or sewer system, then, that is consent to annex. So, you can annex the
property. Even if it wasn't surrounded. But because it is surrounded and it is on the city
system, that is consent to annex as well.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed? Or
discussion? Questions for staff or the applicant?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 8, 9 and 10.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 8 through 10. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You knew I was going to say something. Boy, Packard Estates' predilection
for finding lanes is incredible. And we have all sat through that. And now we have yet
another one that I can envision creating all kinds of problems for the developer and the
city yet again in the future. That's one issue. I appreciate the idea of holding out the
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 29 of 61
community center or the retail center for future development to see what's happening
there. I think that's consistent with what I read in the Comp plan. I'm a bit concerned
about the market for the product that we see. We have seen some of these come back
to the city wanting to re-subdivide to make lots bigger, because the market is for larger
lots in some cases. So, we have seen some of these particular developments sit for a
long time. I'm a little concerned with the open Creason-Finch, whatever lateral it is. I
think it's right there on the sides of where we could -- don't need to vary or we can
require plumbing. I like the idea that with this development we get some
interconnectivity and looping with pathways. But when I look at some of the issues that
I can anticipate are going to come back to this Council -- Anna, you know what I'm going
to say. I'm not in that big of hurry to annex another problem for the City of Meridian. I'm
done.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Any other comments, Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just some comments -- and certainly, Mr. Rountree, I'm not necessarily in a
hurry either. One of the things that I do like about the development -- and I certainly
would agree that -- that the ability to pipe that ditch is something that we should look at.
I know that we like open waterways and I know that we want pathway next to those, but
sometimes we need to take a look as a city on some of our requirements, because if it's
not meshing with what other agencies are looking for or even the development
community, we might want to take a stronger look at that. I do like the density changes
that this brings. One of the things that I think, from a Comp Plan standard, is if we are
going to have a viable commercial center, we need to have some higher density
residential near those. Having seen this type of a product before, I agree with the alley-
loaded lots. Whether the market can bear that or not is certainly a question of
economics and vitality within the community of Meridian. So, those are my general
comments on the application.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I, too, am not in a real hurry to annex anything, but it seems like we have got to --
I agree with Councilman Wardle, I think that it's a well laid out subdivision. I believe that
it's going in and out -- we have jumped -- I mean we have got a lot of subdivisions miles
away from it that we have approved and everything else and this does kind of do some
fill in. I don't believe that this is going to be the same type of problem we had on the
lane, for the simple fact is only one person actually gets access through this lane and he
happens to be the guy that's selling the property that wants to see the development.
Where on the other one we had something like nine or ten people that lived on it -- that
live on it. So, I don't see any problem with the lane. I think this is a very good project
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 30 of 61
and I personally am not the developer, don't have any money involved in it, so the
market will tell him whether they want to keep this density or come back and re-plat.
But I'm not here to tell them they -- how to spend their money or where to spend it.
That's my comments.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just -- I forgot my comment on the commercial piece and that is in my
experience in commercial development, the one thing that will solve that lane is if that
entire area goes commercial, because they will not let a situation such as Wingate
happen in a commercial project fronting off of Ustick, in my experience.
De Weerd: Thank you. And you look like you have lots of experience.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I did want to say -- oops -- one thing. We didn't talk much about Valen Court.
But Valen Court previously had an interest on Venable Lane and we did make sure that
they got rid of any interest in that. So, we are just down to two parcels, basically. The
Simunich and the person that would be interested in having it developed, because that
would be the access into their property. So, it seemed like a manageable number to
staff. And Becky will tell you I've told her time and time again, she had to figure out a
way to make Venable work and she seems to have come a long way.
De Weerd: I guess I did hear a comment about our laterals and the conflicts we have
with irrigation districts on whether to pipe or keep open. Certainly, environmentally and
to protect our surface water, our shallow aquifer, we want to keep some of these open,
to allow the percolation of these ditches. I guess the city can attempt to work with the
irrigation district again and to maybe find some better comfort and some agreement --
and we do have an agreement with them on this, but it does seem like every time we
have to fight and it's -- it is putting the development community and the city and the
goals in the middle. So, I guess I would like to challenge our staff to come up with a
strategy on bringing some of those interests in line, so we can have a more common
front in doing that. And on the alleys, I would just ask if Council does pass this tonight,
that we have had some challenges, the alleys are still ACHD, they are not the city's, but
we would recommend some kind of boulders near the entrance or something that
mitigates cars cutting the corners in those corner -- those end lots, because we have
had some concern from property owners that live on those end lots of cars rounding the
corner, instead of taking them square, so --
Meridian City Council
October 4.2005
Page 31 of 61
Wardle: Madam Mayor, the applicant has indicated they are going to put curb and
those are a little bit wider than the alleys that are currently having the problem, the 12
foot ones. These are 14 feet.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: It's up 16 now. Sixteen feet.
De Weerd: Well, we appreciate any design that helps eliminate some of those
concerns. Okay. Council, do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No.8, AZ 05-015, to incorporate staff and
applicant comments and specifically to incorporate or the deletion of the stub street
added by staff, requiring that only one stub street from this development to the seven
acre piece be included in this development agreement. And also the addition of the
comments in regard to the waterway. I'm not sure which one it was.
De Weerd: Creason or Finch.
Wardle: Whichever. The waterway and the path therein and the working with the
irrigation district.
Bird: And new Findings?
Wardle: And to bring the Findings back to us. New Findings.
Bird: He's got a question --
Grady: Madam Mayor, the master grading plan?
Bird: I will second it first.
De Weerd: We will second first and -- okay.
Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Grady, for clarification. That does include the master grading
plan.
Bird: Okay. I agree.
De Weerd: Second agrees?
Bird: Second agrees.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 32 of 61
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Staff -- or Council, I guess I would look to you if there is a
recommendation on the Simunich property for staff.
Bird: What are you regarding, Mayor? The annexation of their property?
De Weerd: The annexation.
Bird: Well, I don't think that is a part of this application.
De Weerd: No, it's not, unless --
Bird: We can -- let's pass these and, then, we will talk about that.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No.9, PP 05-017, including all comments from
previous annexation and to bring back Findings for our approval.
Bird: And before I second it, that includes a revised preliminary plat of September 12,
2005?
Wardle: Yes, it does. Which shows the deletion of the northeastern property from this
specific application.
Bird: I second that.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 33 of 61
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No.1 0, CUP 05-022, to incorporate all of the
additional comments and to bring back Findings for approval.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 10. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg,
hearing none.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Regarding Mr. and Mrs. Simunich's property, I'd like our attorney to tell us the
options we have on that.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think if it's the desire of this Council to
explore the possibility of annexing that property, since it's not a consent that's being
sought at this time, would simply be to direct the staff to begin the process of evaluating
that property for annexation and going through the process as outlined in Idaho Code
5222.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. And if you could get in touch with the Simuniches
and talk with them about that.
Bird: Is that your direction, Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Simunich: Madam Mayor, I wish you would let me say a word or two about this at this
time, so the entire Council can hear this.
De Weerd: Mr. Simunich, you can step up to the microphone. If you will just state your
name for the record.
Simunich: Joe Simunich. 955 West Ustick Road. Six or eight months ago I came
before this body, I asked for permission to hook up to the sewer and water and not be
annexed. Why do I not want to be. annexed? I have seven acres there. I want to keep it
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 34 of 61
as agricultural. I don't need to be annexed. Planning and Zoning could not give me
enough answers what I could or could not do with that property. Prior to that, the city
wanted a sewer through my property. They got that sewer with no problem. They
needed another sewer line. They got it. Now, is all I ask for to run one residence,
sewer and water, into the city sewer, complied with all the regulations, and now there is
some problem that I need to be annexed. Why do I need to be annexed? You put city
sewer on my property, how could you do that? I was in the county or in the city -- you
put a city service on my property. Now, I can't put a city service on my property. I just
don't see the rationale here.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I mean certainly having Mr. Simunich explain his concerns tonight is fine, but if
there is a process, there will be a process, he will have an opportunity to also make that
on the record when it is before you properly. So, rather than the debate or discussion
tonight, I don't think you really want to take any further testimony or have any further
response.
De Weerd: No. And I did want Mr. Simunich to have his word, but staff will get a hold
of you, Mr. Simunich --
Simunich: Madam Mayor, I thought we had a process. When I came before the City
Council and you approved sewer and water to that property and not having to be
annexed.
De Weerd: And I believe we can refer to the agreement that we had with you and staff
can work with you on that.
Simunich: Thank you.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollvbrook Subdivision by Hollybrook,
LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 05-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 56
building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive
and 540 East Ustick Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family detached units and single-family
attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street
frontage and zero lot line side yard setback for Hollvbrook Subdivision
by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 35 of 61
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 11,12, and 13 is Public Hearing on AZ 05-026, PP 05-
025, CUP 05-033. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our next project is Hollybrook. It's
located on the north side of Ustick Road, approximately one-quarter mile east of
Meridian Road. As you can see, it's an enclave -- or it's an in-fill project, as are the rest
of the projects tonight. There is a one acre sub immediately to the east and, then,
Sundance Subdivision and, then, Quenzer Commons to the east and west, respect -- or
not respectively. Sorry about that. Anyway, the applications before you are annexation
and zoning, preliminary plat, and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development.
The highlight of the proposal are 53 building lots, 11 common lots, on 15.32 acres. The
building lots range in size from 4,432 square feet up to 18,081 square feet. So, there is
quite a range. The gross density is 3.59 units per acre. And they have requested
reduced lots size and frontages. The frontage requirement, instead of the required 65,
they are asking for 55. And the lot size, instead of the required 6,500, they are asking
for 4,800. There are three distinct areas on the site, as you can see. There are large
lots at the south end to match the one-acre subdivision immediately to the east. There
is kind of standard medium density residential lots that connect the two stub streets
coming from Quenzer and Sundance and match the size and type of those units. And,
then, on this little strip, we have smaller units to accommodate the road right of way.
You can tell connectivity was a big issue. I think this is Washaki Street that connects
the two subdivisions there and, again, it was -- there are no stub streets around this
north, so the layout was pretty much predetermined in many ways. And, then, the other
connectivity issue is with Curt Drive. They do take their entrance at the far west end of
this property and they do connect to Curt Drive. In the event that Curt Drive needs an
alternate method in and out of the subdivision, they can use that. As you can tell, there
is just -- there is one road into Weaver Acres right now, so this provides an alternate if
that were blocked right at the front. And, again, they are retaining the existing house on
one of the lots in the southern portion here. We have some elevations I want to show
you and, then, I'll go back to that other one. These are the units that are being
proposed, particularly on the small lots in the narrow area. I wanted you to see the
quality of these. They are nice and they are currently shown as front loaded units, but
what the applicant did -- all the discussion pretty much at three Planning and Zoning
Commission hearings was on this narrow area and what the applicant has done is he
removed some of the lots and, then, he's paired them up and you can see the pairs here
that share a common drive. So, here's two, four, six, eight, ten, 12 units. And, then,
there is a detail here of how those houses could sit on those with the shared drive. So,
he's turned the garage to the side, he's told me he's put Suburbans in these garages
and they are able to back out and enter. So, what we have done is treat this more like a
collector than a local street where there are people backing out onto it. There were a lot
of concerns about people going quickly down this area, because it is a straight shot. As
you come out of here, you go down, you do make a curve here, but we spent a lot of
time talking to the neighbors about additional methods to calm traffic and you can see
there is a curve in the road here. Basically, what's going to happen is that parking lane
goes away for awhile and the road will shift such that you can't see the rest of the road,
it's -- it shifts far enough over that you should be slowing down. And it comes back and
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 36 of 61
back over. This took a lot of -- many revisions by the applicant and his civil engineer,
but we think we came up with a compromise that works. And, again, there is nobody
backing out onto these, so you can pull out of these units and come through. The
Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their September 1 st
hearing. Several people testified at the three hearings held. I haven't detailed them.
They are detailed in your staff report. At the final hearing I believe that the general
consensus was that they had met the concerns of the neighboring community. The key
issues of discussion at those hearings were the design of the way to slow down traffic
and that's the one that I have been talking about with the curve in it. The size and
number of lots in Block 4 and, again, that's this narrowed area is Block 4. The
connection to Ustick Road at Curt Drive. And fixing -- and continued drainage and
irrigation piping. And, then, also having the lots along north Arrowwood Way share
access points. And the key changes to staff's initial recommendation were that the
elevations of building footprints for the single-family residential lots in Block 4 shall be
submitted as part of the development agreement. The reduced number of lots down to
12 along Arrowwood Way. And inclusion of a gazebo in an amenity lot in either Block 1
or Block 4 of the landscape plan and that was here. They do have a few landscaped
areas and, then, the applicant wants to heavily landscape the area in the chicane or
snake or whatever we are calling it these days. And, then, there is an open space lot
here and, then, a pathway connection through here. And, then, they also have items in
their street right of way at three locations. So, after three Planning and Zoning
Commission hearings and untold number of conversations with ACHD and the
applicant, I am happy to say that to my knowledge there are no outstanding issues
before Council. This was a tough one.
De Weerd: Anything further, Anna?
Canning: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none now.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Again, my eyesight's failing me on these. Anna, can you help me with the
zoning starting probably on the southwest end and up around the --
Canning: The zoning is the same on all of them.
Rountree: Okay.
Canning: It's just that the building size change -- or the lot size changes dramatically,
but --
Meridian City Council
October 4.2005
Page 37 of 61
Rountree: Not on this proposal, on the adjacent properties.
Canning: Oh, on the adjacent properties? Hold on just a moment. It looks like it's all --
Rountree: R-4, isn't it?
Canning: No, sir. It's all R-8.
Rountree: It's all R-8. Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further?
Rountree: That's alii wanted. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Nickel: Yes, Madam Mayor. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nickel: Madam Mayor and Council, the staff is right, this was one of the more difficult
developments that we have had in awhile -- at least that I have had. It is an in-fill
project, but just the configuration of the parcel led us to -- led us to kind of a unique
design. However, we are submitting this with a planned development application
request and staff did make the density. One thing I want to point out is these lots are a
5,000 square feet minimum, so our range is 5,000 plus and they go up in size. Several
neighborhood meetings. As -- every time we had neighborhood meetings and a
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, we satisfied more and more people and we
-- I think we have done a really good job at minimizing that number. Also, every time we
had to revise the plan we had to go back to ACHD to get their approval and go back to
the fire department to get their approval and the main issue was I believe safety
concerns with this long stretch right here accessing out onto Ustick Road. And so that
is why we did design with the help of ACHD staff this chicane design. That brought up
another issue and that was access to these units -- or these lots within that strip. So,
again, working with staff and ACHD, we came up -- and Planning and Zoning
Commission, we came up with a concept of having shared driveways, so, in essence,
we reduced 12 accesses on this road to six accesses. And also that -- providing that
ability to back out of those garages and not back out onto that street. So, I think we
have done an excellent job of trying to do this. Just to add some suggestions by your
Planning and Zoning Commission that we have added to this development, we did add
a gazebo to this open space area right here. They also provided a bus stop bench at
this corner right here. There is a kids' bus stop here for the people within Weaver
Estates and probably some of our students as well. So, we will have that in there. In
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 38 of 61
addition to the landscaping -- more landscaping throughout. Per some requests from
neighbors within Heritage -- or Heritage?
Canning: Quenzer or Heritage.
Nickel: And also Sundance, we did provide some calming areas and some islands here
and here, also a detached sidewalk, to better match the detached sidewalks within
Heritage as it transitions to Sundance. We did finally get a recommendation for
approval from your Planning and Zoning Commission. All the issues I believe have
been resolved with your staff regarding updated landscape plans and they did
specifically want to see that -- how that -- how the buildings did go onto those lots along
that strip. That was this example right here. So, with that I will stand for any questions
you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On the long stretch, the 12 lot piece, are we going to be looking at 12 clones
or six clones of the same thing? Is there going to be restrictions on 12 of those? Are we
going to --
Nickel: I'm going to defer that to the developer, who is also the builder of that center
area and he will be able to give you a good idea of that, Commissioner -- or
Councilmember Rountree.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I have several people signed up and when I read your name--
Rountree: The developer was going to answer my question.
De Weerd: Oh, it looks like we have an answer to your question. Maybe.
Rountree: Maybe.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 39 of 61
Campbell: Bond Campbell. 2948 South Denali Way in Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Campbell: I am the developer, as well as the builder of those 12 units. They will not be
the same elevation, they will all have different elevations, as well as different paint
schemes that will look different from each set to the next. So, basically, six sets, three
different -- two to three different floor plans, so there will be at least alternating different
sets on each two homes. So, it will be matching floor plans with different elevations with
different colors changing from set to set. They are ranging in size from 1,624 square
feet. They will be from 275 at the very lowest to up to 325,000 dollars per unit. I don't
think these elevations even do the actual product justice in comparison to what they will
ultimately look like. They will look nicer than these elevations that you see.
Rountree: Thank you.
Campbell: Did that answer your question?
Rountree: Yes, it did.
Campbell: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Florence Whittaker. Against. If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Whittaker: Good evening. My name is Florence Whittaker. I live at 3378 North Weston
in Sundance community. Under Section L of the P&Z staff report, it states: The R-8
zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in
the near vicinity. I feel this planned development does not provide lots that are similar
to the area. Weaver Acres has one-acre lots. Some of those properties have varying
lot sizes. My backyard alone is 149 feet from my back door to the back fence. The
width is 112 feet. The planned development would put two two-story houses ten feet off
of my back fence. My other concerns are still with the strip of land running north and
south with a 20-foot wide chicane. Twenty feet is really not very wide when you put two
vehicles side by side. This leaves very little room for error. What about vehicles that
park on the street? You know, people have company. Where do these people park?
What happens on garbage collection day? If you look at the measurements of the
roadway, it states on the plat that it's 16 and a half this way, 16 and a half this way.
That is just 33 feet on my calculator. They state on the plat that it's 34 feet wide with
sidewalks on each side. The width of this property is only 121 feet wide and they are
trying to cram this amount of stuff into this little area, I just can't understand what the
thinking is here. I have been to every meeting dating back to April 7th about this
planned development. I think this is my fifth time here and I have only lived in Meridian
for ten months. I would really like to see something come out of this that makes sense.
This seems to be very -- I mean too many houses crammed into this strip of land with
an insufficient roadway. With all the land here in the Treasure Valley, why are we
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 40 of 61
crowding houses one on top of another? This is going to make for very crowded
conditions 20 years from now. That is alii have to say. If anybody has any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Kathy Sherman? Against. If you will, please, state your name
and address.
Sherman: Kathy Sherman. 3458 Weston Way, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sherman: Good evening. I still have reservations about the one strip of land. I have
been to all the meetings, too, and all of them the main focus is the argument of the strip
of land. I'm concerned about what standards we are setting for the City of Meridian. It
is clear that one strip of land is not ideal for building, because if it were, then, the builder
would not have to ask for reduced lot sizes or less than minimum street frontage. I feel
that these requirements should be met by the builder and there should be no exceptions
to the rule. I know we cannot stop development, but there should be some kind of
limiting standards, because it appears that the builder has been allowed to put houses
basically anywhere there is room or in this case not room. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council? Okay. Thank you. Letha Quinn. I'm sorry if I messed your name
up.
Quinn: Letha Quinn. 456 East Patagonia.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Quinn: And just as an introduction, I do also live in the section right in the -- I can't get
this to point here, but, anyway, it's in what looks like -- I know the question was is this, in
fact, an R-8 or an R-4 and the question is that we have lots that are, basically, quarter
acre lots along that side. So, there is a dramatic change from quarter acre to half acre
lots along there to small housing lots. I mean I wanted to say, first of all, I do appreciate
the developer and all the work that they have done. The product we have now is much
better than when we first started. When we first started we had patio homes with
people backing out into the street. So, there has been progress here and I appreciate
the shared driveways. That does address the concerns of safety along that road. But
we were not in the general consensus at the last meeting of people who agree and the
Council did not approve this unanimously. There were two major objections to the
development in just the Block 4 section that I'm talking about. First was Mrs. Whittaker
mentioned the staffing report talked about that there should be a transition between
areas, so there is a gradual transition, and that it shouldn't be invasive in nature. I have
a question also to the actual setbacks of the house. They are asking for ten feet
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page410f61
easements. So, the question is, is it ten feet from our back fences or is it five feet from
the back fence? What's -- the way I understand in the staffing report is that 15 feet is
normally required as a setback on the rear. So, I'm just wondering how far are we
actually from that back? The second question -- the second obstacle, of course, is the
nature of the road. When you look at that road and how it connects to Ustick, it is what
we believe is a collector road. You see how many neighborhoods above -- I guess have
to go back a little bit. In the subdivisions above it and both north and south of it that are
connecting to that road, it will become a major collector road. You know, on Ustick the
traffic, obviously, is increasing and so we do have an issue that street is simply not
going to be enough. It goes from a 33-foot road to a 20-foot road. To put it in
perspective, this is the same width as the proposed shared driveway that we are talking
about. It was also the same width as Crossfield was talking about as an alleyway. So,
this is simply just a 20-foot road. It doesn't allow two vehicles on there with any type of
sideview mirrors and sidewalks on the end, we are looking at dangerous situations with
children being hit by sideview mirrors, by any type of variance is a bad deal. Any
Questions?
De Weerd: Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Shelly Alexander. You share the same sentiments. She also
signed up against. Jody Pierce. Against.
Pierce: Jody Pierce. 3342 North Weston Avenue.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Pierce: I would like to agree with Flo and the other gals that have spoken, but I would
also like a little bit of clarification on the permit request. It states here for attached
homes -- and I just would like that to be clarified so that it couldn't come back and the
homes be changed, because originally the request was patio homes and now it's been
changed several times through the meetings and I just would like clarification. At the
last Planning and Zoning meeting they had stated that that permit request would be
changed. So, I just wanted to verify that that will be changed. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Linda Roberts. Neutral. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Roberts: My name is Linda Roberts. I live at 3525 Curt Drive. Am I the only one from
Curt Drive here? This is really unusual. We have been here en mass.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Roberts: Most of the time --
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 42 of 61
De Weerd: Can you show us where that might be? There is a pointer in front of you.
Roberts: My home is -- this is my home. This is my lot. This is where I live.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Roberts: And I have been there for 30 years. So, we have seen a lot of things go on
over the last ten or 15 years in Meridian.
De Weerd: Yes, you have.
Roberts: And that's why I'm neutral. We understand that it's -- that housing is going to
come in and that something is going to be done with this subdivision. We have really --
I feel like we have been involved in a lot more than we wanted to be involved in and it's
to the point that I truly think that it's about as good as it's going to get, with all of the
work that's been done, simply because, you're right, it's a narrow street, it's 125 feet
across that back section and you only have so much room, but I think the developer
has, you know, done the best that he can do with what he has to work with as well. So,
that's all I have.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. That is who has signed up. Is there anyone who
would like to provide further testimony? Okay. Would you like to -- I hate that rebut
thing, but --
Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: The final word.
Nickel: Again, Shawn Nickel, for the record. And I do appreciate the neighbors that
have come out and spoken. We did have 21 people sign up to testify at our first
Planning and Zoning Commission, so I think is a -- this shows you that -- and I think
that's why Linda has stated the lack of people from Curt Drive, the majority of those
people, I believe, were satisfied also with our continuous revisions. Just to point out a
couple of things. Through the PD process, we are not asking for any reduction in
setback and specifically the rear setback of these lots right here. They will be a
minimum of 15 feet, as is with all standard subdivisions. Secondly, we are not asking
for any reduction in the width of this roadway. The only thing that was asked by the -- or
from the highway district for reduction was the right of way, because of the width of this
strip right here. The roadway, however, is a 34-foot surface, which will allow parking on
both sides, with the exception of that chicane area. I do believe it is wide enough that
people aren't going to be bashing mirrors together. Also want to point out that the
sidewalk within that area is a detached sidewalk both sides of the chicane to help also
with safety for pedestrians going along that stretch right there. One Planning and
Zoning Commissioner did vote against it and we still haven't figured out why. Mr. Moe
did that. But that was -- that was the one opposition. The Fire department did approve
the roads. And to clarify the testimony, those will be detached homes throughout the
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 43 of 61
subdivision. We originally had patio homes that were attached in our first application
and I think it just got carried on in the public notice, but it is -- they are all detached.
That's all I have. If you have any other questions for me?
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I just would like Shawn to point out or Anna to point out -- go back to the overall
deal. Where is North Weston Way and --
Nickel: Which one, sir?
Bird: North Weston Way.
Nickel: This right here.
Bird: Okay. That's the one and the one lady testified that she had 149 feet from her
back.
Nickel: Right here? There?
Bird: Those are still R-8 subdivisions?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Bird: Thank you. Thank you, Shawn.
Nickel: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. Council, any
questions for staff? Further clarification needed? Okay. Hearing none, what would you
like to do?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the public hearings on Items 11 through
13. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 44 of 61
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Counsel, any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I think everybody agrees this is really a tough piece of land to deal with. It's
one of those if you do something with, part of the people are going to be happy and if
you don't do anything with part of the people are going to be sort of happy, because at
some point in time it's probably not going to be a very pretty piece of property. I
struggle with this, but we are going to see more and more of these small pieces of in-fill,
as opposed to the one we previously saw of a rather large acreage. I guess I'm inclined
at this point to say you probably have done the best thing you can do in terms of the
highest and best value of this piece of property. But I wish we would start master
planning larger pieces of land in this city, so we don't run into these situations more and
more. It just takes money. I know.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: My comments -- and I agree completely with Mr. Rountree, that this is certainly
a difficult piece. And I can see why we had so many hearings and we had a number of
compromises. The one part -- and I'm sure it's the same part that everyone's having a
tough time with, is that middle stretch. It appears to me that the top of this development
and the bottom portion of this development certainly are in keeping with the majority of
our Comprehensive Plan. I'm having a hard time making a compromise within the
transportation, which is to narrow and bend a public street to try to somehow decrease
the -- I'm not sure if it's the speed or the flow or whatever the traffic is, when we have
some collector -- not certainly through the one acre subdivision, but in the one next.
And so that's a difficulty that I have. Certainly appreciate all the neighbors input and the
developer's willingness to change.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Mr. Rountree, the fact that that is an awful difficult piece of ground to
deal with and I think the developer has worked pretty hard. I, too, agree with
Councilman Wardle about that road down there that we are narrowing down and
everything, but I don't know what the narrow spots are going to be. I have a real
problem getting -- not getting a fire truck through as much as getting -- having to stop
there and fight fires and that and to have your sides fold down where your ladders and
stuff come off. You definitely need more than what it looks like in that and I have no
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 45 of 61
idea what that -- and staff can probably tell us what that reduces down to from 34 to -- to
what in that --
Canning: Twenty feet, sir, which is the minimum that the fire department requires.
There is a right of way, if for some reason they ever needed to exceed it, it's -- the full
right of way width is there, there is just additional landscaping where the chicane is.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'll throw this out and see what it does. I move that we approve AZ 05-026, with
Findings and Conclusions of Law and to incorporate staff, applicant, and public
testimony.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to --
Rountree: It's not that late, Mayor.
Bird: It's not that late yet.
De Weerd: No, it's not. Motion to approve Item 11. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg,
will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Berg. Item 12.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 05-025 and let it be known as the drawing dates on the
preliminary plat 9/20/05 and that we include Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and incorporate all staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 46 of 61
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 12, with the clarification on the date
on the plat. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Berg. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we approve CUP 05-033, including the Findings and
Conclusions of Law and to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve Item 13. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.57
acres from R-1 to R-8 zone for Breinholt Subdivision by Richard and
Susan Breinholt - 2580 North Meridian Road:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: PP 05-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single family residential lots and 3 other lots on 3.57 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Breinholt Subdivision by Richard and Susan Breinholt -
2580 North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 14 and 15 are public hearings AZ 05-037 and Public Hearing
on PP 05-036. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Breinholt project. It's located
on the east side of the Meridian Road, approximately one-half mile north of Fairview
Avenue. As you can see we are looking at another in-fill project.
De Weerd: We have saved them all for one night.
Canning: All at one time, apparently. The highlights are -- the subject applications are
annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The highlights include 22 building lots and
three common lots on 3.57 acres. The gross residential density is 6.17 dwelling units
per acre. We'd like to point out that this property has an interesting challenge and/or
opportunity of having four stub streets to it. What they have done is connect three of
the stub streets and, then, continued the fourth street, a stub street, up to the yet
undeveloped property to the north. This would be their access to the south and there is
also a stub street to that from the north. There wouldn't really be an opportunity here,
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 47 of 61
because there is a drain or lateral -- I forget which one it is, but there are massive
amounts of water in that location, as I believe. The Planning and Zoning Commission
has recommended approval of this and at that hearing Reese Leavitt from Leavitt
Engineering and Richard Breinholt spoke in favor of the application. There was no one
opposed to it. Mr. Sweet did comment on it. The key issues of discussion were the
design of the street layout, due to ACHD's concerns on Voyager Street and, then, the
pathway, open spots -- open space lots on the South Slough. That's the name of the
feature. Couldn't remember it. And the continuance of flood irrigation to Mr. Sweet's
property. He is to the north. I do need to point out one issue. This -- this is the plat that
was in your Findings attached with the exhibit and I did notice that it's incorrect, it
doesn't show the connection from this stub street up to this street. So, we will need to
get you revised Findings that have the correct plat on them or we can just substitute that
as a minor change, but this is the incorrect plat. Right now it's showing a common lot
along the full south side of that street and this stub street needs to connect. I think with
that, I will answer any questions you may have.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, where is the revised plat at?
Canning: I'm not sure, sir.
Bird: Well, how do we pass on something that we can't physically --
Canning: I think you have a large copy of it.
Bird: I don't believe so.
Canning: Okay. I guess we didn't get -- we didn't get a reduced copy. The signature
date on the revised plat is June -- July 19th, 2005, and that's on the large one.
Bird: Thank you, Anna.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Leavitt: Honorable Mayor and Councilmen, my name is Reese Leavitt of Leavitt and
Associates Engineer and --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Leavitt: -- I can say we did submit a revised plat. That was a requirement that we
connect the sub street. We have reviewed the conditions and requirements of approval
and we -- we are the owner and we in agreement with those and it's been a pleasure to
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 48 of 61
work with staff. They have been very supportive. We, as well, would encourage you to
approve the project. Mr. Breinholt is also here and he or I, either one, would be happy
to stand for questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just a question and -- was there ever any consideration of vacating the
center stub street?
Leavitt: It was, actually, the owner's desire to not connect with the center stub street,
but that was a requirement of ACHD and couldn't be vacated, because several of the
adjacent residents take access off from the stub.
Rountree: All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Thank you. Okay. I do have others signed.
We have Ed Sweet signed up for.
Sweet: Hello, Madam Mayor and City Council, Ed Sweet, 2640 North Meridian Road.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sweet: First, I did sign up in support of the subdivision. Last meeting I brought up a
couple of concerns that had to do with -- one was irrigation and the other foreign water
that was going to be run into that -- into the property that I own up there and -- but the --
I had just one issue that I wanted to discuss. And I'm not sure if it can be clarified here,
but on -- let's see, page three -- let me just get down to this. Make sure I'm right on the
right page here. The clarification that I was asking would be on page three from staff.
G. It has to do with the landscaping. Item number two. There is a 15-foot multi-use
path along the south side of the South Slough as shown on Lot No. 20, Block 1. Could
you show me where that path would be coming down through there that would be
required?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 49 of 61
Canning: The path comes down generally where it gets so heavy that it's hard to see
what's going on there. But it comes -- yeah. Comes down here and across and, then,
down.
Sweet: I'm assuming that path would continue down the south on my property -- a
future path; is that correct?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Sweet: Okay. Okay. I just wanted to clarify where that path was expected to go. So, it
is expected to go the full length of that South Slough. And that -- and that would be
adjoining -- what was the goal of that path, may I ask? Where will that end up once it
goes through that length of my property?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you'd like me to pull up the
Comprehensive Plan I can show you that designation. The pathway does go into
subdivision streets through -- as it travels eastward here.
Sweet: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify where that was going and where it
was going to be extended to, so --
Canning: I think it's basically in that general configuration.
Sweet: Okay. One last quick item and that is I did call staff and request a concern of a
couple of trees -- if I could get that pointer. A couple of trees that are actually on the
property -- on the property fence line. They referred me to Parks and Recreation and I
did call Elroy Huff and he come out and took a look at that. I believe he's going to
request a couple of those trees be removed. Golly. It's right where the irrigation that
waters both properties come down, which that irrigation now has got to be tiled and
goes under. There are two trees right there right on the property line. So, he sees that
they are going to be a problem, so he asked me to come and just on the record make a
statement about those -- a concern of those two trees. He says he hasn't been involved
yet in any tree mitigation, but they will be bringing him into the picture on that. So, I did
what he requested me to do. That's my only -- that was my only concerns. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Sweet. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. We also have Mr. Breinholt. Would you like to provide
testimony?
Breinholt: Mayor and -- is this on?
Meridian City Council
October 4.2005
Page 50 of 61
De Weerd: Yes.
Breinholt: I think I can --
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Breinholt: Richard Breinholt. My residence is 1976 Star Lane, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Breinholt: The staff and ACHD requested that we connect this road here and it's a very
simple change from this plat here. It's just an arched curve continuing on into the road
there through the common lot area. The trees that brother -- or Ed talked about sits
right here along the irrigation. They are large cottonwood trees that are failing at this
point and, then, there is another one. This is the existing house site right here and there
is a very large one right here that's already failing also. So, that was our plan is to go
ahead and remove those trees. In fact, we were asking information on what would be
required from them in the last hearing and we are happy to remove those. They are a
nuisance. The walk path goes essentially -- this is the South Slough and at this point
here it comes close to the property line and the walk path begins right there and comes
over and this is Block 20, I believe, which is a -- let's see. That's the -- that's the
easement lot to the roadway. And, then, there is a second 25 lot, which it becomes a
landscape barrier right in here and the walk path goes through that area and, then, out
here through the existing access to Meridian Road, which is -- as far as public access at
this point would go away and this would be our access here and those points there. I
didn't really intend to take a lot of time, but I thought it would be helpful to clarify that for
the Council and if you have any other questions I would be glad to answer those, too.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You indicated the comment about public access on the one access point
there now serving the home on the side. That will be eliminated?
Breinholt: Yes. That's correct. The Ada County Highway District is pretty adamant that
that be no access onto Meridian Road. It's only for public access to the walking path
itself. If I could show the vicinity map, I can kind of show what that -- that pathway
follows this South Slough all the way along and I'm not sure where it goes up into the
subdivision here, but it also, I believe, is supposed to continue down along through --
let's see. I'm lost here. Right along here, down along the South Slough as it continues
on. So, it becomes a nice amenity to the entire community and I think it's very important
and I'd like to state that for the record, that that -- that be part of these developments,
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 51 of 61
both of them. Mr. Sweet's property is here and they are in process of application for
that site there also.
De Weerd: Okay.
application? Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
Is there any further testimony for this
Rountree: I have a question for staff.
De Weerd: Yes, Charlie. I'm sorry. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, what's the -- again, what's the adjacent zoning?
Canning: All R-8 again, except for going to the north it's RUT. Madam Mayor, one thing
I forgot to point out in my presentation, I apologize, is that there are a number of
attached units. They are all on single-family lots. All but this lot and this large lot
immediately west of it do have pairs of attached units.
De Weerd: Do you have any elevations?
Canning: No, ma'am, we don't appear to.
De Weerd: Okay. Final remarks from the applicant? Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question of the applicant. Before I'm inclined to take action on this -
- again, I'm only one of three tonight -- I would want to see an indication of what the
product is going to look like.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: So, if you have those with you this evening --
De Weerd: If you will -- yes.
Breinholt: We haven't actually gone that far. The intent here is probably to just market
the lots at the point that we get there. So, we don't have any plans of elevations. Any
other questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 52 of 61
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-037 and PP 05-036.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the public hearings on Items 14 and 15. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion or further information?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 14, AZ 05-037, to include staff, applicant, and
public comments and approve Findings.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 14. Is there any discussion?
Canning: Madam Mayor, just for clarification, that would include the amended Findings
and staff will get you the correct preliminary plat.
Bird: That comes next.
Canning: Oh, I'm sorry. That was the annexation. Sorry, sir.
Wardle: So, no.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 15.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 53 of 61
Wardle: I move we approve Item 15, PP 05-036 and to include the amended Findings
to reflect a plat date of July 19th, 2005.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will
you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
7.89 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Caymus Cove Subdivision by
Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 2745 McMillan Road:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 05-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27\
single-family residential building lots and 4 other common area lots on
7.89 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Caymus Cove Subdivision by
Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 2745 McMillan Road:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-014 Request for a Variance to exceed the
maximum block length and cul-de-sac length for Caymus Cove
Subdivision by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 2745 McMillan
Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 16, 17 and 18 are public hearings AZ 05-034, PP 05-033,
and VAR 05-014. I will open these three items with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, this is yet another in-fill project with one long property next to
it that's still in Ada county. This is Caymus Cove. It is on the south side of McMillan
Road approximately a quarter mile west of Linder Road. There is an annexation,
zoning, preliminary plat and variance application before you tonight. The request is for
approval of 27 building lots, all single family detached, four common lots, on 7.89 acres.
The variance length is for both cul-de-sac length and block length. The Planning and
Zoning Commission has recommended approval. Donald Kelso, Brian Cooper, Dave --
or Kevin Churchman, Mark Smith, all testified in favor of the application and Steve
Toleman testified in opposition. The key issues of discussion were the potential
redevelopment or ability for the Toleman property to redevelop in the future. This does
create a single county enclave of a very unusual shaped lot. Kind if gives new definition
to the meaning of flat lot, when it goes in both locations, it's a real challenge. The
applicant has submitted a variance request, so, again, the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not -- has not recommended on this. The request, if I go up to the --
the applicant was very constrained by the Bridgetower development. There was no --
as you remember this was kind approved as age restricted elderly type of development
and they didn't want a stub street going to the east. And, then, there is one stub coming
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 54 of 61
in from the south, but that's really it. There is not one coming in from the east either.
So, they only have one opportunity to connect to the existing street network and ACHD
did not want them to go through and connect to McMillan. So, really, there is no other
opportunity, except for them to have a longer block length than allowed by code and
also a longer cul-de-sac than allowed by code. There is an emergency access that
goes to the northwest corner of the property that has been reviewed by the fire
department, so this does provide an alternate means of access to the subdivision in the
event this one is blocked. But staff has recommended approval of the variance,
because this is an unusually shaped and constrained property. To our knowledge there
are no other large outstanding issues before Council and I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I guess with everything I've seen tonight, this one is just right in there. Why
give an access to the north?
Canning: My understanding is that ACHD wanted to limit access points to the arterial
roadways and also it would take a large culvert to cross the Settler's lateral with a public
street.
De Weerd: Well, how about a pedestrian connection?
Canning: There is a pedestrian connection with the fire access. They have got a paved
surface there. I'll double-check, but that does also function as a pedestrian path.
Rountree: And help me with the plat. We have yet another lane.
Canning: It is not a lane, it is a double flag on this property. Yeah. It's just a driveway.
What we tried to do, sir -- and we tried to accommodate that odd parcel as best we
could. Right here we have put in a 25-foot lot that, basically, can provide future access
to the Toleman property. We did that so that there -- if for some reason he wanted to
divide his property, he could submit a subdivision with the City of Meridian, he could
take access there, and, then, as part of that we could require -- or that he vacate this
portion or that it be somehow taken off of the arterial and come within the subdivision
instead. So, we tried to provide an incentive there. At some point in the future, maybe
not Mr. Toleman, maybe some other future owner, but there is an incentive there to let
him do further division of his property and address that issue. I do the best I can on
these. It's really -- it's a challenge.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council?
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 55 of 61
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Wyatt: Okay. Jed Wyatt. Landmark Engineering and Planning. Okay. Landmark
Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Avenue in Nampa. And just
like to highlight some of the things that were talked about and some of the things that I
think are positive aspects of this project. First of all, as touched on briefly, this
emergency access that was provided to the north and that access is paved and it will
provide a pedestrian link, as well as a link for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. There
is a canal, Settler's Canal, on the north side of the property and it will be bridged with
that access. The canal -- we have received approval to keep that open, which is
consistent with what has been done to the east of the property. Currently there are
townhomes and patio homes planned on the west side of the property. We have done
our best to transition from those homes to some larger lots that are on the east side of
the property. We have -- on the west side of the road we have square footages that are
a little bit smaller, five to six thousand square -- or six to seven thousand, excuse me,
square feet here and our lot sizes are seven to eight thousand square feet here. And so
it provides a real nice transition in a very limited space between the two -- two different
types of housing. Another thing that we have done to provide a nice transition and
amenity to the site is we have a big park common lot down here on the bottom that will
be an open play area. And this access, like was mentioned earlier, we have an access
lot, common lot, in this portion here and it's 30-foot wide, not 20-foot wide, as was
stated. And it will have a blanket ingress-egress easement, as well as a utility
easement on that lot. And just like to state that we are in concurrence with the staff
comments and this plat is in accordance with the Comp Plan and zoning for this area.
And with that I'll stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I applaud you for providing the 30-foot access with the enclave. I would ask
your consideration that on that lot you placed a sign that indicates that that is a future
point of access.
Wyatt: Okay.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 56 of 61
Rountree: So, in the future that's just one less issue that has to be dealt with. As
something to consider.
Wyatt: Yeah. I believe we will. It was my understanding that Mr. Toleman does not
want access in right now or -- so --
Rountree: Nor the neighbors on either side of it once they move in there.
Wyatt: Yeah. Sounds reasonable.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Council, did you have anything
further for staff or the applicant?
Bird: I don't, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the public hearings AZ 05-034, PP 05-033, and VAR 05-014.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 16 through 18.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 16, AZ 05-034, and to approve the Findings, to
include all staff and applicant comments, specifically Councilman Rountree's comments
in regard to a sign indicating future ingress-egress.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 57 of 61
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve Item 16 with the changes as noted. Is there
any discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 17, PP 05 --
Bird: The variance has to be first.
Wardle: Oh, I'm sorry. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 18, VAR 05-014, a variance to exceed maximum
block length and cul-de-sac length for Caymus Cove Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve Item 18. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I now move that we approve Item 17, PP 05-033, preliminary plat for Caymus
Cove Subdivision and to approve the Findings.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 17. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 58 of 61
Item 19:
Ordinance No. AZ 05-018 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for
Westborouah SQuare Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of
Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Item 20:
Ordinance No. 05-1187 AZ 05-027 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.502 acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The
Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 19, 20 and -- we will just do Items 19 and 20 we will do first.
Mr. Berg, will you, please, read Ordinances 05-1186 and 05-1187 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 05-1186, an
ordinance Westborough Square Subdivision for annexation of property located in a
portion of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A 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 from RUT to R-4, low
density R-8, medium density residential, and R-15, medium high density residential, in
the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the
Ada county assessor, the Ada county recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as
required by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver
of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: 05-1187, an ordinance for Maxfield Subdivision for annexation of property located
in Lot 5 of the amended plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Golden Eagle Estates in a portion
of South Gable Road and West Falcon Drive right of ways situated in the north one half
of the northwest one quarter of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A 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 from RUT to R-8,
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 for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver
of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard these two items read by title only. Seeing that
no one wants to hear it read by -- in its entirety, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 59 of 61
Bird: Can we do both at the same time?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I move that we approve Ordinances 05-1186 and 05-1187 with suspension of
rules.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve Items 19 and 20. All those -- I'm sorry. Mr.
Berg. Thank you.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 21:
Pseudoephedrine Ordinance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 21, the pseudoephedrine ordinance. Mr. Berg, do you
have that that you can read by title only?
Berg: Yes.
De Weerd: And that's 05-1188.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 05-1188, an
ordinance enacting the new Meridian City Code, Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 11, to set
limits on the over-the-counter distribution of certain -- oh, yeah?
Bird: That's why I call it Sudafed.
Rountree: Pseudoephedrine.
Berg: -- product, providing a penalty -- providing a savings clause and providing an
effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. That was the first reading on that item. You will have it again for the
next two weeks on the agenda, if there is any comment.
Item 22:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) (to conduct
deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real
property, which is not owned by a public agency):
De Weerd: We do have scheduled an Executive Session. I would entertain a motion to
adjourn into Executive Session. Does anyone want to make a motion?
Meridian City Council
October 4, 2005
Page 60 of 61
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tell Mr. Rountree to quit telling jokes. Madam Mayor, I move we go into
Executive Session as per Idaho Code 67-2345(1 )(c).
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
(Executive Session.)
Rountree: I move we come out of Executive Session.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Motion to come out of Executive Session. All those in favor say aye.
THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bird: Madame Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I should say something before we adjourn. This October 1st, we have got five or
six subcontracts. I, for one, can't speak for the other Council would like to know if all
the insurance and stuff has been turned into the Clerk's Office and I would like it in
written form from the Clerk. And I would also -
Rountree: Are you talking about Workmen's Comp?
Bird: I am talking about Workmen's Comp, liability and until it's here they do not get
paid.
Wardle: I agree.
Bird: They should be on file with the Clerk, not with anybody else.
De Weerd: Okay, Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council
October 4,2005
Page 61 of 61
Bird: Okay, I move we adjourn.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, all those in favor, say aye.
THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF
~
10 / Z5'/ O~
DATE APPROVED
MAYOR T