HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 02-07
Meridian City Council ~na
E!,.bruary 7. 2Q.2§
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M.,
Tuesday, February 7, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie
Rountree and Joe Borton.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Will Berg, Ann Canning, Len Grady, Bob Stowe, Ron
Anderson, Steve Siddoway, Jaycee Holman, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I will go ahead and call the City Council regular meeting to
order. It is Tuesday, February 7th. It is ten minutes after 7:00. Again, welcome this
evening. We will start with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. We will be led tonight by our resident
Boy Scout Mr. Dave McKinnon. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Kevin Moyer, with Meridian First
Baptist:
De Weerd: Item 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Kevin
Moyer with Meridian First Baptist. If you will all, please, join us in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Pastor.
Moyer: Our Heavenly Father, tonight we will, first of all, just thank you for the great
sunshine of the day. So much appreciate the way you grace us here in our fair land and
we are thankful for the privilege of gathering tonight, Father, as we look at the different
business at hand, thankful so much for the wonderful leadership that you have given to
our city, our Mayor, our Council, and tonight as they have to hear and look at many
different issues that are so dear to the hearts of each one here, would ask for great
wisdom tonight, discernment, just be able to think through the issues clearly, render a
decision, Lord, that would be best. Ask your blessing upon each of the agenda items
tonight. Just watch over, cause this to be a wonderful process that you have blessed us
with in this fair land. We ,are grateful people for the freedom we have and the joy of
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 2 of 90
gathering like this and though there may be disappointments or excitements tonight,
Father, we would recognize how blessed we are. Thank you and ask your blessing
upon all the activities in Jesus' name we pray, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, pastor. Okay. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda. Mr. Bird.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Oh, wow, you threw a wrench in this one.
Wardle: Changed it up on you this evening.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I have one change to the agenda. Item No. 23, staff has recommended that
we continue this item to February 21 st. Item No. 24, Ordinance number will be 06-
1213. And Item 25, Ordinance number 06-1214. With those changes I move that we
adopt the agenda.
Bird: Mr. Wardle, before I second that, we have also been requested -- I'm sorry I didn't
get to you -- under Item C in Department Reports, Mr. Silva is not here, but Mr.
Rountree would like the Public Works Department to give a report on the water main
breakage. Is that not right?
Rountree: Correct.
Bird: If that's okay with you, motion maker.
Wardle: Motion would incorporate Item C, Public Works, information on water main
break. Yes.
Bird: Okay. Then, I will second that.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the adoption of the agenda as amended.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of January 17, 2006 City Council Regular
Meeting:
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 3 of 90
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
B.
Approve Minutes of January 24, 2006 City Council Regular
Meeting:
C.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 05-
014 Request to terminate a Development Agreement for Casper
Manaaement by Casper Management, LLC - 7.32 acres south of
Overland Road and west of Meridian Road:
D.
Water Main Easement Aareement ~ew Golf Course
Maintenance Shed:
E.
A reement with ACHD for Roadwa Construction I Sewer and
Water Line Improvements for ACHD Project 504002, Overland
Road, Topaz Avenue to Cloverdale Road:
F.
Award Bid and Contract for Meridian Senior Citizen Cent![
Uparades:
Permanent and Tern ora Easement Contract for the Meridian
Joint School District No.2:
Aareemenl..1kY!!er I Sewer AssessmentLJor CandJewooc.t
Suites by TQ Properties:
Contract with Irminaer ConstrucljsmJor cons~on ot..!h!
Waltman Lane Sewer Extension Project:
Chan e Order No.1 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion Proiect with JC Constructors, Inc.:
e Order
Approve Bills:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to
sign and clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 4 of 90
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
Planning Department
1.
Set Dates for Public Hearings on:
- Public Hearing: CPA 05-001 Request to Amend the
Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for
Approximately 50 acres from Medium and Low Density
Residential to Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle
Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance - Land at
or near the northeast and southeast corners of South Eagle
Road and Victory Road:
- Public Hearing: CPA 05-002 Request for a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change
approximately 11 .79 acres from Office to Mixed-Use
Community by Conger Management Group - 675 and 715
South Wells Street:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6 under Department Reports, we will begin with our
planning department, Item A-1.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, a couple of months ago we had a
number of Comprehensive Plan amendments forwarded up from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. A couple of them had requirements that they also submit a
concurrent development application with them. So, we have been holding them. We
had decided that you would set a date specific for those tonight or by tonight. So, we
have been in contact with both the project leaders or applicants on those applications.
One of them we have received, it will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission
in mid March, and the other one we anticipate will be done -- will be in by this next
cutoff, so it would be heard in April. So, you could set them over to the first meeting in
May, would be probably an appropriate date if you wanted to keep them on the same
date. If you wanted to move one of them up a little bit, you could probably do it mid
April. But May should get both of them. Did that make sense?
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Anna?
Rountree: I have none. Makes sense.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 5 of 90
De Weerd: It makes sense. Okay. Do you need a motion?
Canning: Yes. You need to set them to -- whatever the first hearing date would be in
May.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we set the hearing dates for Items 6-A for May 2nd, 2006.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to set the Public Hearing dates on CPA 05-001
and CPA 05-002 for May 2nd, 2006. Is there any discussion? Okay. All those in favor
say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2.
Budaet Amendment ~:
De Weerd: Item No.2. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have prepared a memo and asking
for a proposed fiscal year '06 budget amendment. Since about last fall we had noticed
an enormous increase in the amount of activity we were seeing. We anticipated it
would slack off as the winter months approached. It did not. It has continued to gain
momentum. I did get a chance to go back and look at all our 2005 numbers. We have
had a 41 percent increase in the number of applications we processed from fiscal year
-- or from calendar year '04 to calendar '05. We are desperately in need of help of
another associate city planner. What I have asked for is a budget amendment of
45,370 and that would be for the seven months of salary and the supplies and
equipment needed to staff that person to meet some of that need. I did go through -- I
gave you a lot more details on the kind of projects we are seeing and the increases.
Our certificates of zoning compliance that we typically do for multi-family and
commercial have increased about 171 percent over our 2004 numbers. So, we are
seeing very rapid rise in the complexity of the projects that we see. They are bigger.
They have more lots. They are more complicated. And also just in the sheer number of
applications that we are processing. I don't take this budget amendment lightly and I
don't think -w I don't want you to think that I do. I know that the City of Meridian likes to
run lien and mean, but -- I think I used this joke before. Right now we are pretty
anorexia and we need some help. So, as I discussed this with my Council liaison, he
was concerned that I be able to provide some benchmarks. So, what I did is I went
back to the 2005 numbers, which was a pretty good year. We were running busy, but
not so busy that we felt constantly overwhelmed. So, it seemed like a good benchmark
Meridian City Council
February 7,2006
Page 6 of 90
year to go by. And -- '04. Sorry. '04. And I looked at how many planners we had
actually processing applications -- this is largely related to processing the development
applications and kind of what those worked out to be per planner and I have provided
those in the memo. Just as a -- as an idea, in 2004 we were processing per planner
final plats and preliminary plats combined about 1,000 lots per planner. Right now we
are processing over 2,000 lots per planner. And in 2003 it was 1,781. We had a few
more people working on them in 2004, so -- so I would suggest that those benchmarks I
provided to you, I can get those numbers fairly easily for the Council each year and we
can compare the staffing levels to those benchmarks, but I need some help.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council, one of the things that -- when Anna and I discussed
this amendment to the budget, the first thing for us to realize and the thing that we have
heard from financial report is that certainly the money is in the development services
budget. So, our discussion was really not whether the city could afford this position, but
how best to understand where it fit, especially being that it was not asked for when we
did the budget for this year. The thing that I asked Anna to provide -- and she did an
excellent job of -- is my concern would be that this would be a -- really, a raised base
within the budget for the department, but is based on an increase in volume of
applications. And to give the Council a mechanism at budgetary time to address the
number of staff which process the applications and somehow allow us a benchmark if
those applications do fall off, to request a reduction in staff, which I know isn't something
that happens a lot in governmental agencies, but I think given the history of Meridian
and our fiscal responsibility, something that we could take into account with the
information Anna's provided.
De Weerd: Council, one other thing that I would like to stress is it's not only the number
of lots per planner, it's a commitment to assuring our community development and that it
develops in a -- develops to the vision of the Council and the direction that we are
setting and to the quality standards set that we desire in meeting many of the goals that
we write into our Comprehensive Plan and that future long-term planning aspect. As we
have embarked over the last year, year and a half, on Blueprint for Good Growth and
Communities in Motion, it has taken a large amount of staff time above and beyond the
lots per planner and I would like to remind you that assuring the quality of our
community as we develop is just as important and this extra staff member is sorely
needed.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, can you answer kind of a quick question for me? From your memo what
you -- what you had written, from my perspective, making reference to how many
planners and staff Ada County has or Boise city has or other entities have, at least from
my perspective, isn't persuasive. It might be a knock on those other entities. Not
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 7 of 90
necessarily any praise on us, other than the fact that it is a lean ship here, I don't doubt
that. Can you comment briefly on what Mr. Wardle mentioned about setting these
benchmarks and, then, to the extent future development and plats decrease below
those that there, then, be a corresponding reduction in staff? Because I do agree that
once these things grow, they don't shrink.
Canning: Yes, sir. I won't go into the other city part, I'll just answer your last question,
okay? The benchmarks -- I think when Mr. Wardle and -- or Councilmember Wardle
and I spoke about it, it was -- I could give you a number of benchmarks related to that
and we could look at them on a yearly basis to see, you know, if one of them fell off, but
the others were still high, that was something that Council could consider and to look at
all of them kind of in consort and that's why I have given you five of them that we are not
just being tied to one. One may rise and one may fall, but that I can provide those -- I
purposefully selected numbers that were easily accessible from our data base that I can
provide the Council on a regular basis, so if it's -- you have the authority when it comes
to the budget. If I can provide these numbers and that's certainly your option to
decrease staff and I would agree that some of those other staffs are high, but when
mine are a fraction of what they are and we are doing half the work for the whole
county, I think it does -- it is somewhat persuasive in that sense, so --
De Weent Thank you, Anna. Any other questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, what is your desire?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would move that we accept budget amendment from the Planning and Zoning
Department for fiscal year 2006 to be reviewed -- the specific position for fiscal year
2007.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the budget amendment. Any discussion? Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3.
Discussion of EI Gato Right of Way Vacation:
De Weerd: Item 3.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 8 of 90
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This item was brought
to us by the Mayor and asked to be brought to the Council -- forwarded to the Council
for some discussion, as just an item of concern and general discussion to see where we
want to go from here. The EI Gato Subdivision was an application from last year. It
was at the Planning and Zoning Commission between April 21st and August 18th of last
year and on September 6th of last year, the Meridian Council approved it. The
applications for EI Gato did include an annexation, a preliminary plat, and a vacation
application. The vacation was for some additional right of way along the north side of
the railroad that is unopened ACHD right of way that does not currently have a road
there. They, then, since have made their application to ACHD and the ACHD hearing
on that vacation is to be held on March 1 st. In the interim, since this was approved, the
city has taken an application in this area for Bryce Canyon Subdivision. The Bryce
Canyon Subdivision application was subsequently withdrawn. However, as we were
processing it and writing staff reports, the staff had discussions with the parks director
Doug Strong about the pathways in this area. The Comprehensive Plan shows a
pathway that I'm pointing out with the laser in this area, but it was determined that for
Bryce Canyon this alignment didn't follow any natural features, it really didn't make a
whole lot of sense specifically on the ground as they determined where that should go.
There is a drain that runs through the site here called the Perdham Drain. That
Perdham Drain extends north and crosses right adjacent to that right of way in the EI
Gato Subdivision. It was determined -- and this would, actually, be the preferred route
for that pathway to take. So, the question tonight is whether the city should stand by its
approval of the vacation, as was done last year, or whether we should reopen the
matter for additional consideration and take these concerns forward to the Ada County
Highway District. And with that I will stand for any questions and discussions.
De Weerd: Council, questions? Okay. We are looking for your direction on how best to
approach this.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Question for Steve. So, what you're suggesting is that we maintain that right
of way for a pathway or can we consider the pathway as part of the development of the
subdivision? Where are you going with the request to reverse the previous decision?
Siddoway: I'm not specifically requesting to reverse it. We may, actually, choose to
stand by the decision that was made and that would be fine also. But there is a
connection that would run along that Perdham Drain and allow that connection to be
made more seamlessly if the right of way were not vacated. It would -- if the -- if the
right of way were not vacated, the lots that were preliminary platted in that area would
not be able to be final platted. They would -- those lots would, basically, be removed
from the plat. Now, there is another option that I believe Joe Guenther, our planner,
also spoke with Scott Beecham to discuss the possibility of placing an easement along
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 9 of 90
the back of those lots, but that easement would just run along the back and could be
exercised by the parks department at some future date should they choose to put a
pathway there at some other time. The project representative is here. I know this is not
specifically a Public Hearing, but if you wanted to gauge its impacts on the project per
se, they are here.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Attorney, I would ask you procedurally would that be
appropriate for the developer to comment at this time or would it be best to notice it as
such, so that we could have that public discussion?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it would be in your discretion to accept
his comments just for purposes of perhaps finding solutions short of having to reopen
the matter to reconsider the condition of approval. Legally, the condition of approval
requires them to submit the application for vacation. If we are going to do something
other than that, you would have to re-notice and come back to reconsider that decision.
But I guess I'm suggesting that since he's here and there is word that there might be
some proposal that would solve the problem and not require you to reopen the matter, it
might be worthwhile to hear from him tonight just for that purpose.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any opposition? Okay. If you will, please, state your name
and address for the record.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dave McKinnon, 735
South Crosstimber. We have gone down this road for awhile now and the application is
coming up in a couple weeks. We don't have a problem putting this into an easement.
ACHD -- I just talked with Gary just for a second there. We have gone down so far right
now that we'd prefer just to go ahead and have the vacation happen, place the property
in an easement. We can put the fence just right where that right of way line is. That
would preserve the corridor and at some point in the future a pathway could be
developed there. That way ACHD's vacation could happen, we would be able to
transfer property ownership from ACHD to the subdivision. Part of the vacation is this
land would be traded for some of the land that we are going to be deeding over to
ACHD. Rather than ACHD pay us for the right of way, we are trading land. They are
giving us some of their right of way and, then, we are going to give them some of the
right of way. So, that's part of the reason we wanted to move forward with this. That
was a condition of approval from the city to vacate that right of way. ACHD required
that in their staff report as well. We think that this would, actually, solve the problem for
everybody if we just go ahead and fence this portion off, rather than put our fence to the
property line, put it here. We can work with Doug Strong at your parks department to go
ahead and figure out a way to make that pathway easement work. Of course, we will
have to change our final plat a little bit. This is the note right here that I'm highlighting
that shows the instrument number for the vacation. We can change that over to an
easement note that says for future pathway use. So, we can work that out with Doug
Strong in the future if you'd like and we have no problem doing that at this time. And
that way we can avoid having to go through all the re-noticing and having to vacate a
condition of approval for a vacation.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 10 of 90
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Steve, refresh my memory on this application. Did the parks department at the
time of application comment on that specific pathway opportunity?
Siddoway: I do not believe so. During the public hearing process it was not envisioned
that a pathway would cross this property. It was seen as off site.
De Weerd: And there have been a series of other events in other parts that have kind
of led to a realignment. Any further questions from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Baird, I guess my question to you would be what is the best
avenue to move forward?
Baird: Madam Mayor, if the proposed solution -- Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council, if the proposed solution is acceptable, we have a commitment on the record
from the representative that they would enter into -- well, basically, we would probably
have them enter into an agreement with us regarding putting that particular property into
an easement for pathway purposes, make sure that anybody who is buying those lots
know that it's a non-buildable portion of their lot and it will be for purposes of a public
pathway outside of their fence. So, we can move forward based on your direction
tonight, if that's your desire.
De Weerd: Okay. So, a motion is in order.
Baird: If that's your desire. And Steve's got his mike in his hand. I might take the
opportunity to make sure that they believe that this solution would work. I suggest we
get his opinion as well.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I do, with just one comment.
With the rear setback for buildings being 15 feet from the rear property line, there could
conceivably be a situation where the pathway would be five feet off someone's -- back
of their house. That said, if we just -- and we can deal with this through the final plat
process, because this application still will come through for the final plat, but if we could
get the rear setbacks maybe measured from the easement, rather than from the rear
property line, then, that should take care of that concern.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 11 of 90
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are agreeable to that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do I have a motion from Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I guess maybe some clarification from Mr. Baird. We are not moving to
change our decision in any way, so do we need to -- what would we do -- just directions
to staff? Would that be sufficient?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, that's correct,
your decision in the EI Gato matter stands. They are going to go through with the
vacation, but once the property is in their ownership and prior to final plat, they have
agreed to put it into an easement with us. So, the motion would be to direct staff to
work with the applicant to gain that easement. I would be most comfortable if we had a
very short MOU, just so we have it in writing, basically taking your motion and getting
the signature that things are going to work that way.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: With that I would move that we direct planning and legal staff to address a
memorandum of understanding between the City of Meridian and the applicant on the EI
Gato Subdivision right of way to address a path and an easement for that path.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Rountree: Prior to final platting?
Wardle: Prior to final platting.
Rountree: Second.
Borton: Inclusive of Mr. Siddoway's comments on setbacks?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion or help with the motion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will
you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 12 of 90
B.
Police Department - Lt. Bob Stowe
1.
Discussion of Pawnbroker Ordinance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6-B; our police department. Lieutenant Stowe.
Stowe: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. What we have
here is an ordinance that regulates pawnbrokers. What it, essentially, does is
eliminates the wording of our current ordinance and the proposed ordinance pretty
much mirrors what the city of Boise has for their pawnbrokers. The reason that we
need a new ordinance is, number one, to clean up a lot of language, but also we have a
new system in which we retain records and that with what's called the Leads On Line
system, in which the records from the pawnbrokers can be electronically transmitted to
the police station or the police department and we are able to go through those records
in a much more timely fashion. than we had been in the past. It also requires
pawnbrokers to take another form of identification in the form of a thumb print, too. So,
at this point I don't know if we are in the proper readings or what, but this is open for
discussion at this point.
De Weerd: Council, have you had a chance to review the draft that's in front of you and
do you have any questions at this time?
Rountree: Just a comment, Madam Mayor. It's a great opportunity to eliminate at least
seven or eight pages of current ordinance, so I think that's the right direction.
De Weerd: I know. They don't get paid by the word.
Rountree: No.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Mr. Rountree, but I also think this is one that we probably should
have some public input on. You're playing with a business and people's livelihood. I
think we probably won't have anybody come, but at least we are opening it up, like we
have on other ordinances that have this kind of --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I can -- I believe our -- my discussion, at least during the agenda setting, was
that the police department had had discussion with the businesses of this sort in
Meridian and Lieutenant Stowe, did they have specific comment on the ordinance?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 13 of gO
Stowe: Actually, yes, we have. There is two pawnbrokers here that we have been in
contact with. They are both very agreeable to this. This also does bring into line some -
- it brings into line some federal regulations, too, as far as retention of records that we
are requiring the pawnbroker to now maintain in regards to firearms transactions. That
was not in the previous ordinance.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: And Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Baird, this would come forward with the normal ordinance form and we can
certainly allow public comment.
Bird: Yeah.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, that's correct.
It's on your agenda tonight purely for discussion purposes. You have the option to
direct that it come back with your normally three readings or you can direct that it come
back with the suspension of the rules. If you do decide to have more than one reading,
you can direct at which time you'd like to take public testimony on -- on the matter.
De Weerd: We can certainly make sure that the businesses that would be affected
were specifically notified. Thank you. Okay. If Council would so desire, we can put this
on an agenda, if that's your direction.
Rountree: Do you need a motion? A general consensus let's get it on the agenda?
De Weerd: Yes.
Baird: Madam Mayor, question for clarification. Do you want the normal three readings
on this one, because of the public notice, or is one time, one hearing, with suspension
of rules going to be adequate, since you have already had it up tonight on a published
agenda?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have no problem with doing it that way and I was the one that brought it up and
Lieutenant Stowe has been in contact with the existing businesses. They had no
problems with it, so I don't see any reason why we have to do that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 14 of gO
Rountree: One time.
De Weerd: Yes. So, we will go ahead and instruct staff to put it on a published agenda
for a Public Hearing and we will take action at that time.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: One question. In the ordinance it talks about the nonrefundable application fee,
which will be set by Council, obviously, at a later date. Is there -- do you have
information about the cost to the department to implement this ordinance and monitor
this? Is there a rough guesstimate of what additional expenses or time --
Stowe: Well, there was an enhancement, I believe, on this. However, I do have here
Detective Taylor, who has been working with the pawnbrokers and working on this
ordinance for the past eight months. He may have more information regarding fees and
costs.
De Weerd: Detective.
Taylor: Currently, we had provision in our enhancement for a budget of 2,100 dollars
for this program. The original was about a 500 dollar initiation fee on starting the
program and, then, 1,600 dollars a year after that. At this point there is no cost to the
pawnbrokers, other than the licensing fee for their business. Everything will be paid out
of our budget in the next year, so as long as we have the program and we will pay for it,
so --
De Weerd: And that licensing fee already exists; correct, Mr. Berg?
Berg: Madam Mayor, yes, we do have a one hundred dollar fee for that license.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Detective Taylor?
Rountree: No. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will go -- go ahead and move forward and set this
for an agenda.
B.
Public Works Report - Water Main Break - Len Grady
De Weerd: Item C was amended to have a Public Works report on the break of the
water main here in Old Town.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 15 of90
Grady: Last week -- Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, last week we had a 30
year old class 160 water line break. The water department was notified about 6:30,
showed up at 6:45, shut the valves off. Basically, 7:30 they began dewatering and noon
it was, essentially, dewatered. It was a ten foot long piece of pipe and we are going
through the system now to see if there is other potential problems in the system. So, I
think they responded quickly all accounts are. I think they did a pretty good job.
De Weerd: And I know, -Len, that Councilman Rountree will be making comment on
this, but when I got back in town last night I have never seen so many e-mails from
citizens with such a positive note to an incident like this. I certainly appreciate the
responsiveness of the water department and -- okay. I won't steal your thunder. Sorry.
Rountree: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Len, please express to Rick and the folks in the
water department of what a terrific job they did. As the Mayor indicated, I have received
and I think the rest of the Council have received copies of e-mails and letters from the
folks that were impacted about what a great job the city did in terms of accommodating
their needs for water, getting the problem remedied in a hurry, getting their issues taken
care of with their lawns, their sidewalks, and those sorts of things, cleaned up to where
they were probably as good, maybe even better than before the break, to and including
getting the road patched almost immediately. So, again, kudos to those folks, they did a
great job and are a credit to the city and the city's efforts for customer service that we
have undertaken for a number of years and to me that's -- that's a perfect example of
doing the right thing for our customers. And I really do sincerely appreciate it.
Grady; Thank you very much. I will pass that on to Rick and Brad.
De Weerd: And what Len didn't express was that's 6:30 a.m.
Rountree: Yes.
De Weerd: So, appreciate that. And also ACHD. They were very much a part of the
solution as well, so thank you for that report.
D.
Mayor's Office
1.
Appointment of Eric Oaas to MDC Board:
De Weerd: And last of our department reports you have in front of you some
information on the appointment that I would like to make to our Meridian Development
Corporation board of Eric Oaas. Mr. Oaas is a partner in Oaas Laney -- is a partner in
the Double D project and I have served with Mr. Oaas on another board and he brings a
wealth of experience, knowledge, and certainly tenacity that I would ask for your
approving of this appointment to the MDC board.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 16 of gO
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would move that we approve your nomination and recommendation for
appointment of Eric Oaas to the MDC board.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. And his term would be through 2007. Mr. Berg, what month is
that? Is that April? Yeah. August. So, he is replacing Linda Rupe, whose term expires
typically in August of 2007. And so his appointment would also serve through the end
of that term. So, I have a motion and a second. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Pre-termination Hearina by Kelly Krommenl12!k, 2735 W. Higan
Street:
De Weerd: So, Item 8, I will turn this over to staff. Jaycee.
Holman: Last Tuesday January 31 st, was the day before our scheduled shut off day,
which is Wednesday, the 1 st, and we had one of our customers come in at about -- it
was either 20 to 5:00 or a quarter to 5:00 on Tuesday evening, wanting to make some
form of payment arrangement or do something to not have the water shut off on
Wednesday morning. At that time I was not able to accommodate the customer,
because the list had already been sent over to the water department and had already
been routed to the different drivers. So, at that time the customer asked me if there was
anything she could do beyond my answer and so I felt compelled to let her know that we
did have this process to -- the request of a pre-termination hearing, because that is
printed on our delinquent notices. So, at that time she -- from what I could understand
from what she was saying, she was not able to pay any of the past due balance on her
bill until February 10th, which is this coming Friday. And so she had requested a pre-
termination hearing, I guess, as a solution to her problem. So, Madam Mayor and
Council, that's as much as I can say on her behalf. I believe she's here and I -- her
name is Kelly and I really don't how to say your last name correctly, Kelly. So, if you
want to --
De Weerd: Okay. If you would like to come forward.
Baird: Madam Mayor, before we move forward, could we get on the record the amount
of the delinquency and when that was due?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 17 of gO
Holman: Yes. The total amount of the delinquency was $56.15 and that would have --
that was from the December 20th billing and it was due by January 5th. So, it was past
due on the 5th of January. And so when the January 20th bills went out, that amount
was the past due, which sent -- a delinquent notice went out saying that they had to pay
by 2:00 o'clock on the 31 st of January to avoid shut off on the 1 st of February.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you. If you will, please, state your name for the record.
Krommenhoek: Kelly Krommenhoek.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Krommenhoek: This is my first time attending one of these meetings, so I apologize, I'm
not sure what you would like me to tell you. What the clerk has said is accurate. It was
my mistake not coming by the deadline of 2:00 o'clock. I -- in a rush to see what the
date was I simply looked for the date, I did not note the time on there. I simply assumed
it was by the end of the business day. I work nights and had slept that day and so I got
up and came in as quick as I could to take care of the matter.
De Weerd: Thank you. We are fairly new at this, too. I think we have only had one in
my term on Council and Mayor, so we are not used to this either. Council, do you have
questions for our citizen or --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You had indicated that you came late to try to take care of the matter. What
were the arrangements that you were proposing?
Krommenhoek: I was wanting to extend the time to take care of the delinquency to
February 10th.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Question for Mr. Baird. What's the standard on these -- on a pre-termination
hearing? What's the discretion, role of the Council?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, in the Meridian
Code Section 9-1-21, subsection B, it does provide the right to request a pre-termination
hearing. It describes it, that it shall be a fair and impartial hearing on the record and,
basically, it doesn't give anymore specifics beyond that. What we have determined is
it's the opportunity for the customer to make their case -- you know, if a mistake was
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 180f90
made, to get those facts out and to have you make a determination. All that it says is
that the decision must in writing and that the water -- once a hearing is requested the
water won't be terminated until you have made your written decision and we also have
to advise the customer of her right to appeal, according to the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Borton: Does the appeal right, then, prevent the shut off as well?
Baird: That's correct.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment?
Krommenhoek: The only comment that I would make is that having water in your home
is as essential as having heat, as having electricity, as having the other essential utilities
that we all have in our homes and that having five children in our home -- other utility
companies are willing to work with customers in times of hardship and we do have the
intent to pay the account in full, as we have in the past, and I would ask for some
leniency in this matter, so that we might continue to have water in our home until we can
pay the bill, which, again, I just asked for an extension until this Friday, three days from
now, February 10th.
Holman: Madam Mayor and Council, if I can interject here for a second. We do have,
within the billing department, a form -- a city form that's called an arrangement form in
which a customer can -- they have to come in in person and they have to sign the form
and we work with them and make payment arrangements, so that this doesn't happen,
because people do have situations like this. In this case it was too late on Tuesday, I
would have had to have called out in the morning a driver that it was already routed to
and if it was only one customer that really wouldn't be a problem to radio out one call,
but we get I would say at least 50 calls, 60 calls, probably, on shut off day. We had 206
on the shut off list. So, every person that I had said no to, this particular lady I really
would have liked to have said yes to and said, okay, I understand, it's just I have a
difficulty saying yes to this one when I have said no to everyone else and we have to be
fair and we have to treat everyone equally, in my opinion. Unless, I'm, you know,
directed to do something else. So, in this particular case -- I mean she was very kind
and very nice to deal with, I just couldn't at that point radio it out to the water department
in the morning, it causes a lot of confusion, so -- but we do have arrangement forms in
which we can work things out with customers, so they can make these arrangements,
so --
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 19 of gO
Krommenhoek: And, again, I apologize for missing the deadline like that. It really was
my fault that I did not note the time listed on the bill. I, in my hurry, was just looking for
the date and that's -- you know, it was in the large block letters. I noted the date and put
it aside and was hoping against hope, I guess, that something would happen between
the time I looked at that and that day, that I would be able to pay that bill. And it didn't
and because I was not aware of the time due to my own fault, I did come in late that
day.
De Weerd: Well, we appreciate you being here tonight. Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: In light of these comments and for what it's worth, the risk of having a bunch of
pre-termination hearings, go down that slippery slope, I think Mrs. Krommenhoek should
have until Friday at 5:00 o'clock. I don't see any problem with it. I'd move that she be
afforded that additional time, consistent with Meridian's ordinance that allows that.
Bird: I second.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, we have a motion on the floor. Any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a point I'd like to make on these issues, is that I
understand the hardship that you have without water. The delinquency list for unpaid
bills to the City of Meridian runs somewhere between 30 and 90 thousand dollars a
month. That's the kind of thing that we are looking at and that's revenue to the city that
we need to operate the city. So, your piece of that is forgivable, but on the big picture it
is an issue for the city and that's why we have in place the ordinances we have. So, just
to put it in perspective. But I agree with what Councilman Borton has said and just
wanted it on the record that it's not a small issue for the city.
Krommenhoek: I appreciate that and I appreciate also your understanding.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: While I certainly agree with the comments and the importance of those bills,
just to clarify for me, you mentioned five children at home. Ages range from?
Krommenhoek: Fifteen. Thirteen. Nine. Six. And three.
Wardle: Makes it easy for me. Thank you.
De Weerd: It's easy for you.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 20 of gO
Rountree: Not so easy for her.
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. We do have a motion on the floor. Mr. Berg, I will
ask for a roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
to Waive Fees for a Landsca e
De Weerd: Thank you for coming. Okay. Item No.9. I assume this is Anna's item.
Request by Idaho Youth Ranch to waive fees for a landscape ordinance variance
request.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I believe that the applicant is actually making a presentation
before you. I don't believe it's me.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry. I was out of town when they set the agenda, so --
Canning: And I'm a little concerned, because no one is standing up.
De Weerd: Is there a representative here for the Idaho Youth Ranch?
Canning: Okay. I guess I will be making the presentation.
De Weerd: Either that or we can table this until next week.
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we table this item until the applicant can make arrangements
with the city in scheduling at a regularly scheduled meeting of City Council.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to delay this until the --
Berg: Want me to contact them?
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 21 of 90
Berg: Okay.
De Weerd: Until Mr. Berg can call and get it scheduled. Okay. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
FP 05-074 Request for Final Plat approval for 3 building lots and 1
common area lot on 12.01 acres in a I-L zone for Weed and Pest Control
Campus Subdivision by Ada County - south side of East Pine Avenue
and west of Locust Grove:
Item 11:
FP 05-082 Request for Final Plat approval of 53 single-family residential
building lots and 9 common lots on 15.32 acres in a R-8 zone for
Hollvbrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and
540 East Ustick Road:
Item 12:
FP 06-001 Request for Final Plat approval of 81 single-family residential
building lots and 13 common lots on 29.13 acres in a R-4 zone for Tustin
Subdivision No.1 by Dyver Development, LLC - northwest corner of
McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Okay. We have Item 10 through 15 as -- or, I'm sorry, through 13 as final
plats. Anna, can these all be dealt with together or do we need to deal with them
separately?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, 10, 11 and 12 you could deal with as
one item. They are ready to go. With one note that the Hollybrook Subdivision that the
applicant has submitted a letter that we agree with those statements made in that letter
and the final plat order will reflect that, if that's the way the Council chooses to go.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do I have a motion on Items 10 through 12?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Items 10 through 12, FP 05-074, FP 05-082, and FP
06-001.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 10 through 12. Any
discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 22 of 90
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
FP 05-076 Request for Final Plat approval of 310 residential building lots
and 49 common lots on 88.09 acres in an R-8 zone for Messina
Meadows Subdivision No.1 by Briggs Engineering, Inc. - west of Eagle
Road and north of Amity Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Messina Meadows final plat is
before you tonight and the applicant has requested a change from the approved
preliminary plat. The preliminary plat showed the Ten Mile feeder as being tiled through
the property. The area of concern is here on the north boundary. They are now
requesting that that be left open. This is something that needs to be approved by
Council specifically. So, we are -- have opened up the hearing for you tonight to
consider that request. If the Council chooses to go that way, we recommend that an
additional condition of approval be added and that would be that -- I have a revised staff
report. I didn't give it to you before, because I wanted to know which way you were
going. If you choose to approve it as being open, then, I do have a revised staff report
that adds the following condition: If the City Council waives the requirement to cover
the Ten Mile canal, then, the landscape plan needs to reflect the landscaping
requirements of the North Meridian Irrigation District and fencing standards for linear
open space products as listed in Unified Development Code 11.3.A7.A7 and
11.3.A6.B1. So, if -- and what that basically says is that it needs to be fenced off with
an open fence and that -- and, then, to meet the other fencing standards of North
Meridian Irrigation District. And we wrote this in the effort to keep this on the agenda. It
may need some wordsmithing there, but we did try and keep this on the agenda for
tonight. The applicant does have a presentation on why they would like to keep that
open and, then, I do have a section -- although this says typical drainage swale, I
believe that this was intended, actually, for the Ten Mile feeder detail. So, I conferred
beforehand and this is the appropriate detail. So, it would probably -- I would
recommend that Council accept some testimony from the applicant on this issue, if
that's appropriate.
De Weerd: Okay. Before we ask the applicant to come forward, Council, do you have
any questions?
Bird: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Do we have to move to reopen the hearing?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird, we don't need to move to open any kind of Public Hearing?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 23 of gO
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the way that this has been presented,
it's a modification of a final plat. What's going through my head -- and maybe I'd like to
have an open discussion here with Anna. Are we really -- since the final plat is
supposed to be merely checking for compliance with the preliminary plat, aren't we
really needing to modify the preliminary plat and would we need to set a hearing on
that? Or is this the type of thing that neighbors don't need notice, that there wouldn't be
surprise -- I mean it's a matter of degree, I think, and I'm not familiar enough with the
application to make that decision, but I wanted to raise the topic, maybe decide how to
go with some direction from Mrs. Canning.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in the Unified Development Code we
laid out some specific parameters for me to judge whether something was in substantial
compliance. I would say that as proposed, even with an open ditch, this is still in
substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. It still meets my standards.
There is no additional lots. There is no additional development proposed. The open
space is the still same. It's just change in nature from a grassy area to a water feature.
So, in my mind this still substantially complies with the preliminary plat. And we have
raised these issues before at the final plat level and because you see it so early in the
process, this -- we do have an opportunity to workout some of the bugs between the
preliminary plat and the final plat. But I do believe that it's appropriate for Council to
make this decision now. It does say it needs to be made by Council. It does not say it
needs to be made by Council at the preliminary plat stage. It leaves the option for it to
be done at this stage.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: And I believe that this was discussed during the preliminary plat. It was
open at that time and, then, it was closed and now it's open again. Mr. Bird.
Bird: We -- Anna's right, we have done this several times on a final plat and I don't see
-- if you feel comfortable with it, why we -- I think we should make a decision tonight and
have it open --
Baird: So Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird.
Baird: In answer to your original question, with that clarification, you would not be
having an actual Public Hearing, but you would be hearing information from the
applicant that would help you make your decision tonight.
De Weerd: And just for the record, there is no neighbors out there yet. But if you will,
please, state your name and address for the record, I would appreciate it.
Johnson: I'm Greg Johnson. I reside at 1280 East Pienza in Meridian, Idaho.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 24 of 90
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: This is inaccurate. This is an existing fence and there, actually, will be a 12
foot access along there for the Boise project, who it is -- it is their canal. So, this fence
exists and, then, there is 12 feet that will be -- at this point in time it's proposed that that
be graveled and we have proposed to pave that for a walking path. But I guess I have a
question with Anna. Existing code requires that we fence this side for safety reasons,
that we put a wrought iron fence on this side to keep access out of the canal?
Canning: That's -- I believe so. We can look it up.
Johnson: Okay. This dotted line represents the canal running at maximum flow.
De Weerd: At what depth?
Johnson: It's approximately two feet deep at maximum flow. Its normal flow would be
about six inches. This -- because of the development in this area, this Ten Mile feeder
is very little utilized and would be very little water in there. We would request that with
these slopes that we -- you know, grass to the water's edge and that be able to be
mowed and it really is more of a -- we'd like to consider it an amenity. It's six inches of
water that kids could wade in if they wanted to. We do have swimming pools in the
area, so that they can go swimming. But on a hot summer day it doesn't appear to be
dangerous to me. Now, the biggest reason we are asking not to tile this ditch is
because of the shortage of concrete, there is currently no 54 inch concrete pipe
available in the valley. We would not be able to get this made in time to get this
installed before water comes into the canal and, therefore, it very -- it would delay this
portion of the project until next fall if we were to tile it. We fought long and hard with
Boise project that it did not need to be a 54 inch tile. A 30 inch -- 36 inch tile would
have been more than adequate for what currently the flows are, but they do have the
right to flow this much water through it and they are not going to allow us to tile it with
something that would be able to be bought, because it would be existing in the yards of
pipe suppliers at this time.
De Weerd: And they have no objection to a water amenity with a pathway next to it?
Johnson: As long as they have access to drive along and maintain the canal, we would
actually maintain this area, but they have the right to drive through and make sure their
water is flowing. They do not have an objection to that. Nampa-Meridian has some
requirements that we will comply with where it dumps ~- this canal flows over to the
Ridenbaugh and dumps into the Ridenbaugh and we will have some concrete structures
there that will keep that flow from eroding into the Ridenbaugh Canal. That portion of
the Ridenbaugh is currently cement.
De Weerd: Do you have this in writing?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 25 of 90
Johnson: I have the letter from them saying that we will need to take care of that.
De Weerd: I don't mean to sound skeptical, but we have seen changes before.
Johnson: That's correct.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Greg, you say -- and it says in your letter they want a 54 inch and I understand
why, because I'm sure at times -- and I think that sometimes these new subdivisions --
we are tiling too much stuff and, then, when we do have a rainy -- like we have had the
last month or so, they plug up and so an extra large one, you got to worry about the 100
years flood plane, so --
Johnson: This is a live canal, though --
Bird: I'm for leaving it open, personally.
Johnson: Yeah. Okay. This is a live canal, not a drain, though.
Bird: Yeah. It is. And I agree with you.
Johnson: There wouldn't be drain water flowing in there. I would also like to at this time
discuss the donation of the park as a city park. I know we have discussed this a couple
times in your packets. I submitted a design for the park --
Baird: Madam Mayor. I hate to interrupt, but we should probably notice that up for
discussion, since it hasn't been properly put on the agenda. It's your discretion to
certainly discuss when that would happen, but I caution you against proceeding, that
this hasn't been duly noticed and we do have a very long agenda tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Baird. We will do one item at a time and, certainly, if
you would like to put that on an agenda, we will get that scheduled.
Johnson: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Johnson: That's all the comments I have on the Ten Mile feeder.
De Weerd: Okay. And we do not need that as a final plat discussion, do we or -- or,
Anna, do we? Do we or do we?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 26 of 90
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if the question is do you need to
know for sure if that lot will be a park -- city-owned park lot, I don't believe you do.
De Weerd: Okay. So, we can notice it separately just as an agenda item. So, if you
will work with the clerk's office on getting that done. Okay. Council, any further
questions? Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, the applicant asked if it was a requirement to fence it. I wasn't
able to look up everything I needed to in the short amount of time. I believe the way the
condition is written it just says you need to meet our requirements and you need to meet
North Meridian Irrigation District requirements. So, I think that gives us some flexibility
to work with the applicant. I'm not concerned with the way it's written. I think we are
okay and if the applicant's okay, then, be happy to work with them.
De Weerd: Okay. Does that work for you?
Johnson: If we are required to by code or Nampa-Meridian or Boise project requires us
to, we will be glad to put a wrought iron fence there.
De Weerd: Okay.
Johnson: If we do the pathway will not be usable as part of the walking path. It would
be fenced off from public access.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, I would need a motion on this item, Item 13.
Bird: Madam Mayor, can I ask a question of somebody? Does anybody recall requiring
fencing -- maybe, Mayor, do you remember? I don't remember ever having us require
fencing on a canal or something. This is a canal. It's not a drain ditch. We didn't on the
Ridenbaugh with -- which I wasn't involved in it or -- Charlie's probably the only one, but
they didn't require that. There is a lot of backyards that are fenced, don't get me wrong
there, but we didn't -- that wasn't one of the requirements of fencing it. What do you
think, Anna? I mean I know you and Ted were trying to find it, but--
Canning: Just offhand I think that part of the confusion is that when lots back up to it,
now we do require an open fencing if there are lots, so that there is some visibility on
that and I think that we were -- this was a last minute thing for us and we are really
trying to accommodate this, but I think we didn't have time to think through it quite
clearly, in all honesty. We were a little rushed. We know that sometimes North
Meridian Irrigation District wants it fenced. So, I think that the condition is trying to get
at the fact that the applicant needs to meet their requirements and our requirements,
too, but if we don't require one, we won't. I mean I like to see these left open as
features when at all possible. So, I think there was just the mind set of houses versus
an open space lot. So, we will work on it.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 27 of 90
Bird: Yeah. Because I don't -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. I don't recall us ever saying
you got to fence down this canal. Now, you know, we have required houses that
backed up, they have had fencing and stuff like that or complete subdivisions. But I
don't think we have ever said, you know, you got to go down the lane to Timbuktu ditch.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, the only instance I recall is down in the Calderwood area and the
neighbors had wanted the fence to go on the other side of the pathway and they wanted
it to be a solid fence.
Bird: Right. Because it was light there.
De Weerd: So -- but I think that was a condition of approval. I don't know if it was per
ordinance or per neighbor request. So, we can leave that at the staff level to work out
with the developer.
Bird: Yeah. Let's do that.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 13, FP 05-076, and to include staffs comments
and developer's commitment to meet all requirements for open canal both for the City of
Meridian and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: And that would include any fencing requirements to be discussed at the
staff level.
Wardle: And staff level approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion?
Rountree: I just didn't see Anna jump at that motion, so I guess the language is still all
right.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if it's -- if the wording I read to you
seems to address those specific concerns with a little more clarification -- but I think that
the staff report with the conditions of approval could be substituted for the -- in the
Findings you have, so that you could sign those Findings tonight or whenever it is you
sign those Findings. I think those will suffice for Finding. That was all. So, I think we
are okay.
Meridian City Council
February 7,2006
Page 28 of gO
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2006: CPA 05-004
Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text and
future land use map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the North
Meridian Area and to expand the area of city impact boundary:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 was continued from January 17th and Mr. Rountree is
reclusing himself. Recusing.
Rountree: I'm not reclusing myself, I'm --
De Weerd: You're reclusing -- you're reclusive. This item was continued to accept
additional testimony from ACHD, to allow response additionally to the ACHD comments
I will turn this over to staff.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm going to just start off with what I
would propose as a way to continue this Public Hearing tonight. You can certainly
comment on that and change if you'd like. But what I would propose is that I will hand it
over to Mr. Siddoway to go through the ACHD comments and respond to those, in that
the first hearing we -- staff presented a number outstanding issues. We have since
updated that. That list is before you. The first page is -- are ones that you had going
into the first Public Hearing, so those have not changed. What we did was add four
additional ones to kind of summarize the Public Hearing that you heard that night.
Many of them were kind of regarding groups of people testifying about the same thing.
So, that's why four of those come up before you tonight. And, then, we can -- you can
move forward from there. But I just wanted to point out to you that you do have that list
of -- you have the ACHD comments with Steve's response, which he will go through
shortly, but you also have a list of outstanding issues before you from the last Public
Hearing. And with that I will hand it over to Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. This item was
continued at the last hearing to allow ACHD time to review the proposed policies and
the circulation map and provide comments on it. Those comments were received and
you should have a copy of them. I have added my own notes to that. I will run through
them briefly. The first one suggests that instead of adding roadways to an arterial list in
the text, that we have been trying -- to keep it updated with the correct functional
classifications. They are recommended referencing the most up to date functional
classification map and we would agree with that and, in fact, proposed that at the last
hearing as one of the changes that staff does support. Similarly, the second item talks
about specific changes to the list of road projects and instead of making changes to the
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 29 of gO
table to try and keep the road projects list current in the Comp Plan, I would propose
that we simply delete the table and amend the text to reference the appropriate
documents. The next item talks about McMillan Road. McMillan Road is in the center
of the north Meridian area. It has been talked about for several years as a community
oriented transit boulevard. The discussion of such came up during the original north
Meridian area planning process when Mr. Wardle was bringing it through. ACHD
simply points out that the road is constrained to three lanes. It's not likely to become a
major arterial and that Ustick may be a more appropriate corridor for transit. I would
also point out that there are -- there are many commercial activities that have been
recently approved along McMillan. I think that the designation as a community oriented
boulevard should likely stand, but we could add the note that Ustick is also an
appropriate corridor for future transit. And I do know that in Valley Regional Transit's six
year funding plans, they do incorporate transit along Ustick. So, I think it is an important
note to say that we need to accommodate transit along Ustick, but given the direction
that -- and the discussions in the past with Council about McMillan, continuing the idea
of McMillan as a more community oriented boulevard may make some sense. The next
one talks about pedestrian safety and as currently written the policy would suggest that
-- that pedestrian crossings should be accommodated at the quarter mile and the half
mile locations. ACHD rightly points out that those pedestrian crossings need to only
occur where there is a signalized intersection, especially on an arterial, which are
typically five lanes. I would recommend that we change our policy statement to reflect
ACHD's comments on that matter. On the next page they get to the auto circulation
map specifically. They have two specific changes that they would request and as staff
we would support both of them. The first is that west of Black Cat Road there is a
collector stub that should be extended north to the north property line to the extent of
the area that we are proposing to take in as Meridian area of impact. So, this line
should be extended up as a preferred collector route. Similarly, on the east side of
Black Cat that one would also be extended north up to the north boundary of the
proposed area of impact. Staff is supportive of both of those additions. The next -- the
last two are raised more as questions. The first is a question to ask. On this collector
map there is no collector shown mid mile from Ustick north between Ten Mile and Black
Cat. And they ask if we believe one would be needed there. Staff does not believe one
would be needed there, because of the wastewater treatment plant that exists in that
area. The last one talks about the lack of collectors in the very southwest corner of the
proposed area of impact near Can Ada Road and Ustick. There is a short collector stub
in this area that could certainly be extended further into that section. The reason why it
was not continuous is because if you look on the land use map, this area is intended for
very low density and it was not anticipated that a full collector would be needed.
However, we could certainly extend that into the -- further into the area to provide
access to the future neighborhood center activities here. We could also show one from
the south down to Ustick that would stub in much like all the existing ones in this area
that would bring traffic down to Ustick in that area. Those -- that summarizes the issues
raised by the Ada County Highway District and our staff response to them. You do have
them there in writing and I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Steve?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 30 of 90
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Steve, on the -- north of Chinden between Linder and Ten Mile --
Siddoway: Yes.
Borton: -- is that a collector that you go to the area of impact boundary as well? You
reference the other two. Unless I'm looking at that wrong.
Siddoway: Right in here?
Borton: Yes.
Siddoway: Is this the location, Mr. Borton?
Borton: Yes.
Siddoway: There is already development in here. I believe that's -- is that Spur Wing?
Yeah. Spur Wing and Spur Wing golf course is already developed in that area and so
that one would not extend through that project.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. At this point we did keep the Public
Hearing open for the ACHD response and to also accept any public testimony that was
also in response to the ACHD document. Is that correct, Council?
Baird: Madam Mayor that was my recommendation. I do recall Councilmember Borton
was a little concerned about that restriction and so I think the way we left it was we
made it clear that everyone who had testified had been heard on the record and would
not need to repeat that testimony tonight. But I just -- I don't think that we specifically
limited it only to the ACHD report. Am I correct in that recollection?
Borton: That's what I thought.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, did you have additional comment?
Canning: I do have the motion here, if you'd like me to read it back. Mr. Wardle moved
that we continue the Public Hearing to February 7th and Mayor de Weerd said the
motion is to continue this to February 7th to receive the transportation related report.
Then, the motion was carried, so--
De Weerd: Certainly, Council, you can entertain public response to the ACHD report
and any new testimony would be entertained at that time as well. Sound good? Okay.
Is there any public who would like to offer testimony in regards to the ACHD comments
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 31 of gO
that the City of Meridian received? If so, please, come forward. Sir. And after this
comment, I will ask for any new testimony, if you were not able to testify during our last
Public Hearing. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Endicott: Madam Mayor, Councilmen. It's Herb Endicott. 1450 West Ustick, which is
the northeast corner of Linder and Ustick.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Endicott: The way the plan has been going, they have been putting a lot of commercial
buildings in the middle of the mile. I'm a retired electrician and most of the signals from
Overland to State Street I installed and if you will remember correctly, they were
installed on one mile increments, except at -- where the freeway was. When that was
first put in the traffic moved real well. There was, you know, signals at an hour -- at a
mile apart and the traffic moved real nice and, then, you started putting businesses in
and putting signals within a half mile or even closer than that when you get down to
Eagle where they go into Eagle there at the river and it really impedes the traffic flow.
It's nothing like it used to be. I would like to see the corners on one mile stations be
commercial instead of in the middle. I think it would be a lot safer for the students that's
going back and forth to school. That Sawtooth school is within a quarter of a mile of
Linder and Ustick. There is no sidewalk. The kids have to walk on the pavement or
right on the shoulder and there is no barrow pit when you get down to my property. The
shoulder has been widened for the kids. There is no barrow pit. The water runs into my
field and it -- cars pull over to the side, kids have to step off, they are up against a fence.
It's just not safe to do things the way they have started doing it. I'd like to see the
commercial use going to the corners and it would make it a lot easier to get in and out of
traffic. Where I live I have lived there for 33 years and in the past the kids could go out
and bicycle about anytime of the day, you could get out on the road. The last four or
five years I'm glad my kids are growed up, there is no way I would let them ride up and
down that road, except for maybe an hour or two in the middle of the day when there is
not much traffic as there is in the morning and the evening. It's just to the point now that
you cannot get out on the -- close. to those intersections. They are going to have to put
signal lights in. When you put -- a developer develops the corners and whatnot now,
the county has them put in money for a signal and that's a good thing. And we do need
signals on the one mile corners and that is where we ought to have all of our
commercial developments. Keep them out of the middle of the one mile stretches,
because, then, you end up putting more signal lights in impeding traffic. And we just
heard that they want to make Ustick a major traffic route. That's one of the things that
I'd like to see done. Thank you. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you. Any Council? Thank you. Okay. I do have a sign-up sheet
and if I call your name and you would like to provide testimony, if you will step forward
at that time. Sherry Ewing. You can come up anytime you want. Joan Frath. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 32 of 90
Frath: Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Joan Frath. F-r-a-t-h. And I
live at 631 Lawndale Drive, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Frath: But the property that I am speaking about is located at 1680 West Ustick Road,
Meridian. It's on the northwest corner of Ustick and Linder. The same area that the
previous gentleman, Mr. Endicott, was talking about. I'm the personal representative for
my dad's estate and his name was Warren Watson, Senior. In the last probably three
plus years since my dad has passed away, we have made numerous attempts to rent
the property. I have talked with many many people. They love the property. They want
to rent the house. But when they -- after they have looked at it and they are standing
around outside, they are very concerned about the traffic. It's too loud. There is too
much traffic. They don't want their kids out there. It's my understanding that we are
currently zoned transition slated to go residential in the Comprehensive Plan. I would
like to see that changed to commercial or commercial slash mixed use. If we don't
change that we are going to be in a position where we virtually are going to have a very
difficult time selling our property. It is currently for sale. However, nobody wants to
build residential on that road. Tonight I was on the property and going home at about a
quarter after 5:00, our driveway, as you pull out, you almost get killed every time.
People just run you down from that corner. And as I headed south back into town to my
home, I counted 32 cars lined up at 5:15, then -- and they were heading north at the
corner there at Ustick and Linder and there were at least as many on the other roads at
that intersection. It's just my opinion that that -- based on the amount of traffic and
based on the fact that nobody wants to live directly on that corner or any corner, for that
matter, then, the use for that should be commercial or commercial and mixed use. Any
questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Frath: You're welcome.
De Weerd: Okay. Wanda Butler.
Butler: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Butler: My name is Wanda Butler. I live at 526 West Blaine Avenue in Nampa. But I
am here speaking as my sister did on my dad's property at 1680 West Ustick and I can
tell you right now I moved up from Houston -- that corner frightens me. I cannot get out
of there. Fortunately, my dad built a nice wide driveway and I have become very adept
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 33 of gO
at turning around, so I can drive out of that driveway, rather than trying to back out. It is
absolutely the most unsafe thing I have ever seen. And I would request that you
seriously consider, as Mr. Endicott requested and as Joan requested, that those corners
become commercial -- commerCial slash mixed use. It just makes more sense for
safety and viability along that corridor. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. There is a Hugh Endicott or Elliott or -- okay. Herb. David
Cadwell.
Cadwell: David Cadwell. My address is 1412 East Lewis in Boise. I'm working with Mr.
Endicott. I'm the developer working with him on his property. Bruce Poe spoke a
couple weeks ago with regards to the development that we are looking to do out there.
The one thing that really attracted us to that site initially was just how connected it was
to the Treasure Valley and, then, hearing the comments about how Ustick is planning to
be a main arterial, it makes it even better. But I mean if you look at Ustick, how that ties
into, really, the central part of Boise through north Meridian on out to Nampa-Caldwell
and just how well it connects those areas, in addition to Linder and how that's the next
bridge crossing, obviously, west of Eagle, that can take you into Eagle, Star, Middleton,
and those areas.
De Weerd: I guess it depends on if Ustick in Boise is three lanes or five lanes.
Cadwell: Well -- and if it is five lanes, it definitely would be a lot better, yeah. Anyway,
what we were looking at doing is some service oriented office type uses, with a retail
component out front. On all cases it really would be geared towards the user, like the
office user who wants to service the Treasure Valley as a whole. You know, like real
estate offices, title companies, mortgage offices, those type of users that really need
that access, exposure, accessibility to the Treasure Valley. And, then, the retail
component is really some of the quick service type retail users. Like your take-and-
bake pizzas, your drycleaners, your take-out food for whatever reason, you know, you're
prepared meals that you can get on your way home when you're running late, and those
type of uses, which I think are pretty significantly different than the type of uses that will
end up in the neighborhood commercial down the street halfway -- about a half mile
east of us. It just seems like for a neighborhood commercial to be successful, it has to
be really geared towards the destination oriented type users, whether that's office or
retail. It really has to be a place that people want to go spend time and they want to go
to, they want to sit down, go to the restaurants. After the restaurant, walk up to the
coffee store, the coffee store or the ice cream store or, you know, any variety there, but
it's not something that you try to stop quickly on your way home. So, I think we are
really gearing ourself towards a different tenant mix and different synergies than what's
provided -- or could potentially be provided in the neighborhood center. Questions?
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
Cadwell: Thanks.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 34 of 90
De Weerd: Ty Sindon.
Sindon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm a neighbor with the Endicotts.
De Weerd: If you will also, please, state your name and address.
Sindon: Oh, yeah. I'm Ty Sindon and I'm at 1515 West Ustick Road and that's the
southeast corner of the intersection they are talking about.
De Weer<:J: Thank you.
Sindon: Okay. I agree with everything that they are saying, that the traffic along that
corridor, if you want to call it that, Ustick Road is just terrible. They say it backs up 30
some cars. It backs up -- it backs up a mile -- it backs up a mile to -- if you're on Linder
-- I mean if you're on Ustick at that intersection, it backs up to Meridian Road and
further. So, that's more than 33 cars. I mean that sucker flat backs up. And it backs up
the other way. And so we are sitting in our driveway and like my grandson says: Oh,
no. Traffic. But -- so, you know, I think commercial probably would be a good idea on
those comers because of the traffic. I can't -- I have a hard time seeing anybody living
residential right -- right on those corners. But I'm not a planner. I thought I was a
planner. Everyday I wake up and I say should I try to sell my property residential or
should I try to sell my property commercial? And I'm just tired of that. You know, every
day I'm just going -- I'm looking in the mirror. I'm not a planner. I retired -- I'm an
aviation planner, but I'm not this kind of a planner. And this is a more dynamic process
and I appreciate everybody that's involved in this, because this is a really dynamic
process and it's something that I was pretty naive about. So, I support the -- some
commercial on the -- and support my neighbors on that intersection. One kicker is that
I'm just a few dollars away from accepting an offer from a developer who is residential
and there is a developer that's developing -- or is going to develop -- where is that
intersection?
Baird: Use the mike, sir.
Sindon: Right here?
Baird: Use the mike.
Sindon: They make me nervous.
De Weerd: You can pull it out of the stand.
Baird: Like a rock star.
Sindon: Get down. Okay. This developer -- this is my property right there. Southeast
corner. The Kelloggs three properties to the east of that. Two of those brothers have
signed offers. The third one is in the process. And I'm the ten acres on the corner,
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 35 of 90
about to accept an offer from a developer and he's a residential developer. So, I don't
know what that does. But that is an extremely extremely busy intersection. Have you
all been there about 5:00 o'clock?
De Weerd: I would s.ay depending on what time and how much time you have to sit
through that four way stop, depends on how long the cars seem to sit there. So, if
you're in a hurry, the cars are two miles long.
Sindon: Okay. That's all I have.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Chris Penland. Do you also live on that corner?
Penland: I don't.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Penland: But I am speaking to it.
De Weerd: Thank you. You need to wait and talk into the microphone. I'm sure glad
we made this transportation related testimony.
Penland: My name is Chris Penland and my address is 250 South 5th Street, Boise,
Idaho. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm here in support of converting 1450
West Ustick to mixed use community. Last year the City of Meridian requested
Thornton, Oliver, Keller, commercial real estate, to conduct a market study of the
existing and planned retail space in Meridian. To assess the market we analyzed the
retail expenditures in Meridian, which is the household spending, divided by retail
square footage. Now, higher retail expenditures indicate a lack of retail supply. The
result of our analysis highlighted a significant market discrepancy in Meridian. Total
expenditures was 680 dollars per square foot or 131 percent above the average in the
Treasure Valley. This indicates there is insufficient retail supply to service the existing
population of Meridian. More importantly, it explains that residents are spending their
money outside of the area. The typical retail tenant is 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. And
here in the survey, acquire availability in the north Meridian area of 1,200 to 2,000
square feet. You have the same one in your packets and it's empty. There is no space
whatsoever for the average tenant. The result, this lack of supply is a function of
economics. There is a shortage of retail space and this shortage has pushed prices to
valley-wide highs at Ustick marketplace. While Starbucks and other national
corporations may be able to pay this, 90 plus percent of your local tenants cannot. In
the context of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, this site compliments the neighborhood
commercial to the east. Various commercial sites have different characteristics. It is
not like comparing apples to apples. This intersection is an inherently different site from
neighborhood commercial or the intersection at McMillan and Linder. For example,
there are four directions of traffic present and 40 percent more traffic than the planned
neighborhood commercial to the east. This allows tenants to require intersections that
has the increased traffic, exposure, and customer counts to locate in the north Meridian
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 36 of gO
area and service that population. This does not distract from the neighborhood
commercial, but, rather, compliments it and provides a convenience owing to location,
as opposed to the destination nature of neighborhood commercial. This City of
Meridian has generally slated high traffic intersections and every intersection along
Linder Road for commercial applications, except for Ustick and Linder Roads. This is a
viable commercial site with 63 percent more traffic and potential customers than
McMillan and Linder. Furthermore, it will have a higher lane count and signalization
prior to that intersection. From a practical standpoint, residential development may be
challenged here. Ustick and Linder Road has 76 percent of the traffic counts of
Highway 20-26 and Linder, 76 percent of the traffic of a high traffic, high speed corridor.
Placing any residential development directly adjacent to this type of activity may not be
in the best interest of the city. Lastly, allowing for commercial applications at this
intersection would be smart for growth and provides a buffer to congestion of traffic and
families. Thank you so much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weent Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing and those are the names that
were signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony at
this time? Okay. Mrs. Ewing? Okay. Mr. Turnbull.
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. It's
apparent that we are not talking just about transportation issues today; is that right?
De Weent It became very apparent, didn't it?
Turnbull: I didn't plan on saying anything --
De Weerd: But the Council opened the door, so --
Turnbull: Well, if you're going hear it -- I didn't plan to testify today, but there is some
things that have been said here that I think have some merit and some that, in my
opinion, probably need some further discussion. I wanted to point -- could you zoom
back in on that last slide, Anna? Anna would probably kill me, but I happen to agree in
part that this is inappropriate for residential development here. If you take a look at this
little corner down here and see that little -- whatever it was, five acre parcel that has a
cul-de-sac with an access road that's too close to the arterial, it doesn't work very well.
And this was done a number of years ago. It's not what you want to see on those
corners. However, just throwing up more commercial zoning without some kind of --
well, let's just say style on every corner through here I don't think is what the city is
going to want to have either and I, actually, discussed this with Anna just a week or so
ago about maybe these are areas that are ripe for the TN-C zone. If you're going to
allow those corners to be -- to go to some kind of commercial, then, maybe they ought
to be held to some kind of a standard that would be architecturally and other respects
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 37 of 90
an amenity to the city. So, while I agree that those are inappropriate for single family
residential development, I think that they maybe need to be stepped up and not just
more toad stool offices just placed on every corner, because you're going to have a glut
of those and I think that it's an opportunity to let those corners ripen and provide some
real unique and mixed use development -- mixed use residential development in those
areas. That's unsolicited testimony, but I think that the one fear that I have for Meridian
city is that as it grows, that the growth be done right, that it be done appropriately, that
it's something that's attractive, that, you know, Meridian city doesn't have a design
review process and heaven knows we don't want to add a lot of bureaucracy to the city
processes, but there needs to be some mechanism and maybe it's the TN-C zoning that
provides those kind of standards that will give Meridian city the kind of commercial
development at those corners that it would desire. Any questions I would be happy to
answer.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: On this particular intersection is a TN-C option practical, in light of the fact that
this is already residential or --
Turnbull: On this corner?
Borton: Yeah. The one that we have been talking about.
Turnbull: Well, right now you have just got a designation at that corner. There is
nothing that actually exists there right now. That's just designated for residential. I don't
know what's the designation on this corner right here. Residential. I know that Anna is
pretty specific about wanting to maintain the viability of that neighborhood center there
and I think that that's a valid concern that you need to address, but I don't think what
you want to see is something like this little cul-de-sac right here being replicated on this
corner up here. So, it's going to have to be some kind of combination of commercial
and high density residential in my view that you could probably do within the new TN-C
zone; is that correct, Anna? No? You can do both in the TN-C; right?
Canning: Yes, you can, but it wouldn't -- you mean if it were changed to a mixed use
designation?
Turnbull: Well, yes.
Canning: Yeah.
Turnbull: There is a minimum of six acres to a TN-C zone, I believe. Is that right?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 38 of gO
Canning: Yes. It's six. But if you did all the corners it's -- it's your hearing. I didn't want
to get into a back and forth.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: That northwest corner, we have approved some -- some residential in there, in the
northwest. In fact, there was a boundary -- that was the one that had the fence on the
wrong boundary or something.
Canning: Yes, sir. I believe you're seeing it here. The actual corners have not come in
yet. It was this -- this project and this property line are the ones that were in question.
Bird: Yeah. Okay.
Canning: But one of the gentlemen did testify -- we have seen a pre-app on these two.
They are trying to acquire this third. We have also seen pre-application conferences on
this property, on this property -- in all likelihood if a developer were to be interested in
this area, they would be looking to develop both of these properties and that's typically
what we see. We are not seeing many of these five acre ones. They are not -- they
don't seem to pencil out for the developer. So, they are combining parcels and coming
in with a larger package. So, I don't think that the five acre development is a real
concern.
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, I would like to add a couple of other things. I think it was
Chris Penland from Thornton, Oliver, Keller mentioned the lack of services in this area.
Lack of services will -- or the services will follow roof tops. If you go north to McMillan
Road there are corners up there that are already zoned commercial. They haven't been
built yet, because we haven't reached that critical mass yet to warrant the retail
services. I think it was mentioned that this intersection would be signalized, the Ustick -
- where did you go? Right there. That this intersection would be signalized first. I,
actually, just was in a meeting with ACHD, Frank Varriale and the other two property
owners on the other two corners on the McMillan-linder intersection. We are actually
entering into an agreement with ACHD at this time that would improve that intersection
and signalize it probably within the next year. So, that one's going to move forward.
We are also in discussions with ACHD about McMillan and Meridian Road, working with
the school district to signalize that intersection and widen it to the ultimate intersection
design and, then, I know Frank Varriale down on Ten Mile and McMillan is talking with
ACHD about the same thing. I think that's the critical part of -- the critical first step in
this north Meridian area plan is to get those intersections widened and signalized. I
happened to be going to a basketball game at Sawtooth Middle School today, my son
was playing basketball, I made the mistake of -- instead of going down Chinden and,
then, going south on Linder, I went down Eagle and took a westward route on Ustick
and it was backed up a half a mile at the Meridian Road intersection. The Linder Road
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 39 of 90
intersection just had a few cars backed up, but Meridian Road was about a half mile
backup.
De Weerd: You must have been running late.
Turnbull: I missed the first quarter.
De Weerd: And it just seemed longer.
Turnbull: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, can I make a couple comments on
particularly the Thornton, Oliver, Keller study that was done? We did have a study done
to see how much nonresidential land use would be appropriate and Thornton, Oliver,
Keller did do that assessment for us. Would like to point out that we have provided
twice as much commercial designation as that study found appropriate. So, this would
be additional commercial designation, twice beyond what they felt was appropriate. We
felt that the numbers that came back were low for the area. So, we did put quite a bit
more mixed use and commercial designations in the north area. There was also a
statement made that every other arterial intersection had commercial on it and that's not
true. You can see from the larger map that there are arterial sections that are fully
residential and -- or half residential in some cases. And, again, I -- we are trying to
make a go of that neighborhood center. We have been working to get Venable Lane
established as a strong collector. We have been diligently arguing for a denser
development at the center of that section, so we can support that commercial
development. And you have approved those plans already and we are committed to
that. The uses that were proposed for that corner are exactly what we would like to see
within that neighborhood center. A pizza place where you can take it home, you know,
all those kinds of neighborhood serving commercial uses is what we would like to see
there. So, I'll make my pitch for my last mid mile neighborhood center. It's about the
only one we have got. We are really trying to make it work. We moved at the urging of
individuals like Mr. Turnbull, we have moved almost all of the other commercial corners
to the arterial intersections, instead of the half mile, but we are trying to make a go of
this neighborhood center and if we pull it all toward the arterials, it probably won't ever
work.
De Weerd: Anna, I guess I would have a question in regards to -- as we talk, the
neighborhood centers and retail, Ido know that you did work on what is the appropriate
level of retail, but as we also look to balance the dispersement of our traffic and the
patterns, where do you foresee employment centers, that employment bases would be
attracting to -- I guess help traffic not always just flow to one area of the valley, that you
can see a better balance in employment centers. Do you see any employment center
opportunities in north Meridian?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 40 of gO
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know that that was -- I don't
recall that that was ever discussed in depth. There are some fairly large office places
that could accommodate it. You see there in Paramount. There is a large mixed use
designation here. Also on the other side of McDermott Road. Depending on the type of
employment base, the wastewater treatment plant would still be a viable area for that
And, then, most of this seems to -- on Chinden, because of the narrow depth, though,
does seem to be going more retail oriented, although this large property is mixed, could
perhaps support some additional employment base.
De Weenj; And I guess as we look at public transit corridors and those kind of
considerations, I guess those are the kind of considerations I believe we need to take
into account, too, and helping capture trips, so they are not all going to one particular
area of the valley.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Steve, can I lob a question your way? Some of the remarks by Mr. CadweH
and the citizens here seem to ring true with regard to the traffic issue. Taking the
neighborhood center concept away, do you have an idea of just the impact on traffic
with mixed use commercial on this corner that we have talked about versus residential?
I mean it's horribly backed up now. Do you see the neighborhood center at the mid mile
alleviating that or this commercial -- mixed commercial alleviating that or what are your
thoughts?
Siddoway: First of all, the statements that were made about the traffic backing up along
Ustick are true. I travel that way every day and we do have a very strong need for
signalized intersections in that area to help that traffic flow. In this new five year work
program that ACHD just adopted two, three weeks ago, it does include plans to
signalize Linder-Ustick and Meridian-Ustick and we are happy to hear that there are
developer initiated advance construction projects on the intersections along McMillan as
well. That said, as a commercial generator at that -- if you put commercial property at
that intersection, it would be an attractor of trips. Houses are typically the -- looked as
the generator of -- the producer of trips and the retail as attractors and they move back
and forth. I don't know specifically a traffic count number to throw at you if that area
were to go commercial versus residential. The concept of keeping the commercial from
the arterial intersections and moving them to the half mile would be that they are still at
an intersection here, it's an intersection of an arterial and a collector. By placing them in
the mid mile, they are more able to serve all the surrounding residential uses without
having to cross the large arterials to get to the various -- the other side of the
businesses that might been there. It's also adjacent to the city's largest park, Settler's
Park, I believe 56 acres, and could see some benefit there to have services adjacent to
the park and the games and things that will be going on there. So, by keeping the
turning movements for commercial activities away from the arterial-arterial intersections
and locating them on the half mile, it should help those arterial-arterial intersections
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 41 of 90
move traffic more efficiently, nonetheless, because of the high traffic counts that that's
why you have the pressure to develop them commercially. So, I don't know if that fully
answered your question. That was my attempt to do so.
Borton: No, it -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borton: It does, you know, but, then, you hear the remarks and discussion of Ustick
being a major thoroughfare and it sounds as though regardless of what happens on the
corner or the neighborhood center Ustick's going to be packed, quite frankly.
Siddoway: That's a fair statement. You still will experience high traffic volumes
regardless of whether the commercial activity is here or here. You will still have high
traffic volumes along Ustick. It's more a question to me of how well it serves the
surrounding neighborhoods.
De Weerd: And right now you have traffic backed up, because you have a four way
stop sign.
Siddoway: Correct.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weare!: Yes.
Wardle: Just a follow up on that -- on that comment. We heard testimony from Mr.
Turnbull that a developer-initiated signalization is happening just north of here. Steve,
as our transportation planner, in your experience in the city, have we seen more
intersection signalizations funded by commercial developers or have we seen more
funded by residential developers in partnership with --
Siddoway: I think we have more funded by ACHD. But I don't know if -- commercial?
Commercial developers would outnumber the residential developers for funding signal
projects.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: I think it all depends. Frank Varriale and Buse are largely residential and
they are putting those improvements in as they promised, as they developed
Bridgetower Subdivision. So, in north Meridian it's a pretty large balance. Mr. Turnbull
also is a residential developer that has some commercial, but in the north Meridian area
the people that we see that are stepping up to the plate to fund these on the larger part
are residential developers. Is there any additional public testimony? Sir, if you will,
please, state your name and address.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 42 of 90
Watson: Yes. My name is Warren Watson, Junior. I am part of the -- my sisters and I,
the property on 1680 Ustick Road. I did want to point out one thing or a couple of
things, if I might. It looks like what we are trying to create on Ustick Road is, basically, a
Cherry Lane again, with the middle of the mile service station and office buildings and
that's fine, but you got to realize that the traffic -- not everybody lives there where that
service station is now or is going up. The car wash and the service station. And
businesses there. So, you're going to have traffic that's from the west converge on that
one single service station, that one -- whatever it is on this corner, whatever it is on that
corner there at Venable Lane. And you have more traffic than you need right there.
And if you look at Cherry Lane, you, indeed, do have the service station in the middle of
the mile and you have one on the corner, which, actually, has more traffic at the
Maverick, not treating one over the other, than the service station in the middle of the
mile. It serves that subdivision very well. And probably people going west. But nobody
is going to go east and turn across traffic. So, it really only makes sense for the corners
to also be commercial and adopt a plan where the buildings aren't just haphazard, there
is some type of architectural quality to them. But I think you can have commercial there
and you can have commercial in the middle, just like you do on Cherry Lane. That's alii
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Watson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. The north Meridian plan is much more than just Ustick and Linder,
but is there any additional testimony that the public would like to offer at this point?
Okay. Council, do you have any further questions or information needed from staff at
thìs tine?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a point of clarification from counsel -- or from the attorney's office. Mr.
Baird, as I remember, as we began this hearing I believe you mentioned that we wanted
to accept all public testimony, acknowledge all written testimony, and, then, leave the
hearing open for deliberations. Is that your preference?
Baird: I believe that's what I said. I think Mrs. Canning has a particular plan outline to
deal with the outstanding issues. Did you want to maybe present that at this time?
Canning: You do have a list before you tonight. There is about 20 outstanding issues.
Would you like to go through them one by one? Would you like for me to recap those
issues? I am open to suggestions from the Council as to how they would like to
proceed.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 43 of 90
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Council, my preference would be that we go through each of these issues one
by one, come to some sort of an agreement or disagreement therein of what we would
like to see and at the end of our discussion come with a final plan that the staff can,
then, put into writing that will be adoptable and reviewable by the Council. Does that
sound like a fair plan for this evening or --
Bird: Fine with me.
De Weerd: Sounds good to me.
Wardle: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, we will go through them one at a time.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the first issue is with regard to the
north -- the southeast corner of McDeffilott and Chinden. As you will recall, staff gave
an update on the issues regarding the extension of the mixed use interchange
designation just right here at the corner, to come over and to meet with that low density
residential designation and I believe it's Peregrine Subdivision and you heard quite a bit
of testimony that way from the property owners and also from Peregrine wanting some
sort of buffer. There is a -- there is testimony about a buffer being required as
development occurs and whether that would be sufficient, so that was the first issue.
De Weerd: Any questions on that? Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I don't have any specific questions. I think what we are looking
for is to Anna go for some sort of a consensus and, then, move to item two? Is that
fair?
Canning: Yes.
Wardle: Okay. So, I will start with my personal opinion. After hearing testimony from
the neighbors -- the residential neighbors and from the developer or property owners, I
should say, I heard the willingness for both parties to work together to create a buffer
and so I would be in favor of extending that -- that mixed use zoning and incorporate
testimony from both sides to work together.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: I agree.
Bird: I have no problem with it.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 44 of 90
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Moving on to number two. The second issue was the future planning for the
State Highway 16 corridor. The Planning and Zoning Commission motion to the City
Council included the following statement: The City of Meridian supports a collaborative
public-private partnership with property owners, the Idaho Transportation Department,
Ada County, Canyon County, and other affected parties, to identify preferred alignment
for the future State Highway 16 extension. Staff just asked that City Council provide
some policy guidance, in particular who would be assuming the lead role. Would we be
participating with ITD as the lead or would Council like to see city staff provide the lead?
So, just some -- some more information from Council, so that we can flush out that
policy statement for future work.
De Weent Anna, could you tell us what the recommendation of ITD is?
Canning: We have not received a recommendation from ITD, although I believe they
have started to -- maybe Steve can help me out. Have they started work on that,
identify that corridor? Yeah.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did -- at the same time that I
contacted ACHD to submit comments for this hearing, I also contacted ITD, both by
phone and bye-mail. They did not submit formal comments for me to respond on how
you would feel about that. What I can say is that the State Highway 16 corridor
planning is in the state transportation improvement program. It's intended to start
design work as early as this year, but it's contingent on the GARVEE funding being
approved by the legislature. So, right now it's on hold, there is no specific activity going
on right now. It is on their screen as a project. They want to move into design for, but
it's pending the GARVEE legislation.
De Weent And through the Communities in Motion process, the preference has been
to preserve that corridor to the extent possible, so that adequate planning and
appropriate considerations can be made.
Siddoway: Yes.
De Weerd: Council, questions? Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I think staffs looking for some direction as to what role the city
should take in that. Certainly I agree that Highway 16, if supported, obviously, by the
Idaho Transportation Department, makes the most sense for that transportation
corridor. I guess from a staffing objective I would like -- because the project will be
funded I would assume in the majority by the transportation department, either through
GARVEE or another entity that once that decision and once those -- those decisions by
that board have been set, that, then, we as a community can take a more aggressive
role. But I really do think that we need the decision to come from the highway district in
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 45 of gO
regards to timing and certainly have a position on the staff level to maintain -- or to
monitor that activity.
De Weerd: I guess Steve or Anna, what kind of specifics do you need? Is it that the
City of Meridian would like to -- you're looking at level of partnership in terms preserving
the necessary right of way for the transportation corridor, as well as for the anticipated
interchange designated or anticipated Interchange areas.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think all we would like is just
clarification on whether this is a priority for the Mayor and Council, for us to take the
lead on this project. If I attempt -- or I anticipate that ITD will be coming forward with a
project that we will certainly be involved in. It's just a question of is this a -- do we need
to incorporate this into a strategic plan to follow up with city being the lead and -- I just
wanted to get it clarified, because -- because of the way it started, it kind of -- there was
some expectations, perhaps, on the folks that were there, that the city would shortly be
knocking on doors and trying to organize this study. So, as staff we need a little
clarification from Mayor and Council on what you envision.
De Ween:.l: That we would take the lead?
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: From my perspective you can't -- I don't think we can take the lead. I don't
think that's really an option in this case. I think that a policy on the Highway 16 corridor
and its preservation, the city should support it -- absolutely support it. And I guess for
guidance to staff, not necessarily to take the lead, I like one of the remarks you put in
there about through that process that ITD, the state, the GARVEE issues would lead.
The staff maintains that interest in advocacy role for those citizens within the area of
impact and how this new corridor is going to impact them. I think that's a better position
for the staff to be in and to be mindful of. Those citizen concerns will top the list as this
thing goes forward. That would be my perspective of the policy and direction for staff on
that.
De Weerd: So, that would be to designate this as a priority corridor and a preferred
alignment for the City of Meridian to Highway 16 and to be a partner -- play an assisting
role in the study of that corridor, but to take the lead in a transportation-related project --
state project seems awkward at best.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 46 of 90
Wardle: I certainly don't think that the City of Meridian has the funds to take the lead on
this particular project, so I suggest we assist in every way possible.
Canning: Okay. I think you have consensus on that item and I can move onto the next
one. The next one was the land uses near the future State Highway 16 Ustick
interchange. It was this little interchange, mixed use designation. It was suggested by I
believe Trisha Nelson from Compass that we overlay an interchange -- a typical
interchange and see how it fits in there and we did and that does -- area does need to
probably be expanded about 500 feet north. So, if it kept its existing width, east-west
width, but" then, extend 500 feet north, right up to the subdivision, that would be an
appropriate area to accommodate the future interchanges and some development near
them.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any comment? Okay.
Wardle: I agree with that.
Canning: Okay. Item No.4. This is perhaps a bit awkwardly worded. It's just -- we
assume that Council will want to keep in the commitment that says that we are -- or the
policies that say we are committed to regional planning and cooperation, I guess there
was some question at the time, because of city of Eagle and their expanded area of
impact boundary and also for discussions with Kuna. This was included by Mr.
Hawkins-Ctark, so it's been part of the staff report for awhile and -- but I would assume
that the åty would still want -- City Council would want to support regional cooperation
and planlling. Unless I hear otherwise, I will -- I got one nod of the head.
Wardle: I agree.
De Weent Anna, I guess for the record, too, it was reached through mutual discussion
with staff and the two respective mayors, supported by their council, that designated the
area nor1h of Chinden and west of Linder, with the exception -- with the exception of
Almaden Subdivision, that that area to the bluff would be included in Meridian's area of
impact and so with that in mind, I think that's been our understanding, with the exception
of what this Committee of Nine did, but that's the way we believe we are moving
forward. Council, any -- does that represent your thoughts as well? Mr. Borton was the
only one who wasn't here during that time and he nods and the other two don't do
anything. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Borton. I appreciate that. Okay. Hearing no
disagreement, let's move forward.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next item was a letter from
Patricia Nelson at Compass. We did go through that in detail. There was a few of them
that we considered further. One of them was the mixed use interchange that I just went
through a moment ago and I believe Steve covers them in -- later in the outstanding
issues from staff and he's double-checking on that. So, I think we can skip this one for
now. Okay. Other outstanding issues from public comments. Area north of the Phyllis
Canal. You do have three letters in your packets of two individuals which wish to be
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 47 of gO
included in the area of city impact and that's Peggy Everest and Sherry Ewing. And one
that does not and that's Orm. So, I wanted to point out that those are in there. It -- the
legally noticed area of city impact change just does reflect the colored boundaries to the
north as you see them now. I think I can move on. It was just an -- it's an issue, but
perhaps it's an outstanding issue for a further application or further discussion, but at
this point in the game we can't amend the map to include them without going through
the entire process again. So, I would -- I would anticipate that we can move forward.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And just by future application, you're referring to discussions which may
happen between the City of Meridian and other cities to the north or certain applications
by the property owners -- I mean all of those factors could lead to an addition in the
future; correct?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Wardle: Okay.
De Weerd: And that would include city services.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next one is the area west of
McDermott. We did receive a letter from Wendell Bigham requesting additional school
sites be noted on the future land use map. Right now we only have one school site
noted. He has requested three new elementary schools, so it would be an elementary
school in every section, which is, basically, his development pattern for the north
Meridian area. And, then, he's also requested one middle school and one high school
for the area. Staff has a few concerns in that this isn't exactly like all the other sections.
We do have a large portion of it designated for very low density residential and it
explains also that the step up provision doesn't apply in that area. So, it would remain
very low density residential. So, we do have questions about the need for both a middle
school and high school in those four sections.
De Weerd: Anna, I don't know, have you also discussed with Wendell the idea of doing
that on the north side of Chinden with the middle schools and high schools, so Star --
which would be, essentially, in Star's area of impact, that would serve more the north
side?
Canning: I did not have an opportunity to talk with him about that. But, yes, those -- a
middle school and a high school would be drawing from more than four sections of area,
so it would be attracting people from the Star area and it may, indeed, be more
appropriate for Star to have its own high school, rather than a third Meridian High
School. Or fourth. Or fifth. I forget what we are up to, so --
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 48 of gO
De Weerd: And I guess that's what would be a consideration is it's always important to
have a community that relates to their high schools, that on the north side it would be
more associated with Star. It would serve that area, but it was just an item to throw out
there for your consideration.
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the schools are very floating in
nature, as described by the Comprehensive Plan. If we were to put a school
designation in each section, you could assume that -- and if Mr. Bigham really feels he
needs both a middle school and a high school somewhere and, then, maybe that's what
that school represents through his testimony and participation in the public review
process. But if we at least designate a school in each section, that certainly gets him
involved.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Given that we have received comment from the school district on this particular
application and we have been asking the school district to communicate their needs to
us and your mention that, really, this is a concept plan, I think that we should
incorporate these. If the school district feels that they need that at build out, we should
at least plan for it today and potentially revise that at the school district level in the
future.
Canning: Okay. Okay. Moving on to item number eight. This was with regard to the
sewer treatment plant area. Although the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked
to consider a change to the boundary of the mixed use wastewater treatment plant
designation boundary, they did choose not to. You have received written testimony
from Brent Rasmussen and you received some verbal testimony at your last hearing
regarding changing an area just -- see how steady I can hold this. You will see that
Drawbridge Subdivision is the green residential properties, so the request is to change
some of the mixed use wastewater treatment plant to - it was to -- actually, to mixed
use residential or commercial, although they wanted mixed use community, although
they did want to do low density residential with some commercial opportunities along
Ten Mile Road. I think we have discussed this before. We did do the noise and odor
study and they do fall pretty much within the bounds of our sewer treatment -- or mixed
use area. Staff would recommend staying with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation.
De Weerd: Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 49 of gO
Wardle: Anna, you have got some commercial across the street; is that correct? Is that
the purple section?
Canning: There was some approved in Bridgetower. The commercial was not the
problem, sir. The commercial is currently allowed in that designation. It's the residential
that's not allowed. They are asking for a residential use, which we don't allow in the
mixed -- in the wastewater treatment plant designation.
Wardle: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess 1'm fine leaving it as is currently. One of the things that
I will say -- and, you know, we have done a number of studies. If we are going to see
some development in that area -- I know we are expanding the sewer plant currently,
but we need to look a little closer at what really will fit within that, so that when we have
applications come through we can -- rather than simply deny most of them, unless they
are commercial, we can consider additional options based on some of the findings we
came -- or we had come out of the study that we have done, so --
De Weerd: What does that mean?
Wardle: Well, that means leave it as it is, but, you know, it's still a big area on the map
that we really don't have a handle on what we are going to do with it and we got to get
there at some point for the property owners that live there and those -- and the residents
that are around that. My opinion is we need to come to a little better than we have
today.
De Weerd: Well, this says we need it.
Canning: Is that a consensus on that item? I'm sorry, I wasn't looking for nods.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Canning: Okay. The northwest corner of Chinden and Linder -- right there. There was
a letter of concern from a property owner north of the mixed use area. You also have a
letter regarding the southeast corner. They appear to be in support of the proposal in
the southeast and, then, one of the neighbors to the north was concerned with the
mixed use designation at that corner property. Would you like me to zoom in on that
one? If you ever want me to, just let me know, so -- yeah?
De Weerd: Yeah. You're making it clearer, Anna.
Canning: Look at that. I found it after all. So, the mixed use designation is this kind of
long piece along the Chinden property and, then, you do have some one acre lots to the
north of there. Would like to say that you do have an application in the process that --
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 50 of gO
it's, again, one of those buffer questions, similar to the Peregrine and integrating the
residential to commercial.
De Weerd: Now, Anna, that mixed use, though, would allow transitioning from the
larger lot subdivisions into a retail or a commercial type of use?
Canning: In this case, because of the shape of the property, about all it allows for is a
road as a buffer, with some landscaping.
De Weerd: Council? If you don't have an issue, then, we just move on.
Canning: Shall we leave it as is?
Bird: Yeah. Let's move on.
Canning: Okay. The next is the northeast corner of Ustick and Linder. I think yollre
well aware of that one.
De Weerd: Now, where is that?
Canning: I guess I've made my pitch several times, but the only thing I would add is
that this was not brought up at the Planning and Zoning Commission and a lot of the
testimony you heard tonight said that all the corners should go that way, but, yet, there
is only one - really, one property that's being considered for that designation. It may be
more appropriate as a future Comprehensive Plan amendment, rather than this
opportunity, since -- since it wasn't part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation and that doesn't mean things can't change, but -- I guess I feel some
commitment that the -- to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they should haw
had some say on this, since it wasn't that someone is asking you to do something 1hat
the Planning Commission didn't want to do, in this case it wasn't raised at the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is nothing --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On this one corner I have problems dumping residential out that close to the
corner. I think there is something better than residential. Mixed use or commerciaJ I
would entertain more than just straight residential, because I think you're really asking
for traffic problems starting up with. Because you know the first thing that's going to
come in here is an R-8 request and you know how many road trips that is.
De Weerd: Steve, do you have a collector type of recommendation that -- was there
any kind of recommendation as far as what -- if there is a collector system that would
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 51 of gO
best serve this, so that what Mr. Turnbull has pointed out, which we have all noted in
other applications, is something we don't want to see happen again. Certainly agree
with that. But we haven't been seeing that on the corners.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the collector system for this square
mile pretty much already exists. There is the Venable Lane collector that goes in
adjacent -- in the center of the neighborhood center as proposed and the school site
and into the Cedar Springs Subdivision. And Baldwin Park is on this side. There is also
a collector shown into Baldwin Park from Linder, a collector stub from the north and a
collector stub stubbed in from the -- from the east. The property at the northeast corner
does not directly abut one of those collector roads and would have similar access
issues in relation to the corner and the traffic there, regardless of whether that access
was being provided for residential or commercial access and commercial access could
potentially have even more trips coming through any access that was provided there.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, my take on this issue -- I'm going to agree with Councilman
Bird for a number of reasons. One of the strongest arguments in my mind that really
wasn't raised, but we do have a -- we are doing comprehensive planning and we are
looking a number of years out, but one of the reasons I think that we get elected to
these seats is to solve problems in any capacity that we can. In my experience, in
development applications that have come before the city to get a signalized intersection
and to get some sort of a partnership with the county highway district and to get that into
place beforehand, I think it makes good sense not -- only to -- to plan for it, but also to
zone that commercial and make better use of those -- in my opinion, the north part. So,
that's my opinion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would agree with most of what Mr. Bird said, most of what Mr. Wardle said.
But what's important with what Mr. Wardle just brought up was that opportunity for that
partnership with the mixed use commercial on that corner, in light of what that corner is
and is going to become in the coming years. I see the same concerns with residential
designation there. Mixed use commercial makes sense in light of what -- the comments
that we heard at the prior hearing and the comments provided today.
De Weerd: I guess, Council, I would ask that you also consider maybe on the northeast
corner as is being discussed, is the suggestion that Mr. Turnbull had made. I would
agree with Steve in whether that is commercial or residential, if you're just looking at the
one little lot, you're going to have a problem regardless of what use you put there. As
you saw on the McMillan and Ten Mile area, the kind of the loop system, it provided a
circulation and, I'll tell you what, my daughter walks in that area, too, so I have seen the
pedestrian traffic all up and down that -- that area, as well as the traffic and so it is a
Meridian City Council
February 7,2006
Page 52 of gO
concern, because there is a middle school there and there is foot traffic and those feet
are kids that don't always pay attention to where they are going or how their friends are
going. So, regardless of whether it's commercial or residential, there needs to be a
concern of where that traffic goes in and out and I guess ultimately I hear everyone kind
of saying the same thing, but all my comment is it doesn't matter what that's designated,
you're going to have concern about access in that area and how the traffic is going to
impact the kids that are walking in front of whether it's a business or whether it's the
back of a fence of a subdivision, it's going to be important where those cars are coming
out of whatever is there.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That's very true and I agree with you and I think the plan that was out at McMillan
and Ten Mile with the back load is very great. That's something that when the
application comes through we can see that it happens. Right now we are just asking for
a designation of what do you want on that corner, not where it comes in and out. And I
agree with you on that.
De Weerd: So, are you -- are you designating more than just the request for that one
piece of property?
Bird: I just said that corner. I would prefer it to be commercial. I didn't say where it
would come out on the -- in the middle of an intersection or where. That's something
that when the applications come in we can -- we can diwy up on that at that point and I
agree with you a hundred percent. Where they come in and out, it's got to be a major
concern of ours.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I want to follow up on something that
Anna mentioned briefly and that has to do with how this discussion is deviating from the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the ordinance, when you're
considering amendments to your Comprehensive Plan, it says that if what you pass
changes in a material way from what was recommended by the Commission, you have
to provide further notice and hearing. The reason for that is you have got people in the
room tonight who want to see one thing or are asking for one thing and the people who
were here before or who were at the Planning and Zoning Commission and heard that
recommendation, may not be aware of the changes being considered. So, I guess what
I'm going to ask is if you feel that this is -- that the changes being asked for this corner is
a material change from the -- from what the recommendation of the Planning
Commission -- and I think it is, you either need to re-notice this part or put it off for the
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 53 of 90
next six month cycle. I think what I'm saying is along the same line as what Anna was
saying. Does that make sense?
De Weerd: Does that make sense, Council?
Bird: It does to me.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Ted, is this -- is what we are going through right now the -- aren't we just merely
kind of getting a soft consensus of what all of our concerns and thoughts are, which is,
then, going to be compiled at a later date and at that point would that be a Public
Hearing that the final approval could be done that you're talking about?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, and Councilmember Borton, the way I
read this is that if your direction tonight would be to make a material change, that you
could set over the hearing and provide an additional notice. Now, I'm saying that while
I'm reading the ordinance here. I don't know if that's going to mess up anything that --
with what Anna has got going. I know we have got timelines or deadlines here and it
might make more sense, rather than to -- you know, what was anticipated is that a
consensus would be taken, we'd continue it to a date certain without having to go
through additional notice. I think it would just put it out further if we had to do some
more notice. So, it could be done, but it complicates things.
Borton: Would it put it out too far?
Baird: That we'd have to ask the planning director.
Canning: Right. It's -- there is -- you do have development applications that are making
their way through the process that are anticipating this -- approval of this
Comprehensive Plan amendment. But that -- I'm not sure it's too far. I would like to
take the opportunity to inform the folks, especially those that have invested in that
neighborhood center, believing that there wouldn't be commercial along that --
competing commercial along that street, so I think it would be an opportunity to at least
advise them of what -- the discussions that have been going on and --
De Weerd: But I guess Ted -- Mr. Baird, I guess what I hear from both you and Anna is
the suggestion if you think that a material change to the recommendation from Planning
and Zoning should be made, they have two choices. One, to go ahead and designate it,
go through the appropriate public noticing, or to make the notation of a desire to have it
changed and it can go through the next Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, which
is in June, as I understand it. But it would have to have an application for that specific
area.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 54 of gO
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would like to point out that this
property currently isn't annexable, so it's probably going to be some time before they
could develop -- that wait to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission isn't probably -
it won't slow them down, given that they currently don't have an annexation path.
De Weerd: It sounds like a path is on its way, though. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, what type of noticing requirement are we talking about?
Canning: Well, that's the interesting thing. When you're talking about this whole area.
because it's so large, the state code allows a different method of noticing. If the change
were just going to be in this area, we would probably want to notice similar to what we
do on a more defined Comprehensive Plan amendment, to notify all the property
owners viJlhin -- the adjoining property owners within 300 feet. But we would also have
to go back and also notify through public service announcements and additional ads in
the newspaper, things of that sort.
Baird: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, to add one specific to all that
general public service announcement, the publication in the paper has to be at least 15
days befure the hearing. So, in order to get the mailed notice, the newspaper notice.
the public service, you're probably looking at putting this out three to four weeks at least
to reset lie hearing, I think. Or as you did mention, Madam Mayor, the other option is
to recommend it for the next cycle.
Wardle: Midam Mayor?
De WeeR!: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Understanding that there are certain time pressures on this entire process, 15
days or three weeks doesn't seem unreasonable to me to -- to have this discussion.
We've had input. I think we have a -- some sort of a consensus and I -- to put that off
for an addJtional number of months and, then, go back to the cycle doesn't make a lot of
sense to me, but I could be persuaded.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I tend to agree. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me and although this is the
first amendment I'm involved in, it seems odd to make a designation a residential
knowing that we are just -- we don't really mean it in a sense. We are sort of delaying
what we really intend to do, because the statute requires a six month delay until the
summer to actually do what we intend to do now. So, I agree with Mr. Wardle that it
necessitates a little additional delay, inconvenience and expense to get it done right at
this time, I'd prefer to that do and have it set out for the three or four weeks necessary to
do the --
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 55 of 90
Bird: Fine with me.
De Weant Okay.
Canning: Okay. Moving on. And I guess there was a property owner on the southwest
corner that also wanted to be commercial, but because he was on the south side of the
line they couldn't even consider it at the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, the
whole residential may be transitional in nature at this point. Okay. Text regarding
arterial planning. I think Steve has already updated you on that and you have that in --
oh, I missed Champion Park. Okay. There is a -- we are missing a mixed use
designation adjoining Champion Park. Okay. As we go -- okay. Right in that location
just next to the Winston Moore project on the corner of Ustick and Eagle, there was two
parcels of land that were approved for nonresidential use and we just wanted to make
the Comprehensive Plan consistent with those nonresidential designations. So, we are
proposing a community mixed use designation on those properties. And that's, in
general, what we have done with the existing uses on the land use map, is to go ahead
and reflect where they are not residential. So, with a nod to do that are we okay?
Okay. Okay. Now, the text regarding arterial planning. I think we have addressed
those. but prior to the hearing and made those available on the web.
Siddoway. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Item 12 on your list there -- the text
regarding arterial planning in north Meridian. Right now it's inconsistent in the way it
addresses Eagle Road as the significant corridor that affects north Meridian. It was left
out of one section since, technically, it is out -- just outside of this north Meridian
planning area for most of its length, but certainly is a key consideration and it's effect on
the interaction between transportation and land use. So, this is simply suggesting
adding some language to reflect the importance of Eagle Road in this area. Agreed?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weent Mr. Bird.
Bird: Steve, what kind of language? Because we go back to another road that we
really don't have any jurisdiction over.
Siddoway: It's under the section called arterial planning in north Meridian. The other
two that are mentioned are US 20-26 and State Highway 16 future extension. It leaves
off Eagle Road and I just wanted to add it, because the other two are state highways as
well.
Bird: Oh. Okay. Clear.
Siddoway: The next item, 13, text regarding public transportation. This is simply a
suggestion -- a suggestion that the existing policy language that says transit stops
should be available at certain activity centers be changed to apply to all centers, not just
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 56 of 90
those along McMillan Road. Right now it specifically addresses McMillan Road as
having transit centers, but where ever we have these neighborhood centers designated
it should have the same policy.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Steve, is that -- is that consistent -- Communities in Motion or Blueprint for
Good Growth, that concept?
Siddoway: It is the -- the ideal transit scenario in Communities in Motion would include
a future transit on all of these arterials in north Meridian.
Borton: Okay.
Siddoway: Item No. 14, if we are ready to move on, I'm assuming silence means
agreement. Item No. 14, ACHD comments, we started off by going through those, so
the recommendation here would be to accept ACHD's comments as -- with the -- as
noted with staff comments and you have copies of those in front of you and we went
over them in detail at the beginning of this hearing. The only issue in that whole thing
that you may want to provide some additional weighing in on is that collector down in
that southwest corner, whether you think it should be continuous all the way down to
Ustick Road. This one right here. Or whether we just extend it into the area a little
farther, given its low density residential designation. My recommendation would be to
extend this slightly in farther towards the center of that section and to bring a stub in
part way -- I don't know that it has to be a continuous collector design. If you look at all
of our existing built out areas at even higher densities, those mid mile collectors that go
part way into the section seem to suffice.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would agree with Mr. Siddoway's recommendation.
De Weerd: Okay. And there is no other item on the -- the staff comments in response
to ACHD's -- the two page letter from Steve. Okay.
Siddoway: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Siddoway: Number 15. We covered that with the ACHD comments. This is things like
dropping the table of road projects from the Comp Plan itself and simply changing the
text to reference the appropriate documents and we would recommend doing so.
Meridian City Coundl
February 7, 2006
Page 57 of 90
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, item number 16 was with regard
to just -- there are a number of specific policies that read very much like standards in
the ordinance and we just -- or in the plan and we just wanted to make it clear we
wanted to get back with you -- it must be getting late. I seem to have no tongue. It's
tied. We will get back to you with a list of those policies and see which ones that the
Mayor and Council would like to see incorporated as standards within the Unified
Development Code. So, with the nod from you, that should be sufficient on that one.
De Weerd: And that's a lot in response to what Mr. Turnbull had testified on earlier.
Canning: Then moving onto outstanding issues from the -- the first part hearing. There
was about four groups of concerns. One was the property at the very end of -- if I can
remember what corner -- Ten Mile and Chinden, there is a very small property there.
Right at the end. And they had proposed a mixed use neighborhood, that designation.
You may recall I expressed some concerns in that getting folks into there and out of
there may be difficult. It would be the only commercial property on that side of the
street So, staff was not supporting that.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: Anna?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Bird: There is no way that can tie into that road going out, is there?
Canning: No, but --
Bird: I agree with staff.
Canning: It's very constrained in this area. We looked at some development proposals
for this area tying back there and it's just -- the configuration of the size of the parcels
are a great challenge right there.
Bird: It looks like you're putting -- you're going to have two roads onto 20-26 within an
eighth of a mile and I don't think ITD is going to allow it anyway, so -- I mean I support
staff on that one, in case you --
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. There is nodding heads.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 58 of gO
Canning: Yeah. I think we have already addressed number 18. And, then, that elusive
northeast corner of Linder and Ustick, I think we have already addressed that one. That
would leave -- the last one is Mr. Spreggle and other property owners along McDermott
continue to express their concerns of how this plan affects their development rights near
the McDermott corridor. Staff doesn't have a recommendation at this time. There is
some frustration about the timing of sewer services to the area and that has more
relation on the development potential of their property at this point than the actual plan
does.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, I think item 20 sort of ties into item two on your list when you talk about
what the city's role is with regard to this corridor and to the extent the city plays a role
and staff plays a roll and be mindful and advocating for seven weeks, individuals could
be within the area of impact. I think Mr. Spreggle's concerns and other concerns of his
neighbors can be addressed to the staff, advocacy, and their policy is Item number two.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess to add to item number two is maybe a degree of urgency for the
planning of that corridor. So, that these -- these concerns are addressed. And
certainly --
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: -- our voices do need to be heard during the GARVEE discussion to make
sure that this is a funded plan.
Canning: And, then, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry, just when you
thought you were done, going back to number five, I skipped over that one to give Steve
a moment to prepare, so he's ready to go back to that Item No.5, the letter from
Compass.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there are several specific items in
there, but I think I can summarize it down to just a couple. One is just voicing support
for not extending services into the McDermott area until ITD has required right of way
for that 16 -- I don't believe that required any changes to us currently in there. One
change that I would support -- it notes that there is encouragement for park and ride lots
at the interchange of Highway 16 and 20-26 specifically. There are potentially other
interchanges in the area, for example, the Highway 16 Ustick, they just simply request
that we encourage such park and ride lots and facilities at all interchanges and not just
one specifically. So, I would support that change and would just look for your
agreement.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 59 of gO
De Weerd: I guess there was one thing in her letter that was of concern in restricting
along this corridor the access to every mile.
Siddoway: That's my next one and I do think that this probably does warrant some
discussion. They talk -- our proposal talks about a vision for Chinden being a 45 mile
per hour corridor and we certainly do want that to be a -- to function well for moving
traffic. Compass is pointing out that they actually envision it at even higher speed at 55.
Discussions recently through Communities in Motion have talked about Chinden as a
grade separated expressway that would not provide access likely even every mile. My
suggestion at one of the last Communities in Motion meeting was that perhaps that
grade separated expressway design could function from Caldwell through to what will
be a major intersection at Highway 16 and Chinden. But between Highway 16 and
Eagle it seems like it should be a surface facility and provide those -- the accesses at
the mile and the half mile, as we have been currently designing for. And I would just
look for your direction on that matter.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I see nodding heads. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And I agree, you know, come back and looking at having a grade separated
facility, on and off ramps at the current configuration. I don't think it's feasible and we
have been planning for something different, so I would support your recommendation.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. And, finally, they just do point out gaps in the proposed
frontage and backage roads along 20-26. I believe that we have adequately addressed
that specifically. They talk about the fact that there were no backage roads or frontage
roads shown along the north side of Chinden. We have now gone back and amended
the circulation map to show those backage roads where ever there is a nonresidential
designation on a land use map. So, we have addressed that. And as for the existing
gaps along the north or south sides, we would still expect a policy to require connection
and interconnectivity through that area that is residential, it just doesn't have to be
designed as a collector type roadway, but there would need to be connectivity.
De Weerd: Okay. Any comments, Council? Okay.
Siddoway: Okay. That is alii have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Anna, anything else?
Canning: No, ma'am.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 60 of 90
Wardle: Having had lots of comments and I think we have worked through most of the
issues, I'm going to ask Mr. Baird in my motion I would like to restrict any additional
comments other than those which we feel are a material change at the intersection of
Linder and Ustick. So, do you have any language that would help me do that?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird, before you comment, I would like also an additional comment. Is
item number one, the agreement from Council on extending the designated area from
residential mixed use a material change as well?
Canning: Did you want comment from staff, Ma'am?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Sorry. That was a specific issue of discussion and, actually, as it went
through with -- in the Planning and Zoning Commission, it was actually moved over
further. We misunderstood the testimony of Mrs. Waterfield and those folks along with
her, that they wanted it pulled back. There was some misunderstanding and that's why
it got pulled back.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: So, that was a very very specific issue of discussion at the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
De Weerd: So, that would not need to be. Mr. Baird.
Baird: And also Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as long as we are checking,
let's look at number three. Does staff feel that the 500 feet is material or was that
flushed out at the Commission level?
Canning: That was a specific request to look at how that would impact that and make
the change appropriately. So, that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Baird: So, Madam Mayor, it looks like the only material change that's being
recommended for consideration is that one Eagle intersection and in answer to
Councilmember Wardle's question, I would word it just like that, that you continue it to a
date certain for the specific purpose of hearing specific change at that intersection and I
would recommend that you state specifically what you would like to see there, so that
they can put out the proper notice. So, in addition to continuing this to a date certain,
it's probably got to be March 7th. I would want to make sure that's okay with both the
clerk and with the planning department. You would move that the proper notice
pursuant to Idaho code will be given, both newspaper publications and other notice
types.
De Weerd: Okay. March 7th. And so, Anna, does the March 7th work?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 61 of gO
Canning: The clerk may be better able to provide that information. It sounds like it
should. Does it have to be noticed twice, Mr. Berg, or just once? With the 15 days, so
we would be fine.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, for the public record will you, please, speak into the microphone.
Berg: Madam Mayor, we can make that work.
De Weerd: Thank you. Our clerk gets really grouchy if they can't read the record.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we continue Item 14, CPA 05-004, and instruct staff to notice the
hearing specific to Idaho -- or pursuant to Idaho Code and specific to the material
change in Comprehensive Plan amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the change from residential to mixed use on the corner of Linder and Ustick Road.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The corner of Ustick Road on this list it mentions the northeast
corner. Are you talking about --
Wardle: Madam Mayor, to clarify, I would include corners, the northeast and the
northwest.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: How about the southwest and the southeast?
De Weerd: That's not in this plan.
Bird: Oh, that's right. I don't have that. That's not north. That's right.
De Weerd: Okay. So, any discussion? Okay. Mr. -- okay. I will go ahead and call for
a roll call.
Bird: Before I -- I got a question. He didn't say the Public Hearing -- he said continued.
You meant the Public Hearing, right?
Wardle: Yes.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 62 of gO
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, before we move onto the next item, I
just wanted to get more direction on what you wanted to see at your next meeting. Do
you want us to -- there was some discussion at the beginning and I just wanted to make
sure that I understood correctly. You want us to summarize all the changes or just
incorporate them -- the appropriate ones into the document and have it available for
viewing prior to that date?
Wardle: Madam Mayor. I would like to see all the -- since we are talking four weeks
now, I'd like to see all the changes available, including the amendment that we just
made with the Council after hearing the testimony, chooses to incorporate the
Comprehensive Plan amendment at that time, that we have all the documentation we
need to do it.
Canning: Okay.
Wardle: Is that clear enough?
De Weerd: Sounds very clear to me, Mr. Wardle. Okay. Maybe we will see you later.
Thank you for joining us this evening. We will move onto Item No. 15. Okay. We will
reconvene in five minutes at 10:30.
(Recess.)
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order and I apologize,
this meeting has gone so extra long for those of you who have stayed on with us. We
have had a request from the developer on Items 19 through 22 to continue their Public
Hearing, rather than to wait through two more development applications, so if you're
here for those, you waited through to this point, but to give it due consideration, they are
in agreement to continue it to Febr\Jary 21 st and I certainly hope you don't feel too
inconvenienced for being here. Okay. Thank you. That way we don't wait -- make you
wait until 11 :00 or 12:00 or-
Item 15:
Public Hearing: RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4
to 0- T zones for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Reel" Barber
Shop by Fred Pratt - 1127 North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 15, Public Hearing RZ 05-020. I will open that Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Fred's Reel Barber Shop
proposal and it is a rezone request. It's located on the west side of North Meridian
Road, south of Washington Street. Right there. And they are proposing an Old Town
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 63 of 90
designation. They are currently zoned R-4. It is .17 acres in area. And the site
currently contains one existing residence that's been converted to a commercial use. I
don't have elevations for you tonight. The Commission recommendation -- they did
recommend approval at their January 5th, 2006, hearing. Fred Pratt spoke in favor of
the application and there was no one testifying in opposition or commenting. The key
issues of discussion -- let me go over the site plan with you. So, this is a converted
home. They are currently parking out in front and, then, what they are proposing to do
is build a small parking lot on the side of the residence, instead of out in front. So, the
key issues of discussion by the Commission were a time frame for completion of the site
improvements. This did start as a zoning violation, so they are up and operating while
this goes through the process, but this -- that's why the timing and completion of those
improvements was a concern, because they are currently operating. So, the key
Commission changes to the staff recommendation were to add a requirement that the
applicant enter into a development agreement within the City of Meridian which states
that the existing business shall be allowed to operate while site improvements are being
made and that the business shall not operate for a period exceeding 12 months from
approval by City Council without the site improvements being completed. So with that
addition of that condition of approval, there are, to our knowledge, no outstanding
issues before Council and we do have Findings for you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address to.-
the record.
Pratt: Fred Pratt. I reside at 3071 West Rovina, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Pratt: Any questions?
De Weerd: Are you in agreement with staff's report and Planning and Zoning's
recommendation?
Pratt: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Do you have any comments or--
Pratt: Not at this time.
De Ween:!: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 64 of gO
Rountree: I have none.
De Wee rd. Okay. Thank you so much.
Pratt: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Seeing no further testimony, I move that we close the Public Hearing for Item
15.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 15. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the rezone request for Item 15, RZ 05-020.
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, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ. 05-056 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.08
acres from RUT to TN-R and 4.07 acres from RUT to C-C zone for Harks
Canvon Creek Subdivision by JBS Enterprises, LLC - 1845 West
Franklin Road:
Meridian City Council
February 7. 2006
Page 65 of gO
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 05-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29
residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in
proposed TN-R and C-C zones for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision
JBS Enterprises, LLC - 1845 West Franklin Road:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed-use development within 300' of a residence for Harks Canyon
Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC - 1845 West Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 16,17, and 18 are Public Hearings on AZ 05-056, PP 05-
058, and CUP 05-051. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Harks Canyon Creek
project. This is the requested two mile square vicinity map. We did a trial run today, so
I'm looking for comments on this in addition to the actual application, if you would. But
the project is located right here and we have the railroad tracks. There is Franklin
Road. Ten Mile. Interstate. Meridian Road.
De Weerd: Anna, I think it would really help if the star was blinking.
Canning: One of the things I did talk to her about was I don't think we actually need the
zone names on there, if we kept the color on I think that would be sufficient for you. But
that was - we can make the star bigger. I don't know if I can teach her how to animate
them, though, but I could try.
Bird: I kind of like it.
De Ween:l: They like the L-O.
Rountree: I like it, because I can't distinguish the colors.
Canning: Okay. So, leave the names on there?
De Weerd: Some are color blind.
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: For some of us color blind folks.
Canning: This is moving in towards the site. Here, again, is Franklin, Linder. Here is
Harks Comer. And, then, this is the property -- subject property. The proposed
development -- that one doesn't read very well. I'm going to go down to the conceptual
plan. This one is a little squished, but at least it reads a little better. The applicant is
seeking a C-C zone, community business district, on the north part of the property and,
then, they are -- and that would be six acres of area. And, then, a traditional
neighborhood residential for four acres of the site. And they have submitted a
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 66 of 90
preliminary plat. Are requesting 29 single family residential lots and these are all single
family residential. Some of them are attached. They are attached as you can see
there. And there is seven commercial lots on the north property. North of the property.
Or side. And, then, also coming down here. And, then, they have also submitted a C-U
for a mixed use development within 300 feet of residential. The gross residential
density, if you just look at that portion of the property, is 9.84 units per acre and that's
for the 2.94 acres that they are currently showing. So, that's just this area. If you go out
to the full build out on the concept plan, which includes this -- a large amount of open
space, it drops -- or it goes up. They are proposing 79 units for future development on -
- for a gross density of 13 dwelling units per acre. So, the application -- and I better go
back up. Right now they are just proposing to plat and develop the northern portion of
the property with single family homes and the commercial. They are leaving the
southern portion of the property in one large lot to be developed later. The concept plan
for that, however, is what you see here. Okay. The applicant has proposed a traditional
neighborhood residential district. Right now they are no standards in the UDC. They
say that they are -- those that are approved by Council. So, if you look at pages four
and five of your staff report, that lists out specifically what standards they are looking for
for part of their traditional neighborhood residential development. Now, they got these
standards from us. This is what we had proposed taking forward to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. So, if you go with the standards they had proposed, they will be
consistent with what you will see coming up to you from Planning and Zoning in about a
month. And I can -- I have those, but we can go through those in more detail if the
Council would like. I will continue with my presentation and, then, go back to those if
that's the Council's desire and Mayor. Okay. I do have some elevations and I'll let the
applicant go through these in more detail. The Commission has recommended
approval at their January 5th, 2006, hearing. Jane Suggs testified in favor of the
application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of the discussion
were the location of the site in relation to industrial uses on Franklin Road and you can
see them just to the north there. The Lot 19, Block 1, which is the large open lot south
of the site, which would be for future development and they also talked about Lot 5,
Block 1, to be reconfigured. Lot 5, Block 1 is kind of this -- where the private streets and
the service drives currently sit, is my understanding. So, there was some discussion
about that. The key Commission changes to Public Works condition 2.15 to read: All
development improvements for each phase of this development, including, but not
limited to, sewer, fencing, micro paths, pressurized irrigation, and landscaping, shall be
installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. And, then, just a
scrivener's correction that Lot 21 should have been Lot 22 on condition -- planning
condition 1.11. As of this afternoon the applicant still had some concerns for the
requirement for a private street at a minimum coming down into this area. I think we
have clarified that and so that is no longer an outstanding issue. And you do have
Findings before you tonight. So, with that I will answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have a question.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 67 of 90
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, on our TN-R standards what's the road width? I put my computer away too
soon or I wouldn't be asking these.
Canning: The -- Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bird, it would probably be better for the
applicant to address exactly what they are proposing in this development.
Bird: But you said they are standards. What is our standards on page four and five?
Canning: The standards are consistent with our setback standards. I don't know if they
went with the street standards at this point. The street standards that are being
proposed to you as part of Comprehensive Plan -- or as part of the text amendment are
-- would allow parking on both sides with a 33 foot right of way -- 29 foot right of way if
they have a parking pad in the back. But I'm not sure that that's what this applicant is
proposing. I can pull the site plan -- or preliminary plat if I can find one.
Bird: Yeah. And I'm --
De Weertj: We can ask the applicant.
Canning: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: I can --I have no problem asking the applicant what the deal was, but--
Canning: It isn't -- the street width is not listed in the list of standards on page four and
five.
Bird: Okay.
De Weent Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? At least you know
already what a question is. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Suggs: My name is Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street in Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Suggs: And I'm very excited to be here to talk about Harks Canyon Creek. I'm going to
be a little brief, because it's late, but I do want to talk a little bit about this, because this
is the first opportunity I have had to work through the traditional neighborhood
residential process. And let me say right up it was a process only because it was new
to us and it is something that requires a lot of staff attention, too, so I was glad to see
that you might be working with Anna on helping her get the staff necessary, because
this is one of those processes that you actual have to have a planner to help you work
through it, since there are some standards that weren't set. So, we really like that. We
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 68 of 90
really like the opportunity to do something new and creative, but it does take a lot more
interaction between the staff and the developer and developer's applicant to make sure
we are doing the right thing.
De Weerd: Remind us to increase our fees.
Suggs: Okay. Okay. Larry's going to kill me now. The developers -- I just want to tell
you the developers of this project aren't able to be here tonight, they are both out of
town. Larry Van Hess is a local developer, he's been developing around the valley for
many years and his partner is David Wilson and David is a premier residential
developer out of Sun Valley and also just last year was the nationwide president of the
National Association of Home Builders, so his excuse is he's probably still lobbying
someplace for home building. So, they both bring some -- a lot of experience and a lot
of energy to this mixed use development. Anna did a good job of outlining the details of
the project and we are in agreement with all the conditions of approval. So, really, sit
back and relax a little bit, because I'm just going to tell you a little bit about the project.
We are going with a traditional -- well, the C-C zone for the commercial portions of the
site, but we did see that with the connected housing and the limited setbacks that we
were hoping to kind of make sort of a more I guess combined use of the land, instead of
segregating the uses that we really wanted to see the residences and the commercial
office areas kind of working together and you can see that as we pull the commercial
area here along the frontage and that is kind of in -- kind of reaction to the fact that this
is industrial land and wasn't really appropriate to put residences right up there on
Franklin Road, a busy street with some -- not the most attractive residential -- industrial
buildings across the street. So, we did put the commercial uses here, but we brought
the commercial uses down this way, too. This is a little pond that's already existing and
it's next to some - one of the buildings over here at Harks Corner. We want to make
sure that we keep that open for both the uses of the offices and the residences, so one
of the things we got planned here -- and you will see in our conceptual plan was a
building located here and here with a corridor open here that would be sort of a plaza
and lets everybody kind of enjoy that amenity that's already there on the property, both
from the homes and the businesses. Our concept was designed by Sherry McKibben at
McKibben Cooper Architects. Let's see. The residential uses I think though they are
separated, you will see that by the architecture of those elevations that they are similar
in their design. Peaked roofs. Four sided architecture on the commercial areas here.
One or two story buildings. Two story town homes connected with garages and they are
all alley loaded. Here is an alley here and here and here and you will see one of the
things that will be coming back with the staff is some alternative compliance with the
landscape requirements that still require a substantial buffer between the uses, but we
think with the alternative compliance, using walls and landscaping, we can make that a
little bit smaller, again, with the idea of bringing the living spaces and the work spaces a
little closer together in this kind of traditional neighborhood residential design. The
developers met with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and they have agreed to
allow us to provide this park-like improvement along Ten Mile Creek. Not only is there
about a 60 foot area here of Ten Mile Creek that's right of way, there is another 60 foot
lot that was adjacent and that was owned by the Nampa-Meridian and we have met with
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 6g of gO
them and they said as long as we provide them some access to their creek they don't
mind at all that we are going in and making that into a park-like area, which we think will
be a real amenity for the city, including a pathway along that area that will tie into --
along here tie into the property. There is already a little bridge across here. We are
planning to improve that bridge with the cooperation of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. We
are still working making sure that we can do that. Right now it's an old rickety bridge
and it doesn't go anywhere. This subdivision down here blocks the access, because it
really didn't have anyplace to go into a pasture that there are horses. We talked to them
and during the neighborhood meeting we suggested that when we have some eyeballs
down there to basically keep that area safe, we would open up that bridge and they
would open up their access here. There is a -- there are two lots on either side of the
bridge and one guy is using it as his yard, but he knows that there is a corridor there.
So, that will provide an access actually over the Ten Mile Creek, which we think is pretty
exciting, especially since there are -- those houses are probably not considered the
most family friendly, we think that there might be some families there with children that
might want to walk to the school that's to the south and certainly the people in the
neighborhood should love to use this as access to get up into this commercial area
without having to get on the streets and I think that's what your connectivity is all about.
Let's see. The streets. I was looking at my ACHD staff report to make sure. I believe
what we have are just standard 36 foot wide streets. What we have tried to do is
provide some of the parking pockets here, so we bulb out right here and here. That's a
little challenging, because we are trying to make sure that we protect the cars, but you
still have to provide enough width between the bulb outs to allow the emergency
vehicles to get through. So, I don't think we are going anything minimal on those. I
think at the entries we were trying to go with a minimal street width and a minimal right
of way, but I believe ACHD pulled us back on that and told us we were going to have to
put in the standard 36 feet street in there, too.
Bird: What about your alleys, ma'am?
Suggs: I'm sorry?
Bird: Width of your alleys.
Suggs: Twenty.
Bird: Twenty.
Suggs: Twenty. We understand that ACHD has -- we just talked to them about another
project recently and they are looking like they may go to 16 foot alleys with 16 paved,
but that just means your setback on the garages have to be more, but we are planning
for the 20 foot alley.
De Weerd: And that's 20 foot fully paved?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 70 of 90
Suggs: Twenty foot with 16 -- at least 16 paved. And in this case we may offset it a
little bit, so that we have someplace to have some landscaping back here along the -
away from the -- from the garages. Now, that, again, just means that we have to make
sure that we have enough backup space to meet your standards for backup and I think
it's 23 feet. If you look in your parking standards for -- for straight-in parking I think your
aisle width is 23. Is that right? I'm not sure.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we require a 20-by-20 parking pad.
Drive aisles are for -- parking spaces are 19 with the 25 foot backup.
Suggs: Okay. Twenty-five foot backup.
Canning: Yeah.
Suggs: Okay.
Canning: And, Jane, in case you forget, can you explain the elevations. I wasn't sure
which ones were which.
Suggs: Oh, yeah.
De Weerd: Before you change to the elevations, just a final question. In the alleyways
you have a short one there on the west side.
Suggs: Here?
De Ween:!: Yeah. How does that end? If you're a garbage truck, do you have to back
out of that or --
Suggs: Yes. They are short -- they are less than 150 feet. Same with most of the
larger vehicles, as long as it's 150 feet and typically not requiring any kind of
turnaround.
De Weerd: Are you going to have a dumpster or --
Suggs: Since those are individually owned homes, probably just regular garbage
collection there. And if it becomes an issue, it seems like we should be able to work
something out. I'd hate to have to put in extra pavement just to -- instead of rolling
garbage cans down to the end of the street, which I think is doable, instead of trying to
put a turnaround or connect the pavement there, if that's an issue.
De Weerd: Anna, was that dealt with at pre-app or--
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 71 of gO
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, they will have to get a sign off from
SSC at some point. I admit we hadn't thought of this issue. If it does become a
concern, about the only thing they could do is provide a pad -- a concrete pad near the
public street, so that they -- and those four property owners would need to roll their
garbage cans over to that concrete pad for SSC to pick it up. And we have done that on
where you have common driveways, SSC will not go up them, so we do require them to
roll them out. And similar to this one, they would be about a hundred -- no more than
150 feet. So, it's very similar to those common drives, but -- and that's the solution we
have found thus far with SSC on those.
De Weerd: It would seem that that's probably something that will have to be done in
this area. They do this every week. I don't think they want to back out of those things
every week.
Suggs: I think the solution of rolling your garbage someplace is appropriate in this case.
Bird: Before we go to the elevations, too, Madam Mayor, may I ask another question?
What is your setbacks to the -- to the building from the property line on the alley?
Suggs: J'm understanding from Anna that she requires a 20 foot set -- parking pad on
the garages from the alley; is that right, Anna?
Canning: Well, you have proposed --
Suggs: I have proposed much less than that as the minimum, but it looks like thafs to
meet --
Canning: The minimum rear setback to alley access properties without a parking pad is
five feet. With a parking pad is 20 feet, so -- up to the garage.
Suggs: I had five feet. So, I had alleys with the five feet and the garage. Those would
be those without a parking pad and I'm sure that we show something minimal on these,
because of the --
Bird: But let me ask you a question. On something like that, in the first place, 20 feet
don't even park a standard pickup and probably a standard size car. Now, my little
Tracker could park on 20 feet no problem at all. Five feet. But -- and if you're five feet
to the garage and only got five feet there, we all know that people are going to come in
there and maybe one bay of their garage is filled up with stuff and they park their rig
outside. Well, you're parking out in the alleyway. What if you need to get down there
with an emergency vehicle?
Suggs: Well -- okay. Councilmember Bird, the emergency vehicles use the city streets
just like they do for everybody, so -- but we would restrict no parking in the alley and
that would have to be something that would be monitored by the homeowners
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 72 of gO
association. That would be one for this property. So, again, I don't think -- I think that's
only a problem if you don't monitor it. People with large pickup trucks and lots of toys
won't buy here. I mean I'm running into that. All my projects we were asking for this
density and to get this density you're going to put in homes and you're not going to put
in homes with room for toys. This is -- when people have toys and they want to fill up
their garages, they go -- have to rent a space and that's just the reality of trying to get
the density in.
Bird: Who are you going to rent to? Or sell to? Young people?
Suggs: I'm sorry?
Bird: Young people? Old people?
Suggs: Some young people. Some empty nesters. We actually did the market study.
One of the reasons this is a concept plan down here is that we had Sam Langston and
Langston and Associates do a market study on the condominiums and found out at the
price point we were charging we probably couldn't build those and market those. So,
thafs why we are waiting now to see what the market would bear and if we find out that
these are a popular item, we could come in and try to do another row of that, bring a
street around and, then, use the alley for both sides that you typically see on alley-
loaded product. I'm thinking young people and I'm also thinking some empty nesters,
because of the maintenance. We intend to have some high level of maintenance to the
homeowners association.
Bird: And they are the majority of the people that got the toys. They got the four
wheelers and snowmobiles and stuff like that.
Suggs: I don't know what to say, other than we are marketing to that group of people,
so-
Bird: No. I know. But we got to look out for what's down the road. You say -- you say
there isn't going to be emergency vehicles coming down there, but if there is a -- I would
say the majority of your fires start in the garage and if you're going to -- you're going to
come down -- our fire trucks are going to come down there.
Suggs: Well -- and we will prohibit parking in the alleys.
Bird: Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I should note that it's not clear on
this one -- the five foot setback with the parking pad should be -- there shouldn't be
anything between five feet and 20 feet and that's critical that we found in another one.
Seven feet, eight feet, are very attractive for people to try and park in and we want to --
to avoid that, so that they either bring the building way up, so that there is no question
about you shouldn't be parking here, or they move it back a full 20 feet and our parking
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 73 of 90
stall requirements are 19 feet. So, the attempt -- the idea there was to accommodate a
car similar to what we do in our parking stalls. I'm jumping on a little bit more for Ms.
Suggs than I usually would, because I'm -- she's proposing standards that were
consistent with what we are bringing forward in the text amendment, so I -- that's why
I'm not necessarily jumping in for her. I know you have a lot of concerns with these and
I'm just trying to explain a little bit more on where these standards came from.
Suggs: If there needs to be a condition added, we would take that, but -- to minimize
that opportunity for parking, just like Anna said.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Borton.
Borton: I wish that were possible. I guess from my perspective -- and I have tried to
enforce these things as an attorney for homeowners associations and they are neat, but
you really can't do it, unfortunately, and what I worry about -- and I'm new at this, but
what I worry about is you can't un-ring that bell and once you get these types of 15 foot,
you know, with four foot -- two feet on each side where people will park their cars and
put rocks and plant trees and put garbage cans and kick bikes, et cetera, you can't
enforce these. And homeowners associations can't enforce these. It's passed the
stage to where compliance can enforce it. In particular, one of the things that I didn't
see until it was brought up here was this alley here, which is about 150 feet -- I think
Councilman Bird made reference to safety services. I don't know how a fire truck -- if
you have got a situation right there where a couple of trucks are parked on the side,
which there will be, because your garage is filled with all your other stuff and people
don't park cars in garages anymore it seems like. These are all problems that come
after the fact. You got a fire truck that's stopped right here, can't get these people with
ladders and hoses over here and there is no other access, other than to watch -- maybe
I'm wrong. I know Chief Anderson is here and he might be able to correct me, but that
seems to be unique concern right there, because this guy or girl, whoever buys this
house, is on an island, unbeknownst to them when they purchase it.
Suggs: All aspects of that building are within 150 feet of a public right of way, which is
the standard. A fire truck parks here and fights a fire -- his hoses can go 150 feet. The
same here. So, all you would ask for is that along the public street here or here, that
you could park someplace and get your hoses 150 feet around to the other side of the
building. So, I think we have met that and that's one of the things we looked at really
closely is making sure that we had some way to get to those. So, you don't have to be
in front and behind a home, you don't typically get the access behind a home. You just -
- if you have to fight a fire behind a regular home, you have to park in the right of way,
but you have to get your hoses 150 feet, no more than that around. You could even
fight it from here if they felt like that they needed some more access in the parking lot.
Of course, there would be possibly cars there, but I mean this provides even additional
access, I believe, than you would get, possibly, in just a regular single family
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 74 of gO
neighborhood when you look at the access you have on a public street here and here. I
mean that's --
De Weerd: Do you want to go over, Jane, where the roads are, your parking and alleys,
if you will --
Suggs: Public street here. Public street coming through here. And a public street stub
to here. That's all publicly maintained streets. Alleys behind the homes here. An alley
that comes across here. This is -- will be the stub of a private street, but it will be
stubbed to here, because this area is not yet developed. There will be an alley off of
this area here and an alley between the two and another private street here. And, then,
service over here. We show a little stub of an alley over here, less than 150 feet.
Again, that's the backup for a turnaround for a fire truck and also to provide that access
to them, so that if they wanted to pull in here and fight the fire here and here, in each
case we think -- and I'd love it if the fire chief could make sure that he's happy with that.
But I think that's something certainly before we build the buildings we have to get sign
off from him.
Bird: On the private -- excuse me, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: On the private streets there, what are the widths of them?
Suggs: They typically -- I'm thinking -- I haven't looked at that real closely. The streets
generally have to be 24 or 26 feet wide, so they are wide enough for public vehicles, for
fire protection vehicles.
Bird: What about parking?
Suggs: Parking on the private street?
Bird: Yeah.
Suggs: We would not be providing any parking on the private street. But, again, we
don't have --
Bird: They can't park up along the sides of it?
Suggs: We would not propose that. It would have a sign, so there would not be parking
on the 24 foot street.
Bird: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 75 of 90
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: This is an application for two distinct zones and I'd like the applicant to
differentiate the zones in their concept plan.
Suggs: Councilmember Rountree, this -- the commercial zone is here. It's these
buildings. It comes all the way down to here and the residential zone comes all the way
down this way and comes back up here. We are asking for the residential zone in all of
this area. Again, we are not platting this lower portion. This is just added for a concept
plan. We were asked if we were going to get that zoned as residential with the TN-R
and also get annexed, that we needed to show a conceptual plan for that.
Rountree: So, in your conceptual plan -- excuse me, Mayor.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: In the conceptual that lower lot, whatever those roof lines are, are multi-
family type dwellings or --
Suggs: We--
Rountree: - just space fillers?
Suggs: Councilmember Rountree, we had actually planned to submit this, but before
we submitted our application we did do the market study and found out that this wasn't
marketable. This was a multi-story condominium unit. There would be one on the
bottom and one condominium unit and, then, parking spaces -- one parking space for
each unit and, then, two more floors of flats, condominium flats, a total of five units with
five covered parking spaces in each units -- well, in this one and, then, ten in these, so
-- but we found out that we were looking at a higher end product and that wasn't
marketable right now, so -- but, again, we wanted to show you what was the potential
for that area, too.
Rountree: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, the TN-R road width, is it 24 or is it less?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the private street standard is not a
TN-R standard. It's universal. It's largely anticipated to serve commercial
developments where there is a need for addressing. The fire department was -- had
expressed concerns over some of our larger commercial and industrial projects where
they just have internal service drives, as they needed some addressing potential. So,
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 76 of 90
all I did was say, okay, we will take the service drive, which is a 25 foot wide drive aisle
and it can have parking on both sides and commercial we ask for a sidewalk on one
side. But the idea was to be able to name those and create a system of those, so that
people knew where to get to in the event of a particular medical emergency. They work
also very well for the multi-family developments. So, that's why you're seeing it in the
multi-family development here and not in the rest of it. So, it's the 25 foot drive aisle.
Sometimes, depending on the height of the structures it could be larger. If it's not
providing parking, it can go down a little bit to 24, so --
Borton: Okay.
Suggs: Actually, we want to go with this elevation again. These were the -- done by
Sherry McKibben. This is looking at one of the condominiums that we probably wouldn't
build. This would be the five condominiums. This would be the front entry of that. But
we are still hoping that as the market improves that we might be able to actually build
that. That would be the condos. This is the commercial building along Franklin. She
showed this as one or two stories. Again, we are looking at sort of the peak roofs and
the gables, kind of trying, once again, to give it something that makes it fit in with the
residential area to not flat box with houses behind it. And this is the townhomes
attached. Again, two story. Hopefully, with an idea that we could do a little walk up
there. Peak roofs. You know, doing a little bit something different on each one. Mr.
Van Hees is talking to -- we toured and he's talked several times with Steve Roth and
Steve's been really popular up in Eagle doing some detached product, but says that he
was interested. He's actually doing some Garden City attached product and he said he
was pretty interested in seeing what he could do down here in this market, too. So, was
coming by -- he's come by the site several times to take a look at it. So, that's one
builder I know that we would be talking to. And, again, you have the landscape plan
that looks like the concept plan, but shows the empty lot. That one. This was -- well, at
P&Z meeting there was a little confusion again, because we are not platting this piece
right now, but we are kind of asking for the platting on this piece and, then, keeping this
lot reserved and you will see this lot come back in. There is nothing we can really do to
that lot you won't come back and see a plan. And I will stand for any other questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions?
Bird: She answered all mine.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Suggs: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any other testimony from the remaining survivors? If you
will, please, state your name and address.
Rowe: My name is Tom Rowe and I live at 115 South Linder in Meridian.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 77 of gO
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rowe: I own the property to the east of that. I don't have one of those little pointers.
Rountree: There should be one on there.
Rowe: Oh, is there? Oh, cool. Okay. Right here. I think -- is this the bar right there? I
think that's the bar that exists. Anyway, I own this piece right here and it's commercial.
I didn't get to the zoning meeting, because I was sick that day and I was going to ask for
an access road to the back of this property for future development, which isn't in this
plan. They had mentioned that I should put this on the record now, that I would like an
access road at the back of this piece of property and not have it just blocked off,
sometime during this development, either the second phase or where ever it can fit in.
That was my one concern that I wanted to get on the record. The other was last time
when the building went up here -- when this building went on -- right now this field is --
has cows on it and the last time I had a lot of trouble with the building between the
fences being torn down and the cows getting out and not being concerned with my
animals running off. That was a problem. The other problem was the trash coming
from the building. My cows keep eating it. It goes over the fence and they eat it, which
doesn't really do them a lot of good. Plastic doesn't really digest well. And so I was
kind of concerned. I have a nice -- a new fence all the way across here and when the
building goes on I would like that fence to stay until something is secure or whatever is
agreed upon. I haven't talked to Larry about what he plans on doing there, what kind of
fencing is there, I don't have -- I don't have any idea what he's planning on, whether
he's going to leave mine there or what. And so I am real concerned about this property
line left up there during the construction and after the construction, because of the
animals. And I want that to be a concern of the building this time. Last time the fence
got tore down, I just got a cow that was running for it. He saw the opening and I
happened to be out there and caught him before he got away. I have good fences now
and I'd like to keep it that way. Other than that, just my concern for future development
on my piece of property. That was my main thing. That's it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Any other testimony? Okay. Mr. Anderson. You
even raised your hand. Good job.
Anderson: Trying to be polite. Madam Mayor, City Council. I guess I was looking at
this a little bit too simplistic, but the issue with this seems to be that we have some
proposed text amendment to our Unified Development Code on a TN-R type of
neighborhood. We have expressed as a fire department that we have some concerns
with some of the alley widths, some of the road widths, some of the setbacks, and those
have not been yet addressed by the City Council and according to Anna it doesn't
sound like those will be addressed by the City Council for approximately another month.
So, it seems premature in this case to be looking at this application and looking at it and
approving it based off of the TN-R Unified Development Code that hasn't even been
approved by you guys yet. I mean the front part of that is commercial and that looks like
that complies with our ordinances, but until you guys decide what that TN-R text is
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 78 of 90
going to look like, this seems premature to me, I guess. Maybe I'm looking at it too
simplistic, but those are the issues.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Chief Anderson?
Bird: I do. If we were to approve it on the 36 foot and the 20-foot -- I mean we can
approve it without -- with our own specifications, because those aren't in the -- we do
have the right to do that. Would that be satisfactory?
Anderson: Well, I think we'd have to look at all aspects of that. I mean you'd have to
look at what are the setbacks on the buildings going to be, what are the alleys going to
be, and without redesigning the entire project here tonight, I don't know how you could
do that probably here tonight.
De Weerd: So, chief, you're saying staff hasn't reviewed this?
Anderson: We have reviewed it. We put comments in there about the 33 foot roads
and the 20 foot alleys. What is being proposed is this would be built to the proposed
text that's coming before you guys in a month in the TN-R and the fire department is
opposed to the text that is in that TN-R. We feel like that the access roads, the width,
the setbacks, are going to severely hamper and compromise our ability to do our job as
a fire department.
De Weerd: So, Anna, this is proposal different than what we currently are asking for, so
it's just ahead of the TN-R?
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well -- and it's stated right there on pages four and five and, then, when Anna
looked on four and five they had no conditions of the setbacks or the road widths or
anything.
Canning: What I stated is that there was no proposal from the applicant on using the
reduced street sections that are part of the TN-R, so I couldn't find the street section.
But page four and five do detail out the proposed setbacks.
Bird: What is the proposed TN-R standards? Now, what is the standards as now, that
has not been -- because they haven't -- the ones you're talking about has not been
passed by this Council.
Canning: Correct.
Meridian City Council
February 7. 2006
Page 79 of 90
Bird: Now, what is the TN-R standards now?
Canning: It says as determined by City Council.
Bird: Thafs right.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weeni: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Chief Anderson, what's -- so, what's the right number from the department's
perspective I guess in these -- the number's not set. We are talking about the alley
width, by way of example. What's the number that you suggest to utilize for those back
alley lots?
Anderson: What the fire department has proposed to that TN-R text and what we would
recommend in this is a 20-foot hard surface, either concrete or asphalt, for the
alleyways. And we also have proposed in the TN-R text that the houses have a
minimum of a 24-foot setback in the rear, which is considerably more than what's being
proposed in this development. And we also recommend 33 foot street widths and if we
do anything less than that, if it's 29, then, it would be limited to parking on one side.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De WeanJ: Mr. Bird.
Bird: But as Mr. -- as Councilman Borton stated with his experience, you can put in
everything. CC&Rs, and you can put signs up and everything else that you can only
park on one side of the street, but who is going to being enforcing it 24 hours a day,
seven days a week?
Anderson: Well, that's our concern, too. If we opt for less than a 33 foot road width and
we restrict parking to one side of the road, then, it's going to become a police issue or a
code enforœment issue to go through these neighborhoods and make sure that people
aren't parking on the other side of the road. You can put signs up, but in reality we
know that frequently that gets violated.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Jane.
Suggs: Jane Suggs. 200 Louisa Street in Boise, representing Harks Canyon Creek
Subdivision. When Tom was making some comments I was asking Anna a question.
He wanted to talk a little bit about making sure there was some sort of access down
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 80 of 90
here to his property and I'm sure that we can accommodate him with some sort of
driveway access to that property at -- especially maybe in this later phase. I think Tom
lives in Larry's family home; is that right? Yeah. So, I mean they have been neighbors
for quite some time. So, I'm sure that we can do that. And we talked a lot about fences
tonight, just making sure that whenever we do any construction in that area that we do
make sure that we maintain his fence and we put another fence up, we don't take his
fence down in the process, knowing that he has animals there and they have to stay
penned. We probably have gotten out a little in front of you on the TN-R, thinking that
we wanted to jump in and actually utilize what we think is a great opportunity to provide
some really nice housing for folks here in Meridian. We can certainly do 20-foot paved
on the alleys, if that's what the fire department wants, because we are going to do 20
feet there, so that's not a problem. We can do a 30-foot street with parking on both
sides, 29 with parking on one side. I think, again, I have got to get to the right page in
my ACHD staff report, but because that street actually comes in and stubs to another
street, they are not going to allow us to do a smaller cross-section that we had planned
to do, because that -- we can't determine what the traffic impact would be there,
because we are stubbing to another property. So, it looks like we are going to do a 33
or 36 foot street with just the bulb outs, again, making sure that we have at least a 20
foot wide section for emergency vehicles. What I can't do is 24-foot setbacks on these
lots from the alley. If that's the hang up, I'd like to wait and we will go through the TN-R
standards and we will go through the -- seeing how we want to provide housing that just
has alleys and garages, not alleys and extra pavement. So, what we are trying to do is
not provide a whole new street system in the back, but it's an access to the garages.
Again. trying to minimize the idea that people would turn that into a cut through or a
place that they would park that is really supposed to be accessible to a garage. But I
think we have pretty much -- I mean the fire chief didn't say anything about having
problems getting to the homes to fight fires, so I really think that we have come through
and the staff has been very helpful and we have been working in other jurisdictions and
this is very similar to the things that we are seeing in Eagle and in Boise. I just finished
projects in both of those areas and using something very similar to this with the alley
loaded product. Even Ada County, I'm doing a project down on Five Mile now and it's
got probably 20 percent of its product has something that looks almost just like this and
that's Five Mile and Lake Hazel, so --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: The only reason that it's an extra hot issue for me right now is because I just
recently took a ride on the truck and went down some of these alleys and saw the
practical affect of some cases 16 foot wide paved back alleys. Did you say you would
do 20?
Suggs: We could go to 20.
Borton: Okay.
Meridian City Council
February 7,2006
Page 81 of gO
Suggs: We could go to 20 paved and keep that clear and -- but still like to do the five
foot to the garage off of that 20, giving plenty of backup room and we could -- we could
go to three feet and you still have backup for 23 feet. Nobody's going to park there. Not
in the little place -- not in the little parking area in front of the garage, so -- and we would
just have to make sure that we have no parking signs along there and, yes, we would
have to patrol that ourselves as a homeowners association and call in support if that
didn't work. I think there is a way to do that. I think there is a way to tow people when
they park in an alley and they are not supposed to and I think a diligent homeowners
association professionally managed could handle that. I know you have got a lot more
experience in that than I do.
Borton: Maybe not successful. I don't know. Maybe I'm not doing it right. And I just
appreciate the fact that you're willing to change that 20 feet and to the extent I was
snippy, I apologize. I was not trying to be too feisty on the back alley issue, but that's
the reason I asked the question.
Suggs: Well -- and we certainly wouldn't let that stop something that I think is a great
project and a great opportunity for people to live here and this is kind of something new
-- a little something new, but I think something you're going to see all over the valley
sooner than later and four feet of pavement is worth it.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weenj; Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jane, what - and you said you're doing in Eagle and Ada County and stuff. What
are their requirements on setbacks?
Suggs: Most of the time that we do these projects we are doing them through the PUD
process, so we are setting our own setbacks.
Bird: Yeah.
Suggs: And they are very much like this. I had a neighborhood meeting yesterday for
the one in Ada County, the one that seems to be out in what at one time was
considered a rural area, we are going the five foot setbacks on the alleys, 20 foot alley,
and we want that 20-foot, because we want them maintained by ACHD. They have the
two standards, 16 and 18 -- I mean 16 and 20. And we are having -- now measuring
some of our setbacks from the back of the walk and we are using three to five feet on
those. And the only issue we have now is a joint trench, trying to work that out. But,
yes, we are going very minimal setbacks. We have got special builders that want to put
some really nice -- we have got -- in fact, in that project we also have some homes that
are planning on green spaces, like Winding Creek over in Eagle, you will see houses
that only service the alleys and they don't have front streets, they just have green
spaces that they front on parks. So, everybody fronts on a park and you can see it from
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 82 of gO
a street, but their access and the only access to their homes is through the alley. Or
walking down a sidewalk in the green and we have a lot of those planned for Ada
County.
Bird: And you're still -- even over there where -- you're only having your five foot
setbacks?
Suggs: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council? Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is
nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 16, 17
and 18.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Ween:!: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Move to close the public hearings on Items 16, 17 and 18.
Bird: Second.
De Weeni: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I just -- she -- Ms. Suggs was very agreeable to doing the setback as the one
concern I have is -- and even with a 20-foot hard alley, regardless of what -- and there is
no way you can control it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You're going to get a
certain amount of parking in there. I have got a real qualm. I think it's a beautiful
project, don't get me wrong there, and I think it's something that needs done, but that's -
- that concern is in the -- so, to take off, I would make a motion that we approve AZ 05-
056, the request for annexation and zoning of 6.8 acres from RUT to TN-R -- oh, wait a
minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Those conditions have to be in this, because
we are approving the TN-R -- right? Okay. So, I will have some conditions here. And
4.07 acres with RUT and a C-C zone for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision by JBS
Enterprises, LLC, 1845 West Franklin Road, with conditions of minimum of 33 foot hard
asphalt -- or hard road, public roads, 20 foot hard minimum alleyway roads, which was
agreed upon and -- and a 20 foot setback in the back alleyway.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 83 of gO
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 16. Do I have a second? Okay. I
guess the motion dies for lack of a second. Is there another motion that Council would
like to try to put us out of our misery?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve AZ 05-056, request for annexation and zoning from RUT to
TN-R with the two conditions -- the first two conditions stated, the 33-foot roadway and
the 20-foot alley, both of which I believe were agreed to by the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay. I have motion to approve--
Borton: No reference to the 20 foot setback. That wasn't part of the motion.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Wardle: Second for discussion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: If I can ask a clarification of staff. Anna, what setback was referenced in the
staff conditions?
Canning: I'm double-checking, but I'm sure it was five feet. Alley access properties
without a parking pad would be five feet.
Wardle: Was that the intention of the maker of the motion?
Borton: It is.
Canning: Was that a build-to line, sir?
Borton: Five feet?
Canning: The intent would be to not allow six, seven, eight, nine, ten -- anything less
than 20, so that we don't get people tempted to park in there.
Borton: Correct.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 84 of 90
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I don't doubt that this proposal is a quality proposal. And certainly the new
urbanism is all the rage across the country and we have seen some attempts in
Meridian, some of which may not be all that successful. But it's not necessarily the
proposal, it's the issue that we haven't yet addressed as a Council, we haven't yet
addressed to our staff, what it is our expectations are as far as this designated area,
TN-R zoning. We have, obviously, differing opinions amongst our staff, we have
certainly different charters and different perspectives. I'll go back to my -- I'm not in that
big of a hurry to create hassles for us that this can't wait until we resolve those issues.
And even though some of the staff may not like what we end up with at some point in
time, at least we don't set a precedent tonight and that might affect what it is we discuss
at a point in the future, possibly a month away. So, not necessarily my comments
opposing this proposal, but I'm opposing that we take action on this proposal at this
point in time for the reasons stated. So, I probably would not vote in favor of the motion.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Okay.
Bird: Let's go for it.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
Berg: It's a tie, Mayor.
De Weerd: Why thank you. I feel so important at midnight. I guess my vote is very
conflicted, because I agree with this, but I also agree with what Councilman Rountree
has said, so I will vote no and make the comment before the next motion is attempted
that rather than -- I personally would like to see this continued until after Council has
had the discussion on the TN-R and --
MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR NAY.
Bird: I agree a hundred percent with you, Mayor. I agree with you a hundred percent.
De Weerd: And it's just because of what Councilman Rountree has said. You know,
the timing probably was not meant that this would come before the hearing and I think
that if Council would be amenable to continuing it until you have had a chance to hear
and make a decision on the TN-R, I could break ties all night.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 85 of gO
Rountree: I would be pleased to make that motion. Just a question for City Clerk or
Ted. Do we have to have a date certain if we table it?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, it's set for
for March 7th to come before you.
Rountree: Our discussion?
Canning: Yes.
Bird: What's set for -- the TN-R? So, we can go after the 7th?
Canning: Or you could go on the 7th, yes.
Bird: We could go on the 7th after the TN-R? I don't like to bring her back, because I"m
afraid something might happen and we don't get it passed on the 7th. And I agree with
Councilman Rountree and the Mayor, that I don't want to have to see her --
Rountree: I'd enjoy having her back at the same time, but --
Bird: Yeah.
Canning: I would imagine she will be here, Councilmember Bird, listening to the
discussion.
Bird: I mean I didn't want to see them -- her have to come back and go completely
through and pay new fees and stuff.
Canning: Oh. Oh. Oh. I understand what you're saying.
Bird: That's why I -- no. She's welcome to come back and do it anytime.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, even though it's possible that you could
act on the ordinance change on the 7th, it wouldn't become effective until it would be
published. However, you would be making a statement of what those standards would
be and you could apply them to this application on that evening, if it's your preference to
put this on the agenda after that. So, it could happen. Probably would make sense to
reopen and continue the hearing to that date certain in case you do want to take
additional testimony after you have adopted your standards.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we reopen the public hearings -- did we close them? Yeah, we
did.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 86 of gO
Bird: Yeah.
Rountree: On Items 16, 17 and 18 and continue them through -- or to March 7th and
schedule them on the agenda after we have had the discussion as it relates to the TN-R
zoning.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. You heard the motion as made. All those in favor say aye. Okay.
Any nays? Okay. The clerk cannot vote.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Do you want to say something?
Suggs: You have opened the public hearing again.
Bird: Uh?
Suggs: You have opened the public hearing. Jane Suggs.
De Weerd: Yeah, but we have already continued it to a date certain.
Bird: We continued it.
Item 19:
Item 20:
Item 21:
Item 22:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87
acres from R1 to C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by
Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24
commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C-G zone and an
approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by
Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-049 Request for a conceptual Conditional Use
for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C-G zone
and an approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by
Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-022 Variance Request to Allow a Vehicular
Access Point to Eagle Road I SH55 for Sadie Creek Promenade
Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085
North Eagle Road:
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 87 of gO
De Weerd: And I would have to recognize you, so I don't know who you are. It's too
late. Okay. Council, it has been requested to continue Items 19 through 22 to February
21 st. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that -- well, we haven't -- why don't you open it and we will continue it.
De Weerd: Okay. I will open the three public hearings -- or four public hearings on
Items 19 through 22. I will entertain a motion to continue these items.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the public hearings on 19, 20, 21 and 22 to February 21 st,
2006.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-027 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3.H
requirements for access to State Highway 69 for Meridian Gatewav by
White-Leasure Development Company - 1601 South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Oh, man. Item 23 has been also requested to continue to the 21 st.
Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Are you going to open that first?
De Weerd: Oh, you bet. I already did.
Bird: Okay. I move that we continue the Public Hearing on VAR 05-027 to February
21 st, 2006.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 88 of gO
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to continue Item 23 to February 2st. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 24:
Ordinance No. 06-1213 : AZ. 05-046 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 31.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Estancia Subdivision by
Gemstar Development, LLC - 1990 East Amity Road:
Item 25:
Ordinance No. 06-1214 : AZ. 05-042 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-B zone for Medford Place Subdivision
by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Item 24 and 25 are ordinances. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read those wfJh
the speed of light by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1213, an
ordinance for annexation of property located in the southwest quarter of the southwest
quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County.
Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories 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 land from RUT to R-4 in the Meridian City Code.
providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the
Ada County recorder, the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, aTJd
providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of
the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 06-1214, an ordinance for the annexation of property located in the
southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1
East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing
certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous
to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Merid¡:an.
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT
to R-B and R-15 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shal
be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, 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 of the rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Pretty darn good. You have heard the ordinances read by tine
only for Items 24 and 25. Seeing no one in the audience, I would entertain a motion to
approve these ordinances.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 89 of gO
Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 24, Ordinance No. 06-1213 and Item 25,
Ordinance No. 06-1214, with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Motion to approve Items 24 and 75. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will
you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 26:
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: Okay. The last item, Executive Session. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c).
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: Motion to adjourn.
Meridian City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 90 of gO
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor, say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:41 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
2- / :2--1 / tJ 6
DATE APPROVED