Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 03-07 Meridian City Council Meeting March 7. 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, March 7,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Gene Trakel, Joe Silva, Steve Siddoway, Doug Strong, 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: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. Sorry we are a few minutes behind schedule. I'd like to welcome you all here tonight. Thank you so much for coming. It's always nice to see young faces in our audience. So, girls, we appreciate your attendance. It is Tuesday, March 7th. It's five minutes after 7:00. We will begin tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Meridian 5th Grade Girls AAU Basketball Team: De Weerd: Thank you. I would also like to recognize a familiar face in our audience, former Councilwoman Cherie McCandless. Nice to see you again. Item No.2. Tonight we will be led in the pledge by the fifth grade girls AAU basketball team. If you would like to come forward. All rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Proclamation for Meridian 5th Grade Girls AAU Basketball Team: De Weerd: Thank you, girls. I will go ahead and ask you to stay here up front. It's always a pleasure to recognize our champions in our community and so with great pleasure I will read this recognition of achievement. In recognition of the Meridian fifth grade girls AAU Ada County basketball champions. Whereas the Amateur Athletic Union held their inaugural compßtitive basketball season for fifth grade girls in the valley this year and whereas Meridian was represented by an outstanding group of girls in this league in its post-season tournament and whereas this team was made up of Gabriel Gesswein Geshwright, Mackensie Crane, Chelsie Holly, Madison Harris, Waverly Starkey, Shelby Lee, Jolie Slider, Mallory Gabbage, Holly Blades, Makaya Roberts and Coaches Joe Blades, Patrick Stiffler, Phil Stiffler, Junior, and whereas these girls Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 2 of 60 competed as one of the top teams in this league and succeeded in winning the post season tournament and establishing themselves in history as the inaugural season champions, therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby recognize these girls for their extraordinary achievement and honor their drive, hard work, tenacity, sportsmanship, and most of all heart displayed during this season. Congratulations. And would the coaches, please, come forward. You know, always behind a great team are great roll models and -- maybe all but one. You can tell I probably know one of them; right? But also great motivators and teachers. Certainly without the coaches -- and I'm a coach's daughter, so I can say this. We would not have the people out there teaching, showing our girls the basic skills, and there is nothing better than team sports to learn many of the things that are life long lessons. So, thank you, coaches, for being the positive roll models for these girls and really giving them unlimited potential in letting them show exactly what the -- unleashing the talent and the ability to show everyone that they are going to get it done and you have a team of champions here. So, congratulations to you as well. The mike is yours. Rountree: Or not. Coach: I just want to say we are really proud to have had the privilege to coach this great bunch of girls and we are really happy that the Mayor would make this effort to acknowledge and honor the effort that they went through this year. We weren't always easy on them, but it was great to watch them grow and expand and learn throughout the year. So, we are really proud of them and thank all of you guys for watching. De Weerd: Well, thank you for joining us tonight. Girls, do you have a spokesperson that has anything to say? Okay. Thank you. Team Member: Go Meridian. Item 4: Community Invocation by Pastor Russ McCrea, with Living Grace Community Fellowship: De Weerd: Okay. Item No.4 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Russ McCrea with Living Grace Community Fellowship. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. McCrea: Thank you, Mayor de Weerd. May we bow? Mighty God, we invite your presence this evening in this meeting. We thank you for our children who are a gift to us and the future which we so enjoy. We praise you that we have a Council and a Mayor and government. We invite that you would guide them this evening. Bless our governor and president and tho~e in our armed services serving to protect our cQuntry this evening. Give us grace this evening and wisdom in our service to our fellow countrymen and may we also be graced with the service of you, in Christ's name, amen. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 3 of 60 De Weerd: Well, Pastor McCrea, normally I would be giving you a City of Meridian pin, but I just handed them all out. Now, this gives you an opportunity and a reason to return. McCrea: I will be back. Item 5: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. Okay. Item No.5, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the regular agenda we do have Item 13 has been asked by the administrator to be continued to April 4th, 2006. Canning: Sir, that's Item No. 24, not 13. Bird: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Anna. Disregard that. Oh. Okay. Item No. 16, 17, and 18 has been asked also to be continued to April 4th, 2006. Item 24 has been asked to continue to April 4th, 2006. With the permission of the Council President and the Mayor, we would like to add Item No. 28 to the regular agenda, an Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(a)(c) and (f). And with that -- Canning: Sir? Bird: I'm sorry. Just a second here. I got -- oh, yeah, 15, 16, 17, and not 18. I'm sorry. To be continued to April 4th. Thank you. With that I move we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Can you repeat that? Bird: I would be glad to, Mayor, now that I have got it straight. Item 15, 16, and 17 would like to be continued to April 4th, 2006. Item 24 has been asked by the administrator to be continued to April 4th, 2006. And I will add that 26 and 27, the ordinances, are numbered 06-1216 and 06-1217. And with yours and President Wardle's permission, we'd like to add Item No. 28, Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (a) (c) al)d (f). I didn't bumble that one too bad. De Weerd: Thank you, Councilman Bird. Okay. We have a motion to approve the adoption of the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 4 of 60 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 21, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Addendum to Development Agreement: MI 05-016 Miscellaneous request to modify the recorded Development Agreement for Resolution Subdivision by removing Lot 7, Block 1, from the requirement to obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior to operation and construction of an office building by Conger Management Group - 2045 East Overland Road: C. Contract for Additional Support Services for Existing Model Update with JUB Engineers, Inc.: D. Right of Way Agreement for the Ten Mile Division Trunk: E. Well No. 27 Flush Line Easement with Cherry Lane Christian Church: F. Award of Bid for Well No. 27 Flush Line to Star Construction, LLC: G. Blackrock Subdivision Memorandum of Understanding: H. Approve Bills: De Weerd: Item 6. Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to ~pprove the Consent Agenda. If there is no discus,sion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 5 of 60 Item 7: Department Reports: De Weerd: Okay. There are no items under department reports. Item 8: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Nor were there items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 9: Discussion of Deeding Messina Meadows Park to City of Meridian by Westpark Development: De Weerd: So, we will move to Item No.9, discussion of deeding Messina Meadows Park to the City of Meridian. Is Westpark Development's representative here tonight? Thank you for coming back. Please state your name and address for the record. Neiffinger: Trent Neiffinger. 1240 West Barrymore Drive, Meridian. 83642. De Weerd: Thank you so much. Neiffinger: All right. Well, we are going to discuss, I guess, the Messina Meadows Park. Hopefully, we can clear anything up that might be a problem. Anna, is it on there, the one that I just gave you? Okay. Can we go to the next one? This is just a little layout of what we will talk about. The action plan is, basically, what I took from the Comprehensive Plan for the parks system here and, then, we will just talk about these next few items. Do you want to go to the next one, please? Okay. So, basically, I just kind of picked apart this action plan and it talks a lot about what the parks -- what kind of parks you guys are looking for, I guess, and if we go to that first bullet there, it talks about a park about every one mile for the residents to have access to and, then, I kind of took that and said, well, that would, basically, put a park in every section of town. A section being the one mile square. So, then, I went through and it says the proposed park system for Meridian features facilities like neighborhood parks and community parks as the centerpiece to this park in every section concept. I think that's key. I think that this park -- or the park access to every citizen within a mile radius is important and I agree with your action plan there. The rest just talks mostly about immediate access in the neighborhood. The string of pearls I think is a really novel concept, how the park being the pearl and the string being the network of trails that is proposed in your plan. Hopefully, that is something that will come to pass in the future with this trail system. The city would look favorably at developers providing public neighborhood parks and the city could assume liability for maintenance responsibility if the developer chooses to deed the land or the park to the city. Okay. Next slide, please. The definition of a neighborhood park. I'm going to ~ust step over here real quick. All right. Okay. So, this is the Messina Meadows Subdivision here. Eagle Road is right here. This is the main collector, East Mona Lisa, and, then, here would be the park. So, we have the main collector frontage and, then, we have this -- these two roads here that are also frontage to the park. So, with that being said, we will go to the park next. Kind of blown up a little bit. We picked apart the definition of your neighborhood park. It talks about a Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 6 of 60 playground facility, which is here and here, and I can't hold this thing still, so -- we have got the playground facility. It asked for a picnic area, which is -- here we have got a shelter. Basketball courts. Open play area of grass. And, then, I believe it was a multi- use practice field. So, we have a baseball backstop here and, then, you can't see it on this print, but there is, actually, enough room to have a soccer field there or a practice soccer field in this area here. So, if we take that concept and apply it to our neighborhood park plan, we have pretty much everything -- everything that it is calling out for and also the total being -- sorry. The total being 8.9 acres, minus a few acres that we will talk about in a minute. So, if we go -- if we skip two slides to usable space. One more. All right. So, the Messina Meadows Park has a usable space of seven and a half acres. We have to subtract out the BOR land, which is a 1.4 acre piece that runs kind of parallel with this northern boundary here. It would be about -- yeah, 1.4 acres that the BOR is going to want to maintain -- continue to maintain as part of their -- that canal that runs through there and, as such, Tuscany Development will go ahead and fence off the boundary of that -- that canal to keep it safe and to also allow the Bureau of Reclamation their space that they are asking for. Okay. If we could go to the next slide. Last time I was here there was an issue with parking. Your -- the parking requirements that are stated here I took from your Comp Plan as well. Three spaces per acre of usable space is required. If you take that formula and apply it to ours, that would give us a need for 23 parking spaces. Right here we have a parking lot that Tuscany Development will provide. It's a nine slot or parking unit and, then, if we take this frontage here, we have got a -- basically 1,000 feet there and if -- with your formula you have one car for every 25 feet of frontage, that adds an additional 40 parking spaces on this residential street here. So, we would have 49 spaces available for parking, which I think is ample when our requirement would be 23. Next slide. Maintenance. There was another issue with maintenance. I talked with your parks department and got a figure of 2,000 dollars per acre per year to maintain this size of a park, which I think is in agreement with other parks that are maintained in the -- within the city limits. One thing that we have really tried to focus on in designing this park is if we look back here at this picture, it's centralized. Everything that requires a lot of maintenance, minus the grass, is all right here in this one area. You don't have things spread out that are hard to maintain. Plus I used to work for a parks department in a different city and we had a lot these bathroom facilities that had grass that would butt up, against, you know, two or three sides of it. Very maintenance nightmares. This is located in a hardscape area. All facilities are, actually, lined with hardscape, so the maintenance there is really really quite easy. So, that's one thing that we have really tried to focus on. I think we have got that. Another thing with the -- every structure that we will be building out there, the bathroom, the playgrounds, the shelter, will be all built according to the approval of the parks department and they will -- we won't build it until they accept the structures and the budgets for them as well. I will make one note on the bathroom there. It is the exact b~throom that is being built I think for Kiwanis Park, ~ got from the architect who designed it for that. So, it will be the exact same -- size same, same structure and everything. So, there is a good note there. Next page. All right. I like to call this one the diamond amongst the pearls. Tuscany Development really feels that we have made a great effort at creating a neighborhood park that fits within the realm of the comp plan or the action plan that the city put together and it also fits in -- I Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 7 of 60 was just out in the hall here looking at your -- another plan that you have and there is not a whole lot of parks that are in line for south of the freeway. I think we have Bear Creek, Kiwanis -- I think there might be one more that I'm not remembering right now, but there is not a lot of parks there. There is not a lot of land that's tied up for parks. So, I think this one being -- it fits the need that you have south of the freeway. It's within a section that's somewhat centralized, something I think would be a very great asset to the city and the citizens as well, that not only live here, but who live anywhere within a mile radius. I don't know if we can see this -- this one down here. Let me put it back up. But if you see -- we got this subdivision here, we have a stub out that comes directly to the park. We have three to the north, the one off Eagle Road, and, then, a stub here for this subdivision in the future and, then, one off Amity Road. So, it's accessible from all the subdivisions around and it's very accessible from Eagle Road. Not very far away from it. So, I just really think that it's a great -- a great asset for you. If we could go back to the string of pearls concept. Inside your plan is a trail network layout, I guess, where you're planning to take all of the waterways that run through the city and create trails there, I guess paved or unpaved. Messina Meadows Park has four -- four trails, I think it is. Yeah. Four trails that actually touch this area or that are directly accessible to it via -- this here is -- this is the Ten Mile Creek path here and, then, if you go through this subdivision here there is an asphalt path that connects to the -- I think it's Rutledge or the -- and the Ridenbaugh and, then, the Meridian loop also runs through there as well. So, there is -- that's over 50 miles of pathway that's directly accessible just from this one park here. So, that -- that's a major thing, I think, that is a major draw to this park and the people who will live there -- anyone who lives there that is going to be excited about using this trail system that comes on board in the future will be right there in the heart of it. It's just like the hub -- the hub of the -- of the trail system. So, with that being said that's what I have. Hopefully, I have covered the parking issue, the maintenance issue, kind of just defined what a park is and just how I just really feel like this is a huge asset to the city, one -- oh, go one more slide. It's kind of hard to see, but this is that budget that I had with me last time. If you take the -- just the acreage -- 8.9 acres, if you took that -- a going rate today, I think this is what we got from our appraiser. It's 110,000 dollars an acre. So, you're looking at almost a million dollars just in acreage there. That's just for an eight acre park. Times are only going to get harder, I think, to buy land that's not tied up already and so that right there, in and of itself, is a great benefit to you, because it's not money that you have to come up with. We are going to go ahead and give that to you. So, if you total up all the things that we are donating, that's 1.2 million dollars that you don't have to come up with to develop a park. If you take your -- your total cost that we are asking for reimbursement, I think it says 228,000 there, if you divide that into the acreage, I think that comes out at like 30,000 an acre to develop and there is no possible way that you could develop a park of this size for 30,000 an acre, because if you add those two numbers, you're at 1.4 million just to develop it. So, that in and,of itself is a great attribute I think. That's alii hav~ for my presentation. I can answer any questions that you might have or concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have questions? Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 8 of 60 Wardle: Madam Mayor. Just a clarification. Not having been the first time we have seen this park at Messina. The water feature is tiled. Last time it was a water amenity. Now it's fenced? Neiffinger: Yes. Wardle: Okay. So, that's the final -- it's going to be -- Neiffinger: It will be fenced. Wardle: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Question on this particular display. You show the land at 8.9. In your Powerpoint you show the land usable at 7.5 and 1.4 acres owned by the Bureau of Recollection. Which is correct? Neiffinger: The 1.4 acres is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. I should have changed my figure there. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Doug, do you have anything that you would like to add? Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a project that we have been discussing with this developer for well over a year and we spent a lot of time making it fit our action plan requirement and when you look at the land use map that we currently have in place, there is an asterisk sitting almost right exactly where this property is, is the reason that we started this discussion. So, I think Trent's done an excellent job of presenting what we represented in those discussions and it's certainly a neighborhood park that has the support from our department for the city to take on as a valuable asset for the city. So, our recommendation would be that the Council accept the park as a city park. De Weerd: comments? Thank you, Doug. Council, any further questions? Any additional Neiffinger: I'll just comment one more time on what Doug said. It's a park that the Parks Department wants. They see as a value as well and, hopefully, that's something that you, as a Council, can see a& well and can accept. De Weerd: Thank you for your presentation and information. Neiffinger: Thank you for your time. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page g of 60 De Weerd: Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Last time we heard about Messina Meadows -- the last time I heard about Messina Meadows -- you have heard it last year as well -- there was a lot of talk about the neighborhood park, definition in the park's master plan. In light of everything that was discussed last time and again presented today, I see this park as a net asset to the city. I think it's a great opportunity to allow the city to provide and continue to provide recreation opportunities to our citizens south of the freeway at this price -- and they only go higher. The ability to get control of some acreage and to provide these opportunities to our citizens on that side of the freeway is growing more and more difficult. I think it clearly falls within the definition of a neighborhood park and our park's master plan and I think it qualifies -- satisfies all of those requirements, but it's something that the City of Meridian should accept and I'd move that we accept the deed of Messina Meadows Park to the City of Meridian. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to accept the Messina Meadows Park. Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'd just like to make the comment that this has been a work in progress and express my appreciation to Mr. Neiffinger and prior to him Mr. Brown for working with the city and working through the issues and creating what you have aptly dubbed a diamond. So, thank you for your efforts. De Weerd: Any other comments from the Council? Certainly pass those sentiments onto Mr. Johnson as well. Rountree: Yes. The developer. De Weerd: Will, would you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, ye¡l; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Tabled from February 21, 2006: FP 06-003 Request for Final Plat approval for 45 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 10 of 60 14.75 acres in an R-8 zone for Paramount Subdivision No. 12 by Paramount Development, Inc. - east of North Linder Road and north of McMillan Road: Item 11: Tabled from January 24, 2006: FP 05-073 Request for Final Plat approval for 11 residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.36 acres in an R-3 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by Conger Management Group - 701 Black Cat Road: Item 12: FP 06-005 Request for Final Plat approval of 24 residential building lots and 4 common lots on 5.10 acres in an R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Doug. Okay. Item No.1 0 was tabled -- Anna, I guess if you have received letters on Items 10, 11 and 12, I believe they are all in concurrence with staff comments? Canning: Yes, ma'am, they are. De Weerd: Okay. Council, Items 10, 11, and 12 are all in agreement with the staff comments. I would entertain a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the final plats for Items 10, 11 and 12. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve 10,11, and 12. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 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 tQ expand the area of city impact boundary: De Weerd: Okay. On Item No. 13, as Mr. Rountree makes his way out of the chambers. Rountree: Madam Mayor, thank you. I need to recuse myself on both 13 and 14. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 11 of 60 De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the Public Hearing that was continued from February 7th on Item CPA 05-004 and we did continue it for specific items and I will ask Anna to, please, give an overview. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the North Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It's located north of Ustick Road and generally south of the Phyllis Canal and from approximately a half mile west of Eagle Road, continuing west to the county line. I am going to give a brief overview of what Council has already made decisions on in past hearings and those key issues of discussion thus far were the southeast corner of McDermott Road and West Chinden Boulevard. The future location of and planning for the State Highway 16 corridor. The increased mixed use area at the future State Highway 16 Ustick interchange to accommodate an off ramp. The regional cooperation commitments regarding State Highway 16. The Compass letter addressing interchange areas, travel speeds on Chinden, and signal spacing. The interest of the property owners north of the Phyllis Canal to be included in the plan and there were two in favor, one opposed. Noting schools in the area west of McDermott. You did not adjust the boundaries of the sewer treatment plant area to allow residential development. You discussed the northwest corner of Chinden and Linder. There was concerns from a property owner north of the mixed use area. Likewise, the southeast corner of Chinden and Linder was -- there was a letter in general support of the mixed use designation. You discussed mixed use community designation adjoining Champion Park to reflect approved uses. You looked at the text regarding arterial planning in north Meridian to include discussion of the significance of Eagle Road. Also a text amendment regarding public transportation. And to update the Comprehensive Plan list -- again, this is text for arterials, collectors, and road projects. And, then, you did not change the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Chinden to commercial or mixed use. And, then, there was continued concern for property owners along McDermott Road. The outstanding issue for City Council was the question about changing the designation from residential to mixed use at the corner of -- the north corners of Linder and Ustick. Because it was a substantial change from the draft approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, we did send it out -- we sent out notices and re-advertised this hearing. The city has received one letter from the property owners south of Ustick regarding their desire and a little bit of their confusion as to why they weren't included in the change of the land use designation. That was Council's motion the other night and as was noted previously, the project really begins on the north side of Ustick. Staff also received several telephone inquiries regarding the proposed land use designation change. Two homeowners in the area were generally opposed to the mixed use designation. The developer's representative for Wind song inquired about the change in designation, but didn't really comment on it one way or the other. And, then, we have also spoken with the site designer for the northeast corner property that's seeking ~he land use change. You do have Findings for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval. Please note if you do make a motion for approval tonight, it needs to include direction to legal staff to prepare a resolution adopting the amendment. And with that I will answer any questions you may have. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 12 of 60 De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for Anna? Bird: I don't, Mayor, at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, I guess we did open it -- keep it open for any final comments. So, what is -- what is the protocol? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't recall -- I didn't pull the minutes up on whether or not you limited it to only the area that you re-advertised in relation to. Obviously, you have heard a tremendous amount of testimony. You could certainly ask if there was anything other than what you have already heard, rather than to re-hear the same testimony. But I didn't pull up the minutes, I'm sorry; to see if you limited it at the outset, but you can limit it to new information regarding the areas that you have re- advertised for, since that was the intent of why this was set over. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide public testimony on the Comp Plan amendment that is in front of us tonight? Please come forward, sir. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Whiting: Sure. My name is Ron Whiting. I live at 3097 North Blue Springs in Tumble Creek Subdivision, kind of diagonally southwest across Ustick Road from the proposed changes. In particular the southwest corner of the proposed change. I have some concerns. My first concern is I didn't receive notification. I got a notice from a neighbor across the street, who received one about ten days ago, I think, and he told me about it, otherwise, I wouldn't have known anything. So, I was a little bit unhappy that there weren't more existing single family residents notified in advance of this hearing. But I have some additional comments that I hope that you are willing to consider. I have a neighbor diagonally across the street to the northeast -- actually, very -- about the closest existing single family residence to the south -- the far southwesterly corner of the proposed change and he already has his home up for sale. He has a beautiful, big two story home, about 2,600 square feet, and which he and his wife helped to design themselves and now they are thinking that if this proposed change is approved, that their life is not going to be the same for them there and, therefore, they are attempting to sell their home and they are going to -- they want to move to a subdivision farther removed from this proposed change. And I have some concerns as well. I live diagonally across the street to the southwest from my neighbor who has his property already up for sale and I'm thinking what the single family -- existing single family residences and the residents will -- how that will affect our -- our existing way of life if those changes are approved. I don't consider it to be a positive thing and possibly might be quite negative, I don't know. I'm also wondering why the developer of Windsong Subdivision, which has 4ilready been platted, I understand, for some time and not a single improvement has been made on that -- within that subdivision on the ground. I mean not a single residence has been built. There are roads and other public infrastructure, but not a single building has been erected and a neighbor that I know very well that lives in the southeast corner of the -- I have to think of the name of the subdivision. It's on the north side of Ustick. It's -- can someone help me? What's Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 13 of 60 across the street from Ustick where the new church is there on the north side of the street? De Weerd: Bridgetower. Whiting: Bridgetower. Thank you. Yeah. He lives in the southeasterly corner, the most -- probably the most southeasterly corner of that subdivision and he told me that he had contacted the owner of Windsong -- this is hearsay, but he said he contacted the owner and tried to buy a lot, most likely adjacent to his lot, and he was told that he couldn't buy a lot, but he could buy the whole subdivision, but nothing less. So, whether that is true or not I do not know. So, I have no idea what's going on there. But I do know that some of my other neighbors that live nearby me -- I don't know if they are here tonight, I did not see them when I came in and I'm sitting in the front, so I haven't scanned the group behind me to see if some of them are here, but I know that there are others that feel much as I feel, that -- first of all, most of us didn't receive notification of the hearing tonight and -- nor have they in the past, as well as I have not. And I really need a little more time to evaluate how this might affect the value of my property and the quality of life for me there and I think others are concerned as well. I happen to have met the owners of some of the property that's requested this change. I consider them to be very nice people. I have nothing personal in this -- in my attempt to have this either disapproved or continued, so we can have more time to consider it. And I request that you do that for us and for me and those that I know that live nearby me. And I thank you for your time, Mayor de Weerd and fellow Councilmembers, and fellow associates in the city government and thank you for your time and consideration. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Whiting: Any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Thank you. Is there -- sir. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Gritzmacher: My name is Tom Gritzmacher. G-r-i-t-z-m-a-c-h-e-r. It took me until third grade to learn how to spell that. I thought I would help you guys along. De Weerd: Thank you. Gritzmacher: I live at 2344 West Pebblestone in Meridian. 83642. I live in Tumble Creek Subdivision. I'm here tonight as an official capacity. I'm the vice-president of Tumble Creek Homeowners Association. We are very concerned about this particular project going in, basically, on thrtj)e reasons. First of all, as all of you are probably aware, that intersection is quite congested already and even though ACHD has proposed to widen it, hopefully, in 2008, that will alleviate the immediate stopping and going in the intersection, but, of course, Linder and Ustick will not be widened for the foreseeable future. We don't have a date on that. And so what we see is a situation where this has been zoned residential and now we want to have mixed use, which Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 14 of 60 means we are going to have commercial in the area as we understand it. We don't know exactly what kind of commercial, because one thing can be proposed that possibly can change at a later date. The second concern we have is already along the Ustick corridor at the half miles between Meridian and Linder and, then, between Linder and Ten Mile, there is already commercial development and that goes with the Comprehensive Plan as we understand it and now the plan is going to be changed and it's like, well, okay, now we are going to do another commercial development in between that, which, of course, impacts our subdivision. Another area we are concerned about is the number of children that frequent the area. We have a situation where we have a park south of the intersection. We have a middle school north of the intersection. And we don't have a sidewalk yet to connect it and according to the ACHD plan, which we were able to look at last week, we still won't have a sidewalk to connect it in 2008. There will be a temporary sidewalk from the intersection north to the school, but the sidewalk as currently planned will stop to the south just passed the Palmer property, which is south of this corner and not pick up again until you have got -- you come into Tumble Creek. And so the children will be having difficulty there, but you're -- what you're trying to do is put more traffic into an already congested situation by allowing commercial development in there. The third thing that I'm concerned about is that we would like to -- and we have been thinking about some way to buffer the intersection as it sits now with noise and that by using trees and so on. Landscaping. We do have a problem because part of our boundary line runs along a gravel path that is -- has several easements on -- by various people on Five Mile Creek, but if we -- if this commercial development is allowed, we have to figure out a way to do this to try to barricade -- or to modify that impact. I'm not sure I can do that. I'm a horticulturist by trade with 30 years experience and this is something that plants may not be able to do. So, our subdivision is not terribly excited about this and we'd like you folks to think deeply about this before you commit to possibly allowing this to occur. Thank you very much. Any questions? De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Any questions, Council? Thank you. Anna, I think before we have any additional testimony, if you can, please, just talk a few minutes about the difference between a Comprehensive Plan and annexation and zoning. I think at that point -- at this point just a little bit further information on what we are here tonight looking at versus what public noticing and future applications and the differences between the two. Canning: Yes, Ma'am, Members of the Council. What we are considering tonight are land use designations. The Comprehensive Plan -- they are on the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the vision document for the City of Meridian that guides growth and development. So, it does not specifically entitle anyone to any additional rights as to what they currently own, but what it would do in this case, it wol,.lld allow our developer to come in and request a mixed use project. So, it would allow someone to come in and request either a mix of office or retail or residential. It's not shown as straight commercial, it is shown as mixed use. So, that would be -- if they turned in an application, we would notify everyone within 300 feet of that request to change the zoning on their property and to be annexed into the city. All that -- both Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 15 of 60 these properties are currently not in the city limits, so they would have to request the annexation and request zoning along with that annexation at some future date. And if I could take just a second to explain the noticing. When we renoticed this change in this -- these two areas, what we did do is we notified everyone within 300 feet, similar to what we would do with a development application, and we also renoticed in the paper, similar to what we would do for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. So, Tumble Creek, I believe, is here, so they are a ways away, would not have received direct notice. De Weerd: Tumble Creek is actually on the southwest corner-- Canning: South -- oh, over here. Okay. So, some of these property owners received notice, but not -- certainly not everyone within the subdivision. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any additional-- please come forward. Ewing: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. I just had a quick clarification note with staff. I believe I understood that the boundary of this annex -- or not annexation, but impact area is going to be somewhere in the vicinity south of the Pyllis Canal and it was our understanding that that boundary was, actually, going to be the center line of the Phyllis Canal, so I just needed some clarification on exactly where that impact area boundary area was going to be and that's probably directed more at staff. De Weerd: Okay. Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it is the center line of the Phyllis Canal. South of the center line of the Phyllis Canal there. South of the center line of the Phyllis Canal. Ewing: South of the center line of the -- Canning: It's the center line. Ewing: It's the center line of the Phyllis Canal. Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any additional testimony? Yes, ma'am. Rath: Hi. De Weerd: Hi. . Rath: My name is Joan Rath, R-a-t-h, and I live at 631 Lawndale Drive in Meridian, but I'm here representing the northwest corner of Ustick and Linder Road and my interest in that is I am the personal representative for my parents' estate, who owned that corner. It's interesting; I can sympathize with the gentleman that talked about no notice. Back when -- my parents have owned that since 1960 and their discussions with, obviously, Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 16 of 60 much earlier city councils and planners, was that that area would always be commercial. Those corners would always be that. We are talking about, you know, sometime back. During the time when you guys came up with your Comprehensive Plan, unfortunately, my parents were very very ill and we didn't receive any kind of notice. They didn't receive any notice. We were very surprised to find out after my mother passed away in '99, my father passed away three and a half years ago; we were very surprised to find that we were residential in your Comprehensive Plan. That upset us, obviously, and what my concern is is that in the three and a half years that my father has been gone, I have made numerous, numerous attempts to rent the property, rent the house that sits there. I get tons of people that are interested, they love the house, and, then, they come outside to talk to me about it and, then, they notice the traffic and the noise and, then, they say, well, is it always like this and, unfortunately, it's usually worse. And they won't rent it. I've had some pretty bad renters just getting kind of desperate and, finally, don't rent it at all. I spoke last time and my point at that time was that to keep that corner residential, it severely limits me to be able to sell that property, because nobody -- nobody wants to live on that corner. Not as a residential. For that to be anything other than commercial just does not make sense. I really, I guess, can't reiterate enough the neighborhood plan -- I kind of live where -- on Cherry Lane. There is a Jackson's and it's kind of like one of those neighborhood plans, they just simply don't work. You can go to Jacksons anytime, pull in, and you can get gas, you can go in, whatever. You go down the street to Maverick at the corner of Cherry Lane and Linder and it is so busy down there it is just unreal. So, that's what everybody does is flock to the corners. They are already at the stop sign, they go to the corners, and I guess it just doesn't make sense for the neighborhood plan. I guess that's about all I have to say, if you have any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Rath: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any additional public testimony? Benkin: I'm Gary Benkin. I reside at 3390 East Allingmill Court in Boise. I happen to be the listing agent for the subject property on the northwest corner. The only comment I have tonight, after marketing that property for seven months, is that the only inquiries that I have received were from commercial developers, not residential developers. The other calls I received were from individuals who wanted to move the house from that location. And so that's been seven months that I have been experiencing that. That's my only comment. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? Yes, sir. You can use the pointer. If you will restate your name just for the record. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 17 of 60 Whiting: Okay. I'm -- once again, I'm Ron Whiting. I live at 3097 North Blue Springs in Tumble Creek Subdivision in Meridian. And I don't know how to use that pointer. Is it still here? De Weerd: It should be on the little chain there. Whiting: This one? De Weerd: No. It's on the-- Whiting: I live in this home right here. And a few of these on this corner -- I don't know how many, the planning people can tell you, but I'm guessing there were -- those within 300 feet, there is probably about three to five homes that are -- that fall into that category that would have been required to have been noticed according to the 300 foot rule. And I think that the 300 foot rule is just a little bit sparse, in my estimation, in terms of the impact. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Council, you do have in front of you a summary of the number of changes that are in front of you for your consideration. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I certainly appreciate all the public testimony and the opportunity to comment on the specific item that we addressed last time. In my opinion -- and, Anna, let me just clarify. We have moved through all of the earlier 16 items. You have resolution on the record for those? Canning: Yes, sir, we do. And those issues have all been incorporated into the Findings already, including the change in this map. Wardle: Okay. Given that, I stand on my earlier discussion about the validity and the reasonableness of mixed use development on the corner -- on the north corner of Linder and Ustick and ask if there are any other comments from the Council? De Weerd: Council, any further information needed while the Public Hearing is open? Okay. Wardle: With that, Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 1J, CPA 05-004. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 18 of 60 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a quick recollection. This has been my first Comprehensive Plan amendment. I'd like to thank all of the interested parties that have given us input on the vision that these see for this community and feel that it has been a worthwhile public input process, both from those interested in the community and, certainly, those affected property owners. And so I'd just like to at this time thank everyone for their input. And if there are no other comments, Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve Item 13, CPA 05-004 and to approve Findings. Bird: And have a resolution drawn? Wardle: And have a resolution brought forward by Council. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve incorporating the changes that have been discussed. Do we have any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I'd just like to say that with regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment and for the record that I think the plan is consistent with the other elements and that this modification is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, that it does provide an improved guide for future growth and development of the City of Meridian. I think this amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan. I believe it's consistent with the Unified Development Code and, most importantly, it's in the best interest of the City of Meridian. De Weerd: Any further discussion? I Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Council, I guess I would also like to thank staff. This process began a long time ago. I think Councilwoman McCandless was on this Council when we first started Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 19 of 60 the North Meridian Planning Area. So, we have had hundreds of people provide input, certainly just to make a comment, and it's a comment I made at our last meeting, in specific to what we have renoticed for tonight. I, too, am concerned about the retail nature of these -- this corner, but with the mixed use, as I stated last meeting, I would hope any applications that would come forward for public noticing and comment, take into account that congested corner and the interconnectivity that will be necessary to assure the safety of the kids that will be walking in that area. So, I would hope that the development community that considers development in that area takes that serious and works directly with our transportation agencies, with the surrounding property owners, to make sure that that goal -- because that's one thing that this Council takes very serious is the public safety element and the safety of the kids that will be in and around that area. So, with that said, thank you, staff, I know that this has been quite a process and this is more detailed in our comprehensive planning efforts than the city certainly is required to be, but you have taken it a step beyond and I appreciate that. So does this Council. Thank you, Steve. If there is no further discussion -- Bird: Question. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from February 21, 2006: V AR 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. Item 14. Continue Public Hearing on VAR 05-027. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments and also, for the record, note that Councilman Rountree has recused himself on this item as well. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Meridian Gateway Project. It's located on the southwest corner of Meridian and Overland. As you can see, it's already annexed and zoned for C-G. This application is just for a variance. I'm speaking slowly, since people are moving. The highlights of this are they are requesting two new -- I will go through the aerial first. Southern Springs is just across the street to the east. The applicant is requesting two new approaches to Meridian Road, which is State Highway 69, including one right-in, right-out and one full. Did I get that right? Yeah. The first one is right-in, righhout, and the second one is full access. Just to gi"e a brief history of future -- or past -- past discussions about this project. In December of 2005 ITD submitted a response to this request for access and the staff did indicate that the two proposed access points do not meet district policies and also in December of 2005 ITD's executive committee conditionally approved the locations, contingent on obtaining a variance to our code. There is also a development agreement on this Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 20 of 60 property with the City of Meridian and White-Leasure Development and that was recorded in August of '05. And that development agreement includes two sections that specifically address access to Meridian Road or State Highway 69. One of those is paragraph 1.7 and it specifically says the Idaho Transportation Department, ITD, has a policy for access to a type four principal arterial, which will be at intersections only and spaced at one half mile intervals in the urban areas. ITD allows approaches other than intersections in special cases and on a temporary basis. Staff finds that the proposed access points to Kuna-Meridian Road, State Highway 69, and Overland Road, shall be subject to the location requirement of ITD and ACHD respectively. In compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, no curb cuts shall be allowed on Kuna-Meridian Road, State Highway 69. In paragraph 5D.2 of the development agreement it states that any future uses shall obtain conditional approval subject to the conditions of ACHD and lTD. It also goes on to say that ITD's policy strongly discourages direct access to Meridian Road and/or arterials. The applicant was given the ITD policy on December 1 st, 2004, by Mr. Dan Coonce and that stated that the access to the development could be developed off of Overland Road and not off of State Highway 69. This section of State Highway 69 has been designated a principal arterial type four. ITD would like the City of Meridian to help us preserve this corridor. There are several findings required for a variance and staff, in reading the applicant's justification for this request, does not feel that any of those findings could be made. The fact that the applicant began the process of securing access to Meridian Road before the UDC text was adopted is not relevant. They were not granted with any specific right with their annexation. They did not have a development plan approved at that time. The applicant also claims that because of physical constraints on the site, that they will not be able to create a frontage road as required by the ITD letters. They always talk about a frontage road. In this case what staff has determined is when we have commercial areas like this, we get the equivalent of a frontage road by requiring cross-access across all the properties and we continue to do that, so that there is an interconnected street system, so that folks don't -- if they are going to a dentist in this property, don't have to cross -- or get onto the arterial to go pick up a gallon of milk at the Jackson's over in this one. Or the Maverick, because the gas is cheaper at Maverick. So, that type of frontage road is really not a concern. We can achieve that through cross-access connections. The other -- the other thing I'd like to talk about is that we typically hear this argument that to support retail development of this property we need these access points that traffic won't flow appropriately to serve that retail use. And I guess I would encourage the Council to think of this differently and this is perhaps a planner's perspective, but what planners are trained to do is look at the constraints on the site. One of the constraints is that you don't have access to this property. Another constraint is that you have severe topographic considerations here that limit sight distance and given those constraints and the size and configuration and location of this property, then, perhaps the high retail use is not appropriate. You just car¡¡'t safely get people in and out of this property wiij1 those constraints. I mentioned a couple of those. I think both the police department and the fire department have been talking to me prior to the hearing about their concerns, again, with this hill and the site distance pulling into this property and being able to -- there is a barrier here that would prevent access from the fire department to this property. And the traffic flows along here will make it difficult, but -- access difficult Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 21 of 60 as well. So, staff has some real concerns whether a variance is warranted here, just based on the parcel itself. And, then, also whether, really, a retail use is appropriate in this location. There are a number of uses allowed within C-G, retail is just one of them, and given the site constraints, this may not be an appropriate retail site. With that I'll ask if the police department or fire department have any -- fire department left. I'm sorry. Trakel: Madam Mayor, Council, I discussed this prior to coming to this meeting with Chief Musser. His primary concern involves the southwest entrance-exit to this proposal in reference to the hill that starts right from there and obstructs the vision. Due to the flow of traffic is already substantial in this area; we do see that as a definite safety issue for the motoring public and citizens of Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you, Lieutenant. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, to conclude, you do have findings for denial of the variance. If the Council wishes to deny the project tonight, the motion should include directing the legal staff to prepare an order for denial. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Bird: Not at this time. De Weerd: Is the applicant here this evening? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Huber: Madam Mayor, my name is Jeff Huber. I'm the vice-president of White-Leasure Development Company. I represent the applicant. My street address is 416 South 8th Street, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Huber: Anna, could you, please, put up the -- Anna? Canning: I hear you. It will take me a minute. Huber: Okay. We are going to put an aerial of here for the Council, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Huber: Again, this is our site here. This is the north-south corridor, Meridian Road, and the east-west, Overland Road. There is a subdivision that's fully built out to the south on this side and on the west side is the business and residence and' there is a -- quite a grade change between these properties on this -- on the property line here. We have started working with Mr. Howell back in -- oh, year 2000, to see if there was some way that we could convince him to let us take over his property and develop it, bring it into Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 22 of 60 the city. He was somewhat skeptical of getting annexed into the city, because of the uses he had on the property he had at that time and wanted to make certain that if we did start the process and we went forward, that it would be -- that we would go forward and develop his property, because his retirement depended on it. There was also another issue on his property of some contamination in this area here where the tanks had been overfilled over the years and some gasoline had seeped into the ground. We negotiated with Mr. Howell for almost four years. We finally reached an agreement with him in 2003 that we would take over -- take on the issue of the contamination and go forward with the development of his property. We spoke with some tenants and we came to the city in 2004 -- in October of 2004 with a staff meeting and we applied for an annexation at that time. At that meeting I was asked to provide a conceptual site plan and that site plan was part of the application and I will get to that in a moment. Could you, please, put up the topo, Anna? This currently is the property as it looks today, with the gas station here, convenience store. There is a farmer's market in this area. There has been Christmas tree sales in this area here. The black lines indicate all the current accesses that are existing today. Two of the accesses on Meridian Road are permitted by ACHD, lawfully permitted today. The other three accesses have been there for decades. They are grandfathered in. All the accesses on Overland Road have been used for decades and are grandfathered in. You can notice that these are topo lines here, the grade change between the properties. Can we put up the figure three, Anna, please? This was the application -- this was the site plan that accompanied the application for annexation. We discussed this application -- this particular plan with staff. We envisioned -- always envisioned this as a grocery store type. It's a rather small size, not a big -- large shopping center, but what we would call a neighborhood shopping center. We worked with a tenant and we have formulated this plan based upon their tenant needs. At the -- at the hearing that I had for annexation, I spoke to the Council and addressed them and told them that I was working with ITD for these access points, based upon this particular plan. At no time during that hearing did anyone inform me that I might need to come back for a variance or there didn't seem to be any objection to me working with ITD to obtain those accesses. As noted in -- I received a letter from ITD on July 12th, stating that they would be in favor of these accesses. We finalized our development agreement with the city in August 2005. Then, I received a letter from ITD in September stating that -- that ITD had ceased processing the application, because of the City of Meridian's Article H, but Article H wasn't in effect at that time, which we had, and, then, I received a letter from ITD stating that they had approved the accesses and to come down and pick up the permits. Then, I received on September 21 st another letter stating that those permits had been issued in error and, again, were directed to me with staff and Mr. Kevin Sablan at ITD, which we did. After meeting with Mr. Sablan we received another letter from him stating -- on December 15th of 2005, that ITD is agreeable to allowing one full term -- interim access point to be located toward the south end of yo14r property and one right into the north. We had ,- we had requested that we have a right-in, right-out, and they were in favor of a right-in only, because our permits that we held were for a right-in only. So, in order for us to get a right-in, right-out, they asked us to do a traffic study. We had had Kittleson and Associates do a traffic study and we presented those findings to ITD and after they reviewed that traffic study, they wrote us another letter stating that upon approval of a Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 23 of 60 variance from the City of Meridian, ITD would recommend approval to the executive committee, because the traffic study supports those -- that right-in, right-out, and the full service access on Meridian Road. Anna, could we put up figure five? There. That's good. This is the current plan that we have formulated, because we have a tenant for this corner. It's a Walgreens pharmacy. We are going to be coming in for a conditional use on this on March 15th. We will be applying for a conditional use. I have already had a pre-application meeting with the staff. They have -- these two access points are critical to this project moving forward. All the traffic coming on Overland Road headed east is going to be accessing the freeway. They may access the center through this full access here or right-in, right-out. The majority of the traffic going home in the evening is going to be traveling south on Meridian Road and that's when people shop. This is what we call the hundred percent location, because it's the going home side of the road. They will be coming down and we will be able to come in with a right-in and a right-out back onto the road. Or they will be able to come down here and go into the center and do business down in this area and continue on. So, it makes a lot of sense not to have all this traffic being run through this one access point here. There was some talk from staff about this access being a concern. ACHD is going to be lowering this road when they do their improvements in 2007. This plan is exactly what they are going to do there. That's the final plan. The stacking lane for the left turns that are northbound onto Meridian Road comes all the way back to this point. That leaves very little room for us to stack a lot of cars here and if all the traffic accessing this particular development had to go through this one access point, it would back out and block this one lane traveling through here. So, to alleviate the congestion that might occur at this intersection, it only makes sense to have these two access points. It helps with the circulation of the site tremendously. There are a lot of other improvements that are in the pipeline that are going to -- that ACHD has that are going to also alleviate some of the traffic congestion at this particular intersection. They have got the Ten Mile interchange, the Locust Grove overpass and the Linder overpass, as well as the widening of Overland Road. So, we see that bringing congestion off of this intersection. Also, the -- all the residential development to the west and to the south, we see this center providing services that they would otherwise have to cross the highway to get to and that is going to relieve traffic congestion in the parts -- in other intersections in the city. We think that there is a strong need for commercial development on this side of the highway. Could you put up figures 5A, please, Anna. This is the plan that Walgreens has approved for this corner. Again, their store is right here. They have a road -- access road coming up this way and also one coming up this way. These -- when we plat this project, there will be probably five lots in this subdivision and if it -- we are, actually, limiting the access to those five lots by only having two here and two access points here. So, there is quite a reduction and we take out -- there are currently five accesses along here. So, we are reducing that -- we are limiting the access to the road and having feeder roads feed these other businesses inside here. , This is all retail space here and here. These ar~ two pads that we envision here in future. We will be coming in for conditional uses on those in the future. Could you put up figure six, Anna? These are two excerpts from recent letters. One is from Mr. Dan Coonce and I believe Anna referred to a letter of -- that he had written and was included in our annexation packet in 2004. And he is now - - he was the traffic -- district traffic engineer for lTD. He works for the Transpo Group Meridian City Council March 7,2006 Page 24 of 60 now. And I just wanted to read you these excerpts from his letter. It's says the City of Meridian requirement's intent is to provide a collector or some type of connectivity to the half mile on Meridian Road. I would agree with these principals where connectivity can be accomplished. Connectivity to the south cannot occur due to the development to the south has already developed without the potential of connectivity. Further, access only on Overland Road would be a safety hazard as the traffic impact analysis states. My recommendation would be to allow the accesses on Meridian Road to alleviate congestion concerns and potential accidents on Overland Road. Now, we have another excerpt from the district traffic engineer on a letter that I received on February 7th from Kevin Sablan and he states that we have reviewed your transportation impact study from Kittleson and Associates. Upon receipt of a variance from the City of Meridian, the district will recommend approval to the executive committee. That's a recommendation from lTD. Article H gives you the power to modify -- make modifications to Article H upon a recommendation from ITD and this is what they are recommending. I would stand for any questions and following any further public testimony, Mr. Leasure may want to address the Council also. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this point, Mayor. De Weerd: I guess I would have just a question as -- have you worked with the property owner to your west to look at connectivity and cross-access and how you can gain a better traffic flow? That is a very congested corner and it does -- it needs some extraordinary measures in making sure that you don't add to it. Huber: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to defer that question Mr. Leasure when he speaks. De Weerd: Okay. Huber: If I may. De Weerd: Okay. Huber: But I would be happy to answer any others. De Weerd: Council, any others? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Huber: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 25 of 60 De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Please state your name and address for the record. Prather: Of course. James Prather. 707 East United Heritage Parkway, Suite 150, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Prather: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councilmen, City Attorney. To just answer the question you just asked the applicant -- first of all, let me back up. I am the property owner, my family and I. The applicant's property -- there is a five acre piece just abutting it to the east -- to the west. Correct. And my family and I own from the red dot all the way to Stoddard, about 27 and a half acres, roughly. To answer your question, has White-Leasure come to us and the answer is yes. I cannot speak for Bruce Cool. I know they had had some dialogue, but I won't represent Bruce Cool here. It is our belief -- and I don't want to mix issues here, but we have had ongoing dialogue the last six months -- six to eight months in bringing three property owners together, the applicant, Bruce Cool, and myself, to entertain -- and we are further along than just entertaining now. We believe we have entered some ongoing favorable dialogue with a hard, good user, that would require not only the corner, but substantially more, and in doing so we believe we are meeting the needs of the neighborhood, because we live in this neighborhood and I'd love to not have to cross over the freeway for any type of soft goods and hard good items. And in doing so, if there is no exit -- ingress-egress off Meridian and with the Council's blessings, if we are able to do something on the majority of this property in a retail center, we are going to need -- you talk about cross-over, I would be more than happy to participate in that, but in doing so, we are going to overburden Overland and it's already overburdened. Even with the widening of Overland, we are still spacing -- especially when the water park gets that Five after 5:00 program going three months a year, you're correct, Madam Mayor, that is a very busy intersection, which I believe, along with the applicant, supports the fact that we will cross over, no doubt about it, but we need a way to get out on Meridian and the ingress- egress most southerly is paramount, in my opinion. Again, I don't want to mix these, but, in my opinion, that's paramount that we have that to develop this out. It is commercial, we do need something there. Anna was correct, I mean there are several different uses in commercial, but we feel this property cries out that it's the property that needs to be developed in this manner. So, with that I ask you to approve this item. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any additional testimony on this application? Okay. Sir, if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. , Leasure: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Larry Leasure, chairman of White-Leasure Development Company and the applicant and -- for this project. We, obviously, appreciate your consideration in this variance, because I think probably two things -- that I appreciate the comments made prior to me here, because this particular site, I think it would be very difficult if you had any planner or others that were in the Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 26 of 60 retail development business, not indicate to you that this is probably one of the hundredth percent locations, certainly in the City of Meridian, for a retail development. The other thing I would just hope that I could share with you -- this site is not a small site. This is approximately eight acres in size. If this were a one or two acre corner parcel, I can appreciate the concerns and the comments that have been made, especially by staff, but I think that this -- certainly this particular location and certainly the potential expansion of that site, and being the going home site, as was indicated earlier, certainly is a -- what we would call a very prime retail location for retail in this site. Secondly, it's been mentioned that there is nothing south. There will be something south. If this is turned down, I assure you that south there will be retail. There will be retail in other locations, because there is certainly a need and we know what's happening there in the growth and the growth pattern. We, at the present time, do -- we have been involved in the property for in excess of six years, but because of contamination on this site, which is now under control, is that we were not able to move forward on that corner. As Jeff indicated, we do have a letter of commitment from Walgreen drug that would like to be on this site, but as I think also you can appreciate, with them being in this location is that number one the majority of the traffic flow -- and you know the counts as well as I. The traffic flow is in this direction, not in this direction. And so for them -- for the person that's coming to shop in this eight acre parcel -- and, once again, it just isn't on the corner, we are talking eight acres here, there is this -- the customer would have to come in -- come in -- come into the site here and as Jeff indicated, ACHD has redesigned this hill and they also are concerned about visibility, as we are, and traffic flow coming here, but what that would mean, you would come in here, you would come to the eight acre site, you would come back out -- I'm sorry, do I have another minute? - De Weerd: If you will, please, summarize. Leasure: I will do so. De Weerd: Thank you. Leasure: Exit and come here. What, once again, we are requesting is a right-in, right- out here in this location and full access. What ITD has indicated full access today, but in the future, if it's needed to be closed, that it, then, becomes a right-in, right-out. And that is acceptable to us. This access point, which is literally across the street from the existing project that you have approved, the Mitchner site, those two would line up -- that access point would line up with the project adjacent and across the street. The traffic study that Kittleson has provided and ITD has agreed, as has ACHD agreed, that for the development of the property these access points make good sense for the long term of the site and that we would hppe that you would give consideration to that this. evening. Any questions? De Weerd: Council? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 27 of 60 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional testimony? Okay. Any final comments by the applicant's representative? Huber: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate your time again. De Weerd: If you will just restate your name. Huber: Jeff Huber. De Weerd: Thank you. Huber: Thank you. Just in answer to your question, Madam Mayor, we didn't mean to overlook that, but we have had discussions with Mr. Cool about the future use and future connections. There is an extreme grade change there, but at some point in the future when that develops, we will see what it develops into and we -- I'm sure that the condition placed on our plat when we come in for a subdivision, will require that if it's possible a future connection would be made to the property to the west. But, again, as I have stated, those -- and Mr. Leasure has emphasized, it makes a lot of sense to have those two accesses on Meridian Road. When we annexed in, again, I will state that we had that site plan before this Council and the property was annexed -- or was annexed into the City of Meridian as commercial and it was always our plan and was our thought that the city would support commercial on this corner and it's a very good spot for it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Huber: Any questions? De Weerd: Thank you, sir. No. Huber: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Anything additional from staff? Canning: Madam Mayor, there was a comment made that there is no access to the residential. I would like to point out that there is a stub street just right about at the half -- or the quarter mile mark that does give access to the residential neighborhood to the south. I'd also like to comment on the statement that was made regarding there was no mention of any concerns about access to Highway 69 when the project was annexed and we had numerous discussions about the topic and it was brought up at City Council and that's why those two provisions qre in the development agreement that specifically, talk about that. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 28 of 60 De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I have a question for Mr. Nary. On the variance application it asks for two different points of access. Are those or can those be taken up separately or decided upon separately or do you grant or not grant the whole package? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have been asked for -- Council member Borton, you have been asked for a variance for, essentially, two points of access along Meridian-Kuna Highway. You could certainly -- if the Council's wish is to consider one separately, you can certainly do it that way. You don't have to do them as a package, you can certainly do them separately if you would like. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Nary: You still have to make the findings individually if you do it that way. De Weerd: Council, any other information needed on this application? Okay. Would you like to close the Public Hearing? Or have discussion first? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just after Councilman Borton's clarification from the attorney, my question is whether we would like to discuss these separately or just take them up as the application states? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's your call. Wardle: I'm not asking you. Nary: Oh. You said attorney. Wardle: Okay. That attorney. Nary: Okay. Sorry. Wardle: After clarification from -- Nary: Got you. De Weerd: Council, any comments? Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 29 of 60 De Weerd: Your guess is as good as mine, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I'll kick it off with a comment. After hearing testimony from -- on this application, I can -- I understand the very difficult nature of needing a variance and the findings are fairly specific, but I -- it seems to make sense to me that from a commercial development point of view, which is what we have this zoned, that at least some access to Highway 69 seems to be appropriate to me. So, whether that's one or two is really the question in my mind. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: My viewpoint is I have no problem with the two accesses, but I do have a problem with the second one being a cross-access. I would feel much more comfortable if both of them were right-in and right-out only at that location. But sometimes when things come in after the fact, you don't always get what you want. But I would prefer to -- I think the development goes with either -- I would prefer to judge on both of them, not one at a time, myself. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Despite my earlier question, I tend to agree with Councilman Bird, that they should be taken together and discussed and decided together. To the extent there is any extraordinary hardship or isn't, I don't think that varies if you move a few hundred feet on this particular parcel. My question was merely to know if we had the option to do that, so -- Bird: And I appreciate that. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Can I ask a question of the applicant? I should have earlier, but I didn't. I will bring you back up. You had mentioned your discussions with Mr. Cool to the west. I don't know if you can answer this, but in the perfect world, if that parcel was involved in the development, do you think this request would be here and it would be designed with a different frontage road and this MeriQian Road access wouldn't be necessary? Huber: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Borton, I think we would still be here asking for these accesses on Meridian Road, even with a connection to Mr. Cool's property. Because the basic fact that Mr. Leasure pointed out, most of this traffic is headed south in the evenings when everyone shops and this only adds to the ease of traffic to get in Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 30 of 60 and out of this center. Again, taking everybody through that -- onto Overland Road and into one access point is just going to cause more problems and, then, put pressure on the intersection again when they come out. This gets them passed that intersection, gets them into the center, they can do their shopping and, then, they can get on their way home without having to go through another intersection. So, I believe we would still be here asking for this variance. Borton: Okay. Huber: Does that answer your question? Borton: It does. Huber: Thank you. De Weerd: Anything further? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: It appears Council is moving toward approving this project and I would just ask that if the maker of the motion could address how they want the findings for the UDC addressed, the three findings -- and that's Exhibit C on page one of the staff report -- staff will need guidance from Council on how to make those findings. And, then, we will have to bring those back to you, probably. De Weerd: I guess, Anna, I don't know yet what direction Council is going, but I do know that we have other requests, the integrity of our state highway system, and our traffic flows are -- I think we have learned a lot from Eagle Road and I would hope that we take some of those lessons and make sure that we are cautious about how we proceed forward, because we certainly will have more requests on Eagle Road. You will need to be specific in the findings as to how -- how it changes from what you have in front of you. Also, I think there is a question of cross-access. If there is a variance granted that will allow access to Highway 69, how these other properties to the west are going to have access to that through this property. So, there are additional considerations and questions that are raised by -- I guess in my own mind as to how that traffic would circulate if you do consider these accesses and maybe before we close the Public Hearing ask the applicant how -- how that would be realized. Certainly, if you do allow one or both of these, it would be critical to the other properties to the west to also have that cross-access tQ it as well, so -- and I didn't hear that addressed. , So, it would be a question I would have of the applicant. Leasure: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Larry Leasure. I would also state a little bit stronger than Jeffrey. I think that if any of the adjoining properties are added to this eight acre parcel, it's going to make even more a need and the pressure to be sure Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 31 of 60 there is limited access onto Meridian Road, because what it does -- once, again, this is not a small parcel, it's eight acres of real estate. But the adjacent property is approximately five acres in size and, yes, I have been talking with them. I have no agreement today to share with you to say we do have an arrangement on a plan and, of course, we have been visiting with James as well to look at a much larger master planned development, but nothing to present to you tonight. So, we would be -- definitely give strong consideration to coming back with a plan when we would come before you for the PUD -- or the conditional use as a part of our development agreement and would so state those access points to the adjacent properties, because it's definitely needed. But, once again, where the majority of the population that will be shopping at this location, definitely on this site and property the adjacent property, is going to be going south on Meridian Road and that's why it's so critical that we have the opportunity for access to get traffic through, instead of coming off of Overland into the project and, then, back through the light again. And that's, basically, what the traffic study says, that ITD has signed off on and Ada County Highway District. So, as you add land and add more retail to it, it just puts that much more pressure back onto Overland Road and this would help the right-in, right-out. If both were right-in, right-out -- and, one again, the traffic study that staff has and that you have a copy of, basically speaks to only a left turn into the site, not full access at that lower access point. Very similar to what we have done with Home Depot on State Street. So, in other words, there is only a left into the site, there is not a left out of the site, if you follow what I'm saying here, at the lower access point. And that's where the problem is is when people attempt to come out to the left, coming out of the -- that lower level. So, all we are saying here would be a -- from a -- it would be a partially full access in that there is a left turn into the site only, not a left-out, just a right-out coming out of the site. Am I making sense? Your traffic study speaks to only a left turn into this location. So, if you're coming, in essence, north from Meridian, what the traffic study states is that by tying these two together across the street from each other, the site that was approved here, we would only have left into the site. If you're coming out of this location, you have a right only. So, you're only doing a right and can only go to the south. This one is only a right-in, right-out, which, then, does not cause the problem of traffic flow. So, that's what is proposed. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Leasure, you stated that this was going to be a left in only, like the Home Depot at State Street? Leasure: Yes, sir. Bird: Between old and new 55? Leasure: Exactly. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 32 of 60 Bird: Are you going to put lights there, then? Leasure: Well, we believe that that will be necessary. And, again, a percent of that -- Bird: And you as a developer would be willing to help out in the cost of traffic lights at that point? Leasure: Yes, we would. Bird: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Leasure: Any other questions? De Weerd: Any other questions, Council? Okay. Leasure: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Any additional information needed by the Council? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Tonight. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we close the Public Hearing, Item 14, 05-027. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Council, discussion? Or do I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: In light of the comments of the applicant and sensitivity to the commercial impact of granting or denying this variance and the topography at issue and what's I proposed at this site, it's clear to me that these access roads aren't allowed, unless a variance is granted, which, in my mind, is a pretty high hurdle to clear. From what I have heard, I'm not convinced that these access points are necessary and without the granting of the property -- or access, I don't -- I don't find that the situation rises to the level of an extraordinary hardship upon the property, both of which are required to grant Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 33 of 60 a variance for these access points, so I would move that we deny variance 05-027, Item No. 14. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 14, request for variance. Do I have a second? Okay. Hearing none, motion dies. Council, do I have another motion to consider? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'll try one. Probably won't get a second. I'm just the opposite of Councilman Borton. I feel that it's a well thought out development on that corner. I think that corner is for that. And I believe the access with the right-in, right-out only at the first access and left-in, right-out at the second access, with the developer putting signal lights, turn lane and everything in there, from going north on Meridian Road -- while it's not the ideal situation, when you come back and retro fit, it's kind of like remodeling a house, it's not always -- or a building, it's not always the ideal fit. You do the best you can. I think it's eight acres. I think it will be a definite improvement to what's out there. The traffic is not great out there, but it's not great anyplace. So, with that, I would move that we approve VAR 05-027, with the conditions as stated, that the -- one on Highway 69, the most north entrance to be right-in, right-out only. The south entrance will be left-in, right-out only and that we redo the Findings to show approval. Wardle: Second. And, Madam Mayor, if I may, for clarification, on the conditions that need to be met, just offer a suggestion for the maker of the motion to incorporate three things. Number one, the inclusion of the traffic study by the applicant, reviewed by the transportation department. In addition to that, the inability of the applicant or any future foreseeable applicant to acquire property to the south of this development to include any commercial development, because it is currently residential and occupied as such and, then, third, the willingness and the ability for these accesses to create a cross- access agreement with neighboring property owners that could, in effect, create a type of frontage or backage or whichever type of road we want to call that, an additional thoroughfare off the main arterials for consideration for the maker. Bird: Second, I would agree with that, but the frontage road, I think, is out of the question on Meridian. Are you talking about on Overland Road? Wardle: Yes. Bird: If they go all the way to Stoddard? Wardle: The ability at some point in the future in the discussion we have that that could become a possibility, but only if we are able to grant these accesses. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 34 of 60 Bird: And I would agree with that. And I'd also like to add to my motion that -- that it is ITD that is the traffic -- transportation department that the study goes to. Wardle: Yes. Bird: Okay. And I'd also like to add that it is looked into by ITD and the developer on traffic lights there. I forgot that. Does the second agree? Wardle: Second agrees. Bird: Okay. Now you got the motion. Nary: Council? Bird: Yes. Nary: Before you vote on your motion, you have a development agreement in front of you that will now be inconsistent with your variance. Do you want the applicant to apply to amend their development agreement? Because the development agreement already says they have no access to Highway 69. And that will be consistent if this property were to change or redevelop; you will have that inconsistency that you will have to deal with. Bird: And I -- the motion maker would agree, Mr. Counselor that they will have to amend their development agreement to make this motion -- this variance legal. De Weerd: Does second agree? Wardle: Second agrees. De Weerd: Just for clarity, you are suggesting that cross-access be available, then, to any points of access on Highway 69 from the properties to the west? Wardle: Madam Mayor, that's a comment on the record that the applicant has made in the affirmative. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Anna. Canning: Also, for clarification, I'm &ûrry, Councilmember Bird, you stated that the I southern access would left-in and right-out only? Did you also mean to include right-in? Bird: I'm sorry. Yeah. Right-in and right-out and left-in only going north. Canning: Okay. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 35 of 60 De Weerd: Councilman Bird, is it the impression you have, then, that this would be the most southerly access would eligible for a traffic light? Bird: Madam Mayor, yes, it would be eligible, if they put -- and it's -- it's farther away from the intersection than what -- and, by the way, that does work very good over on State Street at Lowe's there, between Old Highway 55 and new Highway 55, right in the middle of that, which isn't a mile by a long shot. They have put that in so you can get access from going east off State Street into Lowe's and that development there. I travel it quite a bit. It is successful and I haven't seen that many accidents around there. So, I would like to -- it's either get traffic lights in there, in my view, or it's only right-in and right-out and when the developer agrees to put in traffic lights and I think ITD will go along with it, then, I think that's what we should do. De Weerd: So, it's your intent, if that traffic light is not approved, that it would be a right- in, right-out only? Bird: That is my intent and I think in the motion and the way it will be drawn up for the applicant to look at, it will so state that. If those traffic lights don't come in, you don't have cross-access, in my opinion. Now, whether the second agrees with that, I don't know. Wardle: Madam Mayor, certainly, you know, for discussion purposes the second will agree with that. Again, the transportation department is really the authority in this. Bird: That's right. Wardle: It appears to me that what we are talking about is something similar to their -- to their plan for additional medians in the Highway 55 area and feel that it's similar in nature. De Weerd: I guess, Council, just for additional discussion purposes, I would like Steve Siddoway, who is our transportation planner, to make comment on any of his knowledge in regard to Highway 69. There has been a strong statement from this Council, as well as the councils -- or the council to the south on preservation of this corridor, certainly, at one mile -- half mile, if not only at the mile points and I thought there was a light being suggested there at Elk Run and Calderwood, that would not make this an eligible location for a traffic light. So, Steve, can you comment? Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As currently planned, the -- Highway 69 is intended primaril}4 more for mobility than for access, two primary , functions that roads serve are mobility, moving traffic, or access to commercial developments or residential developments. Certainly, the more accesses you add the more the mobility is impaired. One of the reasons why the traffic is very congested in that area of the interchange is the number of existing signals. Right there you have -- if you include the north side of the freeway, you have the signal at Main Meridian, then, Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 36 of 60 the off ramp, then, the southern off ramp and, then, Overland. This proposed signal location would be just one-eighth of a mile further south, which makes it very difficult to time that many lights for two-way traffic. There is a proposal for a signal down at the half mile that will be coming before you with the Nazarene church application where they are proposing an access at the half mile. There is also -- there has been discussion of Calderwood, which is at a quarter mile, which there are concerns that even that one may be too close to Overland. So, certainly, there would be some challenges with putting that just based on the spacing and trying to maintain some traffic progression, but I would -- I would leave some of those final decisions open to the traffic engineers themselves. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And, I'm sorry, I should have done that during the Public Hearing process, but I didn't know you were talking about a traffic light there, Councilman Bird, so I just want to comment on that in discussion. Any further information needed by Council? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll on this item. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Item 16: Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: 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: Continue Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: 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 Canvon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC - 1845 West Franklin Road: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: CUP 05-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development within 300' of a residence for Harks Canvon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC - 1845 West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Mr. Nary, can you, please, go ask Mr. Rountree to join us. Thank you. Okay. Items 15, 16, and 17 have been requested to be continued. Council, I would entertain a motion to do so. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue the Public Hearing for AZ 05-056, PP 05-058, and CUP 05- 051 to April 4th, 2006. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 37 of 60 Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to continue Items 15,16, and 17 to April 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Items 18 and 19 are public hearings AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Sharp Estates Project and it is located south of Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 on the west side of Wingate Lane, approximately a half mile south of Ustick Road. We have shown the lot pattern in here. It's currently a five acre parcel. It is an in-fill piece in the classic sense. This is an application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. The gross residential density is 4.9 units per acre. The applicant is requesting to zone the property R-8, which is medium density residential, and this parcel is 5.11 acres in size. The preliminary plat approval would be for 25 single family buildable lots and two common lots. The property was dealing with two stub streets that are offset from one another, so you see the road kind of comes to a T to provide some variation that the applicant has put a little curve in the road before the cul-de-sac. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their February 2nd hearing. Ron Sargent spoke in favor of the project and no one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the pathway on the south part of the project and -- to the west and east and, then, Wingate Lane and vacating an interest in that easement. The pathway issue -- there is not a pathway shown on the Comprehensive Plan in this area. However, there is a pathway constructed on the adjoining properties, so the developer felt that he could continue that on this property on the southern boundary and there is an opportunity to extend it to the west as well. Regarding Wingate Lane -- let me go back up to the larger one. As you all know, Wingate Lane goes straight up to Ustick and there are a number of pro~erty owners toward the north end of the lane. . This was the southern most terminal of Wingate Lane. And what the Planning and Zoning Commission asked was that the applicant vacate any easement that they had going all the way up -- any rights they had to accessing that easement at any portion along Wingate Lane and they have agreed to do that. What this effectively means is that Wingate Lane will end before it gets in the City of Meridian now, so -- oops. Went Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 38 of 60 too far. Sorry. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. You do have findings today before you for approval. I would note that the applicant did submit a revised plat, but there are still some issues for that one. So, the plat notes that are referenced -- the plat date that is noted in your findings is the correct one to note. And with that I'll answer any questions that Council may have. Bird: I have none, Mr. President. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant, please, come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Sargent: Councilmembers, Ron Sargent, 1771 North Wildwood, Boise, Idaho. I guess, first of all, is we are in agreement with the comments by staff. I guess -- Anna, could you put the vicinity map up. And just as a clarification, at both ends of the property, both the west end and this east end, there is a locked gate that's located there, but there is an irrigation canal that runs along the back of each of these properties and it runs all the way to the school up here and we would, you know, construct a pathway on the south side of our property and we would hope that with the cooperation of the neighbors and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, that this pathway, which, basically, is in existence today, but is full of weeds and trash and, basically, just needs to be cleaned up. Likewise, on the east end there is a cinder path that's located here, as well as a cinder path that goes all the way up to this R-2. So, we are -- by constructing our pathway on the south part of our property, over the top of the irrigation canal, we hope that that pathway would continue the whole length on either side of our property. Likewise, as staff has mentioned, we are willing to give up our rights on Wingate Lane all way from the property to Ustick Road. So, with that I'd stand for any questions. Wardle: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor -- or President. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Councilman Borton. Borton: The pathway on the south, Mr. Sargent, is that maintained by the homeowners? Sargent: It will be maintained. There is -- we would propose building a ten foot wide paved pathway that would be maintained by the homeowners in our subdivision. But the pathway on either side of us -- on t~e east side it's maintained by the homeowners. association in that location, but I don't think to the east of us there is -- or, excuse me, to the west of us is there anybody that is responsible for the maintenance of that section. So, that's something the other subdivision would have to address. Borton: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 39 of 60 De Weerd: Any additional questions for the applicant? I do want to note for the record that we do have in front of you, Council, for -- that was received today, a letter, and it was respectfully submitted by a number of the neighbors. It is available on the record. Did the applicant get a copy of this? Sargent: No, I did not. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, staff did not get a copy either. Or at least planning staff didn't. De Weerd: It's dated March 2nd and we received it, I believe, on the 6th. Okay. It is in the packet. Canning: Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. De Weerd: Okay. Sargent: This is it? Yeah, I got this one. Okay. De Weerd: I'll give you a chance to review that and comment upon your closing comments. Sargent: Okay. Great. De Weerd: Does that work for you? Sargent: That works fine. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Sargent: Any additional questions? De Weerd: Not at this time. Thank you. We do have two people that have signed up in favor of. William Smith and Kathy Smith. Would either of you like to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Please come forward. If you will state your name and address for the record. Jenkins: Okay. Madam Mayor and City,Council, my name is Ed Jenkins. I live at 2584 I Bullock in Meridian. We wrote a letter on March 2nd and we e-mailed it to the city clerk on March 3rd. And it was -- it identified 12 of us. De Weerd: Yes, sir. That is the letter I just referred to. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 40 of 60 Jenkins: That's the letter you're talking about? De Weerd: Yes. Jenkins: Okay. One of the issues in that letter was the Wingate Lane, which it sounds like that issue has been addressed. We also wrote in there in regards to density, that we are in objection to this plat of 50 foot lots. And the other item was lack of common area. Sense that time we have talked to people in the area who weren't aware, in particular Packard Acres No.3, a lot of those were recorded in December, so I don't think anybody in that section received notice. I own three lots that touch the Sharp property there and I know there is other people that we also had a sign-up sheet that are in agreement with this letter and we'd like to submit that to you. There is 64 people that are on board with us saying that we don't prefer that type of density and 16 of the people are within 300 feet of the Sharp's property. So, we'd just like to submit that. And, then, make one other point to you. If you -- if you look at the big picture up there, you can see pretty plainly that the density of that particular parcel is a lot more dense than a lot of the residential around it and it kind of -- it kind of shows that there is going to be traffic issues, there is going to be parking on the street issues, we believe. The possibility of row houses, the row house look, if they building two story buildings, with 40 foot buildings -- 40 foot wide buildings. And another concern off of Devlin as it comes into Packard Acres there, there is a playground right there and a considerable space for a common area and we just don't feel like the Sharp property has the space that they are accommodating for common area for the residents of this new development. So, with that I'd answer any questions you have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weer<j: Thank you, sir. Jenkins: Can I submit these signatures to you? De Weerd: Yes. Please submit those to the city clerk. Thank you very much. Jenkins: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there additional testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like the final word? Sargent: Ron Sargent. Madam Mayor, Çouncilmembers. I guess the first thing I guess I'd like to address is the density and I have some photographs of another project that we have completed and our intent is to not only create this subdivision, but also to build the homes that are going to go in there. And we took a lot of look at the type of home that could go in there and these are the -- very similar to what we would be proposing to go in there. So, I guess -- Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 41 of 60 De Weerd: Mr. Sargent, could you give that to Anna and she can put it up on the screen. Sargent: I guess it kind of blurs it a little bit on the overhead, but these are some of the homes that we proposing, different methodologies of entering the garages, so that we don't have all the garages facing the street and I guess the appropriate terminology is called a shared driveway. So, it would come in from the side and, then, turn into the -- into the garage area. Okay. This is another, I guess, photograph of the type of home that we would be proposing to build in there and these homes are, actually, on smaller lots than the 50 foot wide lots that we are proposing. And one of the things, I guess, when we looked at this property, if we did larger lots, we were concerned that we would end up with a 400,000 dollar home on the bigger lots that we would -- could possibly be put in there. So, by being at this size, we were looking to be somewhere between about 325,000 and 350,000 as the overall price for the homes, which we think is complimentary to this neighborhood in here. This is another type of design that we are looking at for this area. I guess, Anna, if we could go to the subdivision map. In our application for the subdivision, the city requires that we have five percent of our area that is common area and these lots here -- or this area here represents the five percent required for the subdivision application. This pathway here is 30 feet wide and it's not -- when the staff looked at it, they didn't consider this pathway part of the common area. Likewise, this path area from here down to the end is not counted as towards that five percent of the common area. So, I did not do the calculations, but just looking at it, we are probably getting -- pushing close to ten percent of the subdivision as being common area, which would be close to double what the requirement of the code would be for a subdivision application. And I guess the -- and we -- the location -- there is a playground sort of located up in this area, but we really didn't have any choice, because this road was stubbed into the edge of our property on the north. This road was stubbed to the south end of the property and we have -- this is really where we had to connect the roads. We really didn't have any flexibility in a different type of design for that. And, then, I guess, the third item we have already discussed is the vacation of Wingate Lane. So, we -- as we have already mentioned, we propose to do that as part of the approval process. De Weerd: Okay. Sargent: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none -- thank you. Sargent: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any additional information needed from staff? Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 42 of 60 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Just a reminder or refresher from Anna about the requirements of the UDC as it relates to lot sizes and frontages in an R-8. Canning: The minimum lot frontage in the R-8 is 50 feet. You can go down to 40 feet if you have a shared driveway. I believe they indicated they were doing the shared driveways, but they do have 50 feet of frontage, I believe. I'm looking quickly, but -- I don't see any shared driveways actually designated, so they all meet at least the minimum 50-foot frontage and the 5,000 square foot lot size. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Anything further, Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Is there any indication from either the city clerk or Anna that the adjacent residents were not notified? De Weerd: Was the property posted? Canning: Will, maybe if you could look for the posting, I will look for the noticing list. Berg: Anna, I found the radius report. Canning: Okay. Berg: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, it seems to be a fairly lengthy list on the radius report, but I do want to say that sometimes the Ada County records aren't to the minute up to date. We go off, you know, records of ownership at the time that we request it. So, I can't tell you when sales are made and when they are put on those records. Canning: And the property was posted, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Wardle. , Wardle: Madam Mayor. Mr. Clerk, if you can -- I have got a neighborhood meeting -- it looks like a sign-up sheet dated November 9th, 2005, with 13 names on it. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 43 of 60 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: In the letter we got, they evidently had been notified. I think the way I read that first paragraph is they were not notified of the March 7th. Well, we don't repost when we continue something, unless it is -- do we? We don't renotice, do we? I mean this was something that we continued. Berg: Madam Mayor, it hasn't been our policy to renotice in the paper or renotice the homeowners when you continue a Public Hearing. We hope that people come to that original Public Hearing and understand that it's renoticed. There are situations that if you instructed us on special circumstances to do that we have. But that's -- a matter of requirement of renoticing or reposting, that is not in our policy. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. Anything further from Council? Rountree: I have nothing. De Weerd: Okay. Yes, sir. If you will, please, state your name and address. Decouto: My name is Edward Decouto. I'm at 2393 East Meadow Grass Street. De Weerd: Thank you. Decouto: In Meridian in Packard Estates No.3, which is that lot right there is my personal residence. Madam Mayor, City Council, I did attend that meeting that you referenced on -- what was the date of that again? The neighborhood meeting. The only way I found out about that was by word of mouth and several of us spread the word and we all did attend that. It was proposed to us at that time that there was going to be a subdivision behind my residence and at that time we voiced our opinions about the density and things of that nature that we have listed in that letter, which I co-authored, and it appears that none of our recommendations were taken and put into this plat. As you can see, basically, all the residents that surround this are affected by this. I have, basically, two and a piece of another backyard to my one backyard. My concerns there are that -- which is stated in the letter, about drainage, what are they going to do about keeping water from getting onto my property off of basically three roofs. There is a known clay issue in that area. I am a builder. I actually own the lot next door. That lot there. And I own this lot right here with my business partner Ed Jenkins. And, also, we are opposed -- I'm opposed to this personally, because of the -- the lack of really consideration for any of the surrounding properties in regards to that issue with larger lots surrounding this -- this proposed subdivision and also the lack of consideration for any common area for the children that a~e going to reside in this area and they will, naturally -- the kids that were -- are going to live in this subdivision will naturally migrate to that play area that we have that we paid for through our homeowners association and built ourselves, they will go to that area and use it. We are not opposed to development being back there, we are just opposed to the density of it. Any questions for me? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 44 of 60 De Weerd: No. Thank you, sir. Decouto: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Sargent, do you want to respond? Well, before I ask for a response, is there any other public testimony? Thank you. Sargent: I guess the first thing is -- we'd like to address is the common areas that -- I guess we see this pathway as something that could be used by the kids in the neighborhood on their way to school, because it may, eventually, end up connecting all the way through to the school on the east end. The other thing is the playground to the north. I guess we are not opposed to supporting the maintenance and upkeep of that playground, if -- so we wouldn't be opposed to sharing some of the expenses in there with the neighbors. In our meeting we did show this exact plat. We did -- there was some discussions about the density that took place, but I guess we still feel that -- we think that this is the -- the right type of product to put in this location, because this is quite a transition from very expensive homes up in this area, to some that have been in this area for some time to the south. So, we feel that this transition that we don't want to be trying to put, you know, really expensive, high-end homes and we see this as the transition between the more expensive homes to the north and the less expensive homes to the south and the west. So, I'd stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, what would you like to do? If there is no additional public testimony, would you like to close these two items? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the public hearings on Items 18 and 19. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close 18 and 19. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 45 of 60 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 18, AZ 05-062. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve Item 18. Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: With respect to the issue of density, certainly, that's something that we have been struggling with for the last two years and something that we have made some significant strides with. But it seems to me in this particular location, since this is the last in-fill and it's surrounded by R-4, and somewhat inconsistent with all of the lot sizes and density that surround the immediate area and the far reaching area, that I probably would not vote to support the motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I would echo Councilman Rountree's thoughts and expressions and I, too, cannot, at this density, support this project. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: For discussion purposes, the original -- I believe that this is an R-8 zone. If I could get clarification from staff. Canning: Yes, sir, it's actually R-8 to the north, to the west, and to the south. It's only R-4 to the east. Rountree: I stand corrected. Bird: But I still don't support it. Rountree: Then, I'll remove my comment$ from the record as it relates to surrounded. Still not necessarily in support of the density. There has been a change in our R-8 definition, has there not, from previous R-8 approval? Canning: Yes, sir. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 46 of 60 Rountree: 6,500 square foot minimum? Canning: Yes, sir. Rountree: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, also, before we changed, those existing R-8s around there, are 65-foot wide, am I not right? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, particularly Councilmember Bird and Rountree, I don't know exactly what their frontage requirement was. So many of the subdivisions were done as planned developments for the sole purpose of reducing lot frontage, but I would venture a guess that they don't have 65 feet of lot frontage. Bird: But that was an R-8 requirement-- Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: -- was a 65-foot width, unless you got a variance or you did a PUD? Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: Okay. I still stand on my comments. De Weerd: Okay. Any additional discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. De Weerd: Well, thank you, Council. I feel important tonight. Rountree: First time in a long time. De Weerd: No, it's not. You keep doing this. I guess, Council, I would vote nay as well. And I guess for a little bit different reason. I believe that there needs to be a little bit better transition. I feel that this is a good project for in-fill, but there could be a little bit of a variation and a little bit more sensitivity to some of the larger sized lots that can -- can ease a little bit more into it and so I guess ~o a certain degree I concur with Councilman Rountree and Bird. I just think there could be a little bit better transition. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR NAY. De Weerd: So, I do need a motion that can pass. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 47 of 60 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we deny AZ 05-062, based on the grounds as stated. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: There is a motion to deny Item 18. I guess, Council, before you look at this, I guess I would like to see if there is an opportunity to look at the plat and maybe work with the neighbors to bring something back, rather than reapply. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would have no problem with that. I just really have a problem with narrowness and we have always tried to go on the outside and at least try to be halfway the same size of lots around us and when we are two and a half to one outside of us, I have a problem with that. I don't know, though. What we did was we turned it down, so now a question for legal counsel is how -- you know, if you -- you need a motion. We have turned it down, we have denied it, so you need a motion of denial. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, we haven't denied it yet. Your motion is on the floor right now. Bird: We turned it down. Yeah. So you need -- De Weerd: No, we did not pass the motion to approve. We still need a motion. Bird: To deny. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary, would you like to explain it? Nary: As you stated, Madam Mayor, Council, all you have done is not approve the motion to approve. You can -- you can reopen your Public Hearing. You can ask for more information. You can set this matter over for a period of time, if the application is desirous to do that. You can remand it with more specific direction, although, again, you might want to ask the applicant if they,want to do that. Or you can move to deny. So, you have a number of options still available to you. I think what Madam Mayor -- if I'm maybe reading her mind, rather than in two or three weeks readdressing a motion to reconsider, which is -- happens a lot, if you think there is something that might be adjusted to this or an opportunity for another neighborhood meeting and Mr. Sargent is Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 48 of 60 willing to do that; you can certainly reopen the Public Hearing to ask him that question. If he isn't willing to do that, then, you can take action as you please. De Weerd: Would the maker of the motion -- Bird: Yeah, J have no problem with that. Whatever you guys want to do. De Weerd: Does second agree? Rountree: Sure. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion to reopen the Public Hearing for applicant's response? Wardle: So moved. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Bird: Well, I'll second that. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Sargent. Sargent: I would propose to the Council that we meet with the neighbors that are here tonight and discuss the lot width on the north side of the property and see if we can come to some sort of an agreement with them on that and come back to you with a proposal. De Weerd: Council? Bird: That's agreeable to me. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: J would move that we continue the Public Hearing until -- Canning: Madam Mayor, isn't there a motion out there. No, there is not? De Weerd: They were withdrawn. Canning: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 49 of 60 De Weerd: We are way ahead of you, Anna. Rountree: What does the 21 st look like, Will? Jam packed? Wardle: No. De Weerd: I guess, Council, if we continue it to the 21 st, you will at least know how substantial the change might be if you need to remand it back to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, two suggestions. Yeah, may -- at least in two weeks, if they have another meeting, you may -- we may find we need to renotice or remand, depending on what the change may be, because there may be more property owners affected that we aren't aware of today. My other suggestion to you is Mr. Sargent had offered to meet with the property owners on the north. If you're going to remand this or you're going to set this over for a neighborhood meeting of some sort, you may suggest strongly that he meet with all the neighbors. Otherwise, your southern neighbors will come to the next meeting and may claim that they didn't get an opportunity to have another participation. There, obviously, has been maybe some changes to the radius notice and if they are going to hold a public meeting, you may want to resolve all those issues or at least get them heard before you hear it again. Rountree: So, with all the help, I'm still looking for a date. De Weerd: April 4. Rountree: April 4th? Okay. Continuing my motion that we continue the Public Hearing until April 4th and request that the applicant have a neighborhood workshop and meeting with the surrounding neighbors of the proposed development. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue the Public Hearing to April 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. And that was on Items 18 and 19. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: 18 and 19. Item 20: Public Hearing: RZ 05-022 Request for a Rezone of 3.36 acres from R- 8 to L-O for Church of the Holy Nativity by Church of the Holy Nativity - 828 West Cherry Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is Public Hearing on RZ 05-022. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 50 of 60 Canning: Just a moment, Madam Mayor. I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was just suggesting that the applicant get a new list from our department, so that we can make sure any property -- recent property purchasers are notified. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: The next project is the Church of the Holy Nativity. It is located on the north side of Cherry Lane, east of Linder Road. And there is the site right there. And this is an application for a rezone of 3.36 acres from R-8 to L-O. The site currently contains three structures, all associated with the Church of the Holy Nativity, and the primary purpose of this rezone is to change the zoning to allow them to install a sign for the church. The residential zoning did not allow a sign and when the previous occupant of the church left, they took the sign with them and created a problem in approving a new sign for the use. So, we asked the church to come in and rezone the property. This does help them in the future, when they are ready to do expansions or remodels, they will be able to do that as a principal permitted use in the L-O zone, rather than a conditional use in the R-8 zone. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their February 2nd hearing. Clayton Lyle spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. There was no issues of discussion by the Commission and there was no changes to the staff's initial recommendation. And to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before City Council. And you do have Findings for approval before you tonight. And with that I'll answer any question you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Anna? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: This particular property throughout the years has had multiple different signs on the same property advertising the church and the day care and whatever else they had going on in that vicinity. Do the Findings specifically identify that there will be one and only one monument sign located to identify the church? Canning: The Findings do not address the sign provisions, all it does is allow them to whatever is entitled by the L-O zone and the sign code is a little bit iffy ground for me, but my general understanding is that only Qne monument sign would be allowed and I believe that's all they are seeking at this time. Rountree: Great. .... Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 51 of 60 De Weerd: Anything further for staff? Would the representative like to comment? Mrs. McCandless. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. McCandless: I'm Cherie McCandless, 1882 Northwest 13th Avenue, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. McCandless: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. What Anna said is primarily what I would say. We did want to put up a sign, which we have done, and to my knowledge that's the only sign that will be on the property. I'm not sure, but I really think that's all we are going to put up. And we have -- in the foreseeable future we have no plans for any additions or any development -- anymore development. So, that's why we would ask for the rezone to L-O. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for Cherie? Rountree: Thank you for your comments. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Signs are my favorite topic. De Weerd: Okay. No comment. Is there any additional public testimony on this application? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 20. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the request for a rezone for Item 20, RZ 05-022 and approve the Findings. Meridian City Council March 7,2006 Page 52 of 60 Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve Item 20. 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 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-066 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .50 acres from R-12 to C-G zone for Meridian Veterinary Clinic by Architecture Northwest - 415 West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you. Item 21 is Public Hearing AZ 05-066. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is another rezone request. It's for the Meridian Veterinary Clinic. The site is located on the south side of Franklin Road, just west of Meridian Road, and it is another in-fill project. As you will see, everything around it is zoned C-G already. This one is currently zoned R-12 in Ada County. The purpose of the rezone is to facilitate the construction of -- or expansion of the use on the site by constructing a new building on the southern portion of the site. Staff is recommending a development agreement. This property happens to be in two lots, so staff is recommending a development agreement for the sole purpose of requiring a cross-access -- or recording a cross-access and parking easement between the two parcels, since it's not likely to go through a subdivision process or any other discretionary approvals, that is the purpose of the development agreement. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their February 2nd hearing. Joe Thompson spoke in favor of the application. No one opposed it. Larry Rackham commented on the application. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the need for alternative compliance along the west property line and the desire to see landscaping along Franklin Road. There were no key changes to staff's initial recommendation and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before City Council. And you do have Findings for approval before you tonight. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff? Okay. Is there any comments by the representative? Haverfield: Madam Mayor, and City Council, my name is Randy Haverfield, I'm the project architect. I reside at 224 16th Avenue South in Nampa, Idaho. I'm here just to answer any questions you might have. Sta~ did a great job of preparing you for this, so I'm here to answer any questions you might have. And I'm also representing Scott Higer, who is the owner of the Meridian Veterinary Hospital or clinic there. De Weerd: Well, thank you. Thank you for being here tonight. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 53 of 60 Bird: I have none. Haverfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing no further comment, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 21. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 21, AZ 05-066. Borton: Second. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: You can at least give them more for their money on waiting all this time. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. De Weerd: Thank you. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 05-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.50 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Nesmith Annexation by Jonathan Seel - 2820 East Ustick Road: Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 54 of 60 Item 23: Public Hearing: MI 05-017 Miscellaneous request to amend the previously approved Development Agreement for Blue Marlin (AZ 03-025) for Nesmith Annexation by Jonathan Seel- 2820 East Ustick Road: De Weerd: Items 22 and 23 are public hearings on AZ 05-065 and MI 05-017. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Nesmith Annexation project and -~ you can't see the roads. There is Ustick. There is Ustick. Sorry. There is Eagle. And this property is located on the north side just adjoining Champion Park Subdivision and next to the -- what was known as Blue Marlin and I forget -- annexation just to the east. The applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning to C-G, general commercial. And also a miscellaneous application to amend the development agreement for Blue Marlin to include this piece of property. The applicant is not proposing any land use development or subdivision at this time. As I said before, they are just asking to add this to the Blue Marlin property, basically. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their February 2nd hearing. Jonathan Seel spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition and no one commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the setbacks and land use buffers between the subject and the property to the west. So, just along here. And what those revolved around is that the UDC required a 20-foot wide landscape buffer between C-G zoned property and residential uses or zones and even though some non-residential uses are allowed here through a planned development, they are currently zoned residential, so that 25-foot wide landscape buffer would apply. The applicant, since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, has submitted an alternative compliance to reduce that landscape buffer width to ten feet and to -- in exchange for limiting that to ten feet, they are willing to limit the trash compactors and loading dock along the west elevations of the buildings that, basically, face that west property line. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for alternative compliance. With regard to outstanding issues before City Council, the applicant is in agreement with the conditions, but has recommended a clarification to the fifth bulleted item in the DA provisions and I believe you have a letter in your packet regarding that, but, basically, it just clarifies that that restriction regarding the trash compactors and loading docks only applies to those properties where the building' faces this residential -- this west boundary line. I think that they just want to leave a clear record, so that eight years now when we have all gone our merry way, that there is not some -- that that restriction isn't applied to a property that's more interior to the project. And maybe not all of us will be gone in eight years. I shouldn't have said that. Twenty-eight years. How is that? You do have Findings for approval before you tonight. If the Council desires to include the applicant's clarification, which, again, staff is fine with, the Findings are still good; you just need to direct that his request be incorporated into the modification to the development agreement. So, the findings for the annexation and zoning are still suitable for tonight. And with that I'll answer any questions. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions for staff? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 55 of 60 Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Wardle: Would the applicant like to step forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Seel: Good evening. Jonathan See!, W.H. Moore Company. 1940 Bonito, Meridian. As Anna said, we have gone through the staff report, we are in agreement with the requested modification and I think unless there is any questions, I would be glad to sit down. I think we are all in agreement. So, I think it's been a long night and I don't think you need anymore long discussions, so -- Rountree: We agree. Wardle: Council, if there is no further discussion -- thank you, Mr. Seel. Seel: Already lost somebody. Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Rountree: Frank or Gary. Wardle: Okay. Gary doesn't. Additional staff comments? Canning: No, sir. Wardle: Council? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Rountree: With no further discussion, Mr. President, I most that we close the Public Hearing for Item No. 24 -- 22 and 23. Excuse me. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 22 and 23. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 56 of 60 Rountree: I move that we approve the annexation request for Item 22, AZ 05-065. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve this item. Is there any discussion? No discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 23. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 23, MI 05-017, and incorporate the suggested modification of the language in the DA by staff and approve the Findings. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve Item 23 with the noted changes. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 24: Public Hearing: ZOA 05-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts; the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision-Making Authority by Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length; screening and chain link fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning compliance; off- street parking space standards and measurements; off-street loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for family day care by the City of Meridian Planning Department: , De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Item 24 has been requested to be continued to April 4th. Bird: Are you going to open the Public Hearing first, Madam Mayor, and, then, continue the Public Hearing? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 57 of 60 De Weerd: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I will go ahead an open the Public Hearing ZOA 05-002 and ask for a motion to continue. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Before I make the motion, I want to just compliment publicly Anna for doing -- for realizing that this needed to be looked at more before we brought it forward and I thank you very much, Anna. It will save a lot of heartache down the road, I believe. And with that I'd move that we continue ZOA 05-002 until April 4th, 2006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to continue Item 24 to April 4th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 25: Public Hearing: New fees and modification of existing fee by the Public Works Department necessary to cover the costs of development plan review, inspections, site plan and development plan reviews. De Weerd: Okay. Item 25 -- Rountree: Continue that? De Weerd: -- is a Public Hearing. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Due to noticing issues, irregularities, Public Works has indicated that they want to continue the Public Hearing on that until -- Grady: Next week. Rountree: March 14th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to continue the Public Hearing on Item 25 until next week, March 14th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 58 of 60 Item 26: Ordinance No. 06-1216 : RZ 05..021 Request for a Rezone of .94 acres from R-8 to C-G and Rezone of .95 acres from R-8 to C-N for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation - north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 27: Ordinance No. 06..1217 : AZ 05-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: De Weerd: Okay. Item 26 is ordinance number 06-1216 and Item 27 is ordinance number 06-1217. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these two ordinances by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1216, an ordinance finding that Hillview Development Corporation, the owner of certain real property, has made a written request for rezone of their zoning classification of their real property located in the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-8 to C-G and C-N in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. Berg: Ordinance 06-1217, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and 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 lands 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, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. Frank, you have heard these two ordinances read by title only. Would you like to hear either of them read in their entirety? Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 06-1216 and 06-1217, with suspension of rules. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 59 of 60 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items 26 and 27 with suspension of rules. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 28: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (a) (c) and (f): De Weerd: Thank you. Item 28 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67- 2345(1) (a) (c) and (f). Do I have a motion? Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Rountree: Mr. President, I move that we come out of Executive Session. Bird: Second. Wardle: Okay, it has been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. All those in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Bird: Let me note that no decisions were made during Executive Session. Wardle: Thank you. Borton: Move to adjourn. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 60 of 60 Wardle: All in favor of adjournment. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:02 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) - ------------------ ~~ MAYOR T ~ DE WEERD .3 '7-( .1)16u':'I" / P' '\\\ "; ,t' &'f- f,j~Fc)';, -II.!", , .", <~ "i DATE APPR0~~-,~-.~,,~,!.:\? '-;:-,>, -::-- ' ,1X¡"Y)r.-, '., ~l.. --;.. '- --P_,,--L.þ"""" --- .:::- .' 4. - "";'" \ ~- if';;" 'C,i \ ~¿; ~ , ~ - I ~ ATTESTED ""l :::: WILLIAM G. BERG J~ <) ~~~~~:~~":;'9:ß~. --;"::;, "1 Cou- '=~:.'f '::)"<~:"~ /,{ .i'", "", "-','" f; u I' ,',,'.." II I I Iii r' ,", . \' ': ,,':',,' ---