HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 03-14
Meridian City Council Meetina
March 14. 2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, March 14,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie
Rountree and Joe Borton.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Bill Musser,
Bill Johnson, 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. Welcome. Certainly we
always like to see the government students at Meridian High School. We appreciate
you joining us. We will see how long you last. It is Tuesday, March 14th, at 7:00
o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. We will be led tonight by Caleb
Burkhart. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Ed Schultz with The Experience:
De Weerd: Caleb, I would like to give you our City of Meridian pin. Thank you for
joining us. That should get you extra extra credit. Okay. Item No.3 is our community
invocation. Tonight we will be led by Ed Schultz with the Experience Church. If you will
all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of
silence.
Schultz: Dear God in Heaven, we thank you for giving each of us the opportunity to be
here in a place like this this evening and tonight I pray for wisdom for the citizens that
are represented here and for each Council person and the Mayor that's here tonight and
all of their representatives. I ask for a special measure of your wisdom. I know that
you're a God of order and that you look down and smile on interaction like this and I just
pray that you will bless everything that's said tonight. Give us a measure of your love
and your compassion as we go about the dealing of this city and we thank you for all
these things in Jesus' name, amen.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 2 of 76
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Ed, I would like to give you a pin as well. Thank you for coming. Thank you
for filling in. Okay. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On our agenda, on the Consent Agenda, we'd like to pull Item C and G to 7-C and
7-G. We'd like some explanation. And D and E also be pulled to 7-D and 7-E. And that
the resolution -- well, we'll go into the resolution on the Consent when we get there.
Ordinance numbers will start with 06-1218 and go through 06-1221. And with that I
move we approve the revised Consent Agenda -- or the agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the agenda as changed and that is
removing Items C, D, E, and G off of the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Is that correct?
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of February 28, 2006 City Council Regular
Meeting:
B.
Addendum to Development Agreement: MI 05-015
Miscellaneous Request to modify the recorded development
agreement for Parkstone Subdivision (AKA Champion Park
Subdivision) by Hillview Development Corporation - north of Ustick
Road and west of Eagle Road:
F.
Revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4
to 0- T zones for operation of a barber shop for Fred's uReel"
Barber Shop by Fred Pratt -1127 North Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 3 of 76
L.
H.
Development Agreement: AZ 05-055 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek
Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - North Meridian Road
and West McMillan Road:
I.
Sanitary Sewer and Water M.!!!L.Easement Aareement..1Qr
Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties Limited
Partnership:
J.
Contract for Black Cat Lift Station and Trunk Sewer
Authorization for Additional Services No.6 with JUB
Engineers, Inc.
K.
Easement Aareement for Gateway Monumen\ with G&H
Enterprises:
Award of Bid for Park Landscape Maintenance Serv!ces w!.tb
Iron Creek. LLC. DBA Metcalf Landscape Contractors:
De Weerd: Okay. The Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Item C, D,
E and G to 7 C, D, E and G and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all
proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr.
Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
Mayor's Office:
1.
Budget Amendment for Desk for Part-Time Office
Assistant:
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 4 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Council, under Mayor's report I do have a request for amendment of
the budget. It is in front of you. I have talked to our Council liaison, our Council
president, our part-time assistant is a little bit disturbed sitting underneath the mail
boxes. She can't work there. I would appreciate a motion to approve this request.
Wardle: Council, before I make that motion, the Mayor discussed this, because it is
outside of the -- her budget for this year, we need to make an amendment. Any
questions? Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve the budget amendment for the Mayor's office.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Council, as any budget amendments come in front of you, you will see
these forms. They do have to be signed by the department director, as well as myself,
before it comes to Council for approval. So, it gives you the justification on those forms
and the assurance that it has gone through the process of approval before it gets to
you. So, hopefully, that answers some of the questions that have come up in the past.
B.
Planning Department - Anna Canning
1.
Draft Scope of Work for the South Meridjan Area ~:
De Weerd: Okay. Item B, our planning department.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in your packet you did receive a very
draft version of the scope of work through the south Meridian slash north Kuna slash
Ada County sub area plan, with staff comments about that scope of work. I just gave it
so that you knew kind of what we were thinking. At this point it may not be important
that you look at that document. The draft scope of work was on the agenda for Kuna
last night. They did not act on it. They didn't have a quorum, so they didn't act on
anything. But we have heard that they are not likely to approve the scope. Ada County
has also considered the scope and the commissioners, I believe, are sending a letter to
the Mayor saying that they will only participate in the sub area plan if both cities agree to
not annex outside their current areas of city impact and, then, also some other
provisions. And, again, it's unlikely that Kuna will be willing -- I mean they stated in the
last joint meeting they were unwilling to do that. So, it's likely that we are not moving
forward with the sub area plan. So, I guess I'm giving you an update. If you'd like to
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 5 of 76
provide feedback now you can. If you'd like me to prepare more for you for next week I
can do that, too.
De Weerd: What, Anna, isn't this change number four?
Canning: Yes. Well, no, I think this is number three. But I think what we would do is go
back to version number two at this point, which was the -- just Meridian by itself. Ada
County will probably still be willing to participate as just a participant on the steering
committee, so that we have their input as time goes on. But it would be scope of work
number two at this point.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, do you know when they next meet?
Canning: Next week. Kuna meets next week.
De Weerd: Do they meet on a Monday or a Tuesday?
Canning: I am not sure on that fact. I thought they usually met on Tuesdays. I don't
know why last on a Monday. So, I'm not sure what the --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. Their normal scheduled meetings are on Tuesday. There was a special
meeting last night. They don't have -- I'm looking at their agenda. Currently they don't
have a scheduled meeting for next week. It is normally the first and third, I believe, of
the month. So, they should normally have a meeting next week, but they don't have
one currently listed on their agenda.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: When I checked with staff they said next week. I can keep you posted.
De Weerd: Yes. Why don't you keep us posted. I think it would be premature to give
any direction until they have stated their intent. Certainly, Council, if you'd like me to
respond to the county and reiterate that it is not our practice to annex outside our area
of impact and we would like to work in collaboration with them, just to respond to their
letter.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 6 of 76
Wardle: Certainly to respond to the county's criteria, our things that I recall we agreed
to in our joint meeting. So, we could just reiterate our willingness to be at the table to
work in a partnership, I would certainly agree with that.
De Weerd: Okay. We will send a reply to their letter.
c.
Legal Department
1.
Update I Approval of Impact Fee RFP:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. C-1. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm going to, actually, let Mr.
Baird take number one.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in your packet tonight I'm pleased to
provide you a recommendation for the award of the consulting contract for the impact
fee updates. By way of brief background, we put out an RFP to hire a consultant to help
us update the methodology and the ordinance for the parks impact fee and to bring forth
proposals for impact fees for fire and police and infrastructure needs. The committee
reviewed the proposals and were recommending that the contract be awarded to VEC
Research and Consulting. They are out of Denver, Colorado. However, the contract
team does include two local consultants, a management analyst by the name of Anne
Westcott. Her company Glenic Consulting. And the legal -- the local legal assistance
would come from Joann Butler and although you have seen her in front of you on the
opposite side, the committee thought that she added strength to the team and could
possibly help get buy-in from the development community. So, it's with that as a
background that we'd request a motion to approve that. The contract amount is 29,000
dollars. I would remind you that this does come out of the administration fee that we
collect from each impact fee that we currently have. There is one item that I wanted to
bring up for discussion and that's that the Mayor directed me to look at possibly adding
an additional component to this and that has to do with sidewalks. As you're aware,
ACHD has explicit jurisdiction for streets, which do include sidewalks. However, they
have deemed sidewalks to be impact fee non-eligible, leaving the door open for us to at
least look at it. I did put a call in today to Gary Inselman and he indicated we may have
a problem with the right of way component, because they don't currently purchase it, but
I did contact the consultant. They indicated that they could add that component to this
study for an additional 3,750. So, if you do want to consider that, I'd ask that you add
that onto the motion. And with that as background, I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Ted. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I will need a motion to approve the contract.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 7 of 76
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the contract with the VEC Research and Consulting
for reevaluation of the city's impact fees and the inclusion of analysis for sidewalks in an
amount not to exceed 33,000 dollars.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the contract in the amount not to exceed
33,000 dollars. Any discussion?
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Baird: If I could just put on the record, the additional amount for the sidewalks was
3,750. So, doing my lawyer's math, the not to exceed would probably be suggested at
32,750.
De Weerd: He just rounded up, Ted.
Rountree: If you get it that close, I'd appreciate it.
De Weerd: But thank you. This was our funny math, I think. Mr. Berg, will you, please,
call roll. And it was not to exceed, so -- thank you.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: We -- hey, Ted? We will award it for the 32,750, but we have authorized up
to 33,000.
Baird: Thank you much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: He got 240 for being smart.
2.
New Personnel Evaluation Form:
De Weerd: Oh, Keith. Okay. Mr. Nary, on that note --
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 8 of 76
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm pleased to bring to you
the new evaluation form for employees performance appraisal, as well as self-
evaluations that we would like to begin using. This has been a long process, as some
of you know. We have been in an ongoing revision of our performance appraisal
system for a number of years. Just to refresh your memory, I didn't bring you the pre-
existing form. Most of you have seen it in some form or another. It was very lengthy, it
was well over ten pages, and had a number of small little boxes to check. It was not
adequate. It certainly did some evaluation, but it was somewhat inadequate for the use
that we would like to make of these. As you well know, I also attached to your file on
your computer the current position accountability definition forms that we are also using.
So, if you look at this employee performance appraisal and self evaluation, it is used in
conjunction with the pads and the purpose being, as we have discussed at a couple of
other workshops, the pad process is an opportunity for both the supervisor and
employees to work at the beginning of each evaluation period on, essentially, a road
map of expectations and performance expectations for the employee for that year. At
the end of that year we should have had quarterly updates with the pads and, then, we
use this employee performance appraisal and self evaluation to also assess the
behavioral -- or the four behaviors -- city behavior standards that we have set as a city
that our expectations are. If you -- we have had the directors review it. Chief Musser
and Brad Watson and myself, along with the AspireOn consultants, have got the form
together where it is. All the directors have reviewed it, found it to be adequate for what
the needs are and what we are trying to do. We'd like to begin the process of training
and get this rolled out and begin using it, along with the pads. If it meets your
satisfaction, I would appreciate your approval of it. If you have more questions or
concerns, I could certainly hope to answer them, whatever your pleasure.
De Weerd: Do any of the other department directors have anything further to add?
Nary: That was a go team go from Mrs. Canning.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. She's our cheerleader.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have no problem -- I don't want to enact on it tonight, because just getting it, I'd
like to look it over. It's a very important tool and the previous one we rushed through I
think in one night. I think this is something that we could have in a pre-Council
workshop and look it over. I don't know, maybe the rest of you guys have had time
since we got them today to read them, but I haven't. So, I would prefer to at least have
a chance looking through.
De Weerd: Okay. If that is the desire of Council, we can put it on the agenda for next
week.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 9 of 76
Bird: In a pre-council workshop and, then, take it off?
De Weerd: If you feel you would like to be walked through the process, we certainly can
do that. We have walked through with the position accountability description and this
does follow through with the intent of those forms and I think we did get drafts out to you
early on. So, these have -~ I know that --
Bird: We got drafts on it, yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. So, what is your desire? We can certainly put it on a pre-council
workshop. We do have ACHD that would like to come next week and walk through the
CAP. At that time we can also add this if you would like us to do so.
Bird: That would be my preference. I'd like a discussion on it, because it's -- to me, this
is a very very important process of how we evaluate our pay raises and stuff like that
and I feel that we need to make sure that we do it right.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Certainly we can get this on the agenda. I would ask -- and our pre-Council is
a little bit tight next week -- that we have an approximate 15 to 20 minute discussion. If
you have specific questions, if you could give those to Mr. Nary beforehand, so that he
can address any real specific concerns that you may have, I think that would help us all
understand a little better and have a better comfort level with it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Any other discussion? Okay. Thank you.
3.
Release and Authorization to Distribute with Newberrv
Enterprises:
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, Item 3.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. You have on your disk there
-- there is a release and authorization in regards to Newberry Enterprises. There was a
lawsuit filed by the Ada County Highway District against Newberry Enterprises, Micro
Tool, and a number of other named parties, including the Meridian Development
Corporation. To refresh your memory, the Meridian Development Corporation was
formed a number of years ago as, essentially, a grant --
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, it's the Economic Development Council.
Nary: I'm sorry. But -- well, it's actually called the economic -- it is a development
corporation that was filed with the Secretary of State.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 10 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. We just don't want it -- to confuse it with our urban renewal agency.
Nary: Oh. Okay. Right. I'm sorry. To refresh your memory, the purpose of that entity
was, essentially, a grant -- a grant administrator for Micro Tool. There was some grant
opportunities that this corporation, in relation to the city, was able to basically --
basically be the pass-through agency for those grants. Therefore, this development --
economic corporation is not MDC, but is a lien holder of that property and that's the
reason we are named in this particular action by the highway district. They have given
us notice of that complaint. We haven't responded, because we are a lien holder of the
property, we don't need to respond to the actual complaint. What Mr. Newberry has
forwarded to us and I wanted your consent to have the Mayor sign, was simply an
acknowledgment that they are the primary parties of interest here that they would get
the initial dollars that come from the payment to -- from the highway district in regards to
the purchase of the right of way property. It doesn't impact our secured interest that we
have, I just needed your approval and make you aware of this ongoing action with that.
Mr. Newberry is the one that contacted us and sent the documents from his council and
their attorney and at their expense will handle all of the necessary legal work on this. It
won't have any expense to the city.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any questions? Okay. We appreciate the
information.
De Weerd: Okay. There were items moved from the Consent Agenda. We will --
Nary: Madam Mayor, just to back up, if they would give -- if the Council would, by
motion, give consent to approve the execution of those documents, we can get those
back to the court.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the Mayor to sign on the release and
authorization to distribute with Newberry Enterprises.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion was to approve the Consent. Any discussion? Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
C.
Revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: AZ 05-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.7
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 11 of 76
acres from RUT to R-4 and R-2 zones for Sunstone Subdivision
by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat
Road:
D.
Revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: PP 05-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23
single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on
11 .17 acres in a proposed R-4 and R-2 zones for Sunstone
Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North
Black Cat Road:
E.
Revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: VAR 05-019 Request for a Variance for cul-de-sac
length to exceed the maximum length of 450 feet to the proposed
630 feet for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction -
1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: Okay. There were items pulled from the Consent Agenda, Item C, 0, and
E. I will ask for -- is it Mr. Nary or Anna?
Canning: Either one is fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the item -- the issue at hand is that
for Sond Subdivision, which is later on in your agenda, we realized as we were
processing the final plat that the annexation had been done incorrectly and it was an
error on staff's part. So, we are going back to amend the findings to include the -- to
include the correct annexation and zoning legal descriptions and that's why those items
were on your Consent Agenda tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, is there any relationship to items on the regular agenda?
Canning: Yes, ma'am. To Sond Subdivision, which is a final plat application. It's Item
No. 14.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Also, Item 13, that's why there is an amended ordinance on there as well. You
can pass these Consent Agenda items now and you can take those other ones up on
your regular agenda when you get to them.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 12 of 76
Bird: Madam--
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would make a motion, then, that we approve Items 7-C, 7-D and 7-E and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items C, D, and E. If there is no further
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item G:
Resolution No. 06-505 CPA 05-004 Request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text and future land use
map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the North Meridian Area and to
expand the area of city impact boundary:
De Weerd: Okay. Also removed from the Consent Agenda was Item G.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members the Council, the reason I asked that you pull that simply
was there are findings that have been forwarded to the clerk's office that relate to this
resolution that I simply ask that you add -- that by your motion of passing, ask that those
be attached. They simply are the findings related to the hearings that you have had, the
number of different public hearings, as well as all the information that was gathered in
relation to the comp plan amendment, for the ease of the public relating them together
is probably easier at this juncture than for somebody later on to have to go and search
for two separate documents. So, I simply wanted you to pull that to make that specific
on the record and, then, the clerk's office will take care of that.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Resolution No. 06-505 and to add the findings to this
resolution.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 13 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve Item 7-G, Resolution No. 06-505. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAINS.
Item 8:
Request by Giuseppe Veneziano to waive f!!!Jor Cond~
Permit Application for Joe Up and Go Coffee Shop:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item No.8 is a request for waiver of fees. Does staff
want to introduce this item or do we just want the applicant to come forward? Okay.
Would the applicant, please, come forward. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Veneziano: Giuseppe Veneziano.
De Weerd: Can you pull that mike a little closer. Thank you.
Veneziano: Giuseppe Veneziano. Resident 403 East Fairview, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you, Giuseppe.
Veneziano: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, the reason I'm asking for this is because I
already went through the full process with Ada County and took about a year after all
the fighting and I don't know if -- you guys are probably not aware of it, but it was a
major discussion for me to be able to put the coffee shop there and the simple reason
that it was moved away is to make room for the Double D plat to go in, but, you know, I
was of the assumption that, you know, all the businesses that were already there were
to be, you know, left there, of course, with the proper procedures and the only reason
that -- the only way that that could have happened at the construction, you know, figure
out a place to put it, because it's only eight-by-ten shop, as -- like most of it and what I'm
asking is I shouldn't pay the 1,050 dollar fee for an application that has already been
done prior to this -- to this application and now they ask me to redo it all over again.
And as far as I'm concerned, gosh, money doesn't grow on trees. I'm scraping the
bottom of the barrel. Money is just not there and I'm asking the Council to waive the
fee.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Giuseppe. Any questions by Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 14 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: The letter you provided to Council makes reference to being told that -- you
said you were told you would be grandfathered in and wouldn't have to pay any
additional fees. Was that somebody from Ada County that said that or City of Meridian?
Veneziano: When that corner was annexed by the city, according to the -- what I heard,
was that all the business would stay there. And that would include mine, because mine
was there already five years before this whole thing took place. And as far as the other
thing, I mean the only reason I moved it out of the way to make room for those guys to
-- they are a lot bigger than me. I don't want to be dozed down.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: As the Mussell Corner project was going through the process, we did ask the
applicant of that project if the expresso shop would stay and we were told it was not.
The staff report states that the existing coffee kiosk located near the intersection of
Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road will be removed if the application is approved.
So, staff would request that the applicant does provide the money for the required
conditional use approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Do you have anything further you
would like to add?
Veneziano: The only thing I'm asking is I don't understand why I should pay twice for
the same reason. Like somebody being -- I don't know, cited for a broken tail light and
two miles down the road being cited all over again, once from the county sheriff and
once from the city.
De Weerd: Okay. So, your feeling is since you applied through the county that that
should --
Veneziano: I mean all those fees were already paid.
De Weerd: That was paid to the county.
Veneziano: Yeah. I understand, but so the -- so is the impact fee and so is the full
permits, I had pay for the division of the -- that driveway that was put through and there
was a boat load of expenses that was -- I mean I think it was quite excessive to begin
with, but I went through and what is the other business that were already there, as the
nursery, as everything else, and I don't think they had to apply for a conditional use
permit after annexation. I mean that -- I don't see why that shouldn't be included in the -
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 15 of 76
- in the plat. I'm not moving it. I'm not taking it out of the property. I'm not improving it.
I'm not making it bigger. I'm not opening a McDonald's. Just opening my little coffee
shop that was there to begin with. I'm not asking for much.
De Weerd: But our staff did explain why new--
Veneziano: Yeah. I understand that the step -- the only reason that the staff is asking
me to pay the 1,050 dollar, which I'm -- to me that's a boat load right now. The money
is just not there. I mean without that 1,050 dollars, it may not work for me to even
pursue it. Mayas well trash it. Doze it. And to me that's a way of living. Make a living
out of that and I haven't been able to make a living and, yeah, have been paying taxes
for it, too. Property taxes are being paid. Insurance is being paid. Nobody has helped
me on that. And as far as I'm concerned, it was there when it shouldn't be left there with
the consent of the property owner.
De Weerd: Okay. And has that been explained to you?
Veneziano: Yeah. The simple reason it's been moved 50 feet away from the original
position.
De Weerd: It is annexed into the city.
Veneziano: Yeah. I understand.
De Weerd: And you were granted -- you were granted use by the county for a county
use.
Veneziano: Yeah. I understand.
De Weerd: And fees are generally assessed for the time that their staff spends to
process those permits and does the applicable work and inspections for that. It's just an
offset. It's not to make money. It's to compensate for staff time, because taxpayers do
not support these application fees.
Veneziano: Oh, I understand that they --
De Weerd: Okay. I would have hoped that it would have been explained to you.
Veneziano: I'm asking you for a waiver, because that thousand dollars is not there to
begin with.
De Weerd: Okay.
Veneziano: And if this is too much to ask, so be it.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 16 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. We will ask Council what their thoughts are. Thank you, Giuseppe.
Council, if there is anything further you need? If not, I will need a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, given the explanation from Anna and reading of the record,
the developer and builder and occupant of this particular property indicated this use
would not continue, I don't see a justification to waive the fees. So, I will move that we
deny the request for a waiver of conditional permit for Item No.8.
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion and a second to deny the request for waiver of
fees. If there is no further discussion, I will ask Mr. Berg to call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Reconsideration I Clarification Request by Planning Director of City
Council's Action for VAR 05-027 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3.H
requirements for access to State Highway 69 for Meridian Gateway by
White-Leasure Development Company -1601 South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 9 is a reconsideration request by the director of
planning. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think there was some confusion as
to what was approved for variance 05-027 and I just ask that you reconsider opening
the Public Hearing on that item.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: May I speak to that, seeings I'm the one that made the motion. And after -- I think
I -- I think my motion wasn't as clear -- or wasn't what I meant it to be, which wasn't
clear. I got my mouth before my brain. I had envisioned -- my thoughts on that motion -
- and the second might not or might agree with me, but I felt that if we didn't get -- if we
didn't get the lights at that second entrance and exit, then, that exit and entrance went
away. That was -- that was my intent. And I don't think I stated it like that. But that was
my intent. So, I would agree, if the rest of the Council feels the same way, with
reopening it and relooking at it, because I don't think the minutes are going to show that
I stated it in that clarification.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 17 of 76
Nary: Madam Mayor, our practice has been if a member of the prevailing side wishes to
make a motion to reconsider, they can do that. What I would recommend, if that's
seconded and approved by the Council, then, you reset this matter for a Public Hearing
later, with proper notice both to the applicant and affected members and the radius
notices normally sent, so that we can have, again, a full Public Hearing and we would,
essentially, start it at the beginning on this same issue on this variance.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any further discussion from Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: The motion that I seconded -- and my recollection of this was to approve both
accesses. My clarification on the light was that -- and I believe my statement was that
I'm not a traffic engineer, nor do I want to get into that business, but if the light were
warranted and approved by ITD, that I would support that decision. So, if the intent of
the motion was to disallow the second access if there was no light prevalent, then, I
think we need to reset this and consider the motion and give staff a little clearer picture.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Bird: I would move that we reopen VAR 05-027 and set a date certain and republish an
open meeting on that variance.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion and a second to approve the reconsideration
clarification request by our planning director. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg,
will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 10, 11 and 12.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Canning. Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: You might want to reset Item 9, then, today for a specific date certain.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 18 of 76
Nary: Or unless Mrs. Canning thinks we can just provide notice -- I guess, I'm sorry. I
guess -- we have done it both ways. If you want to just pick a date in the future and we
will send out the notices -- send out notices.
Canning: I think that will -- was what was moved. So, that's fine.
Nary: Okay. I'm sorry.
Bird: It would have to be the 4th, wouldn't it?
Nary: I'm sorry. It can be, actually, at any point, so --
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, if I may -- since I'm an integral part of this motion, I will be
out of town and the country, actually, on the 28th, the 4th, and the 11th, so --
De Weerd: We were hoping to do it while you were out of town. Then, I can break the
tie.
Rountree: We won't have a quorum.
Bird: We will not have a quorum on this if we do it after that.
Rountree: On the 28th you won't have a quorum.
De Weerd: We should bring it back when Councilman Wardle can come, even though I
would love to break that tie.
Bird: The 18th?
De Weerd: Yeah. The 18th of April.
Bird: It might not be a tie.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council.
De Weerd: Okay. So, on the final plats, Anna, are the applicants all in agreement on
the findings or recommendation by staff?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, they are. I do need to provide
just a brief explanation of Sond Subdivision, which, actually, follows the amended
ordinance.
Item 10:
FP 06-006 Request for Final Plat approval of 50 residential lots and 13
common lots on 23.97 acres in an R-2 zone for Kinasbridae Subdivision
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 19 of 76
No.2 by Vision First, LLC - south of Victory Road on west side of Eagle
Road:
Item 11:
FP 06-007 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 building lots and 2
common lots on 7.01 acres in an R-8 zone for Bellinaham Park
Subdivision No.2 by Bellingham Park, LLC - South Locust Grove Road
south of Victory Road:
Item 12:
FP 06-010 Request for Final Plat approval of 76 building lots and 18
common lots on 14.57 acres in an R-8 zone for Chesteñield Subdivision
No.2 by Centennial Development, LLC - North Black Cat Road and West
Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Right now we will just consider Items 10, 11 and 12.
Canning: That will work.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve FP 06-006, FP 06-007, FP 06-010.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Items 10 through 12. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: If I may. On item 12, Chesterfield Subdivision, there was a comment -- and this
might be directed to Mrs. Canning. There was a comment by Joe Silva with fire with
regards to the 22 foot wide surface in the alleys. Is that --
Canning: I will have to look it up briefly. It was my understanding that we were okay on
everything, but, apparently, not. So, let me --
Borton: I just didn't know if the applicant and everything was fine with that as well.
De Weerd: And that is on Item 12.
Bird: Yes. Thanks, Mr. -- Councilman Borton.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 20 of 76
Borton: That e-mail from Joe Silva concerning that.
Rountree: It says it's standard comments, so --
Berg: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Just on my records, it was part of the application, that e-mail that was sent to the
applicant. So, hopefully, they read that e-mail as part of the packet. And that's as far as
notification for that comment.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you feel comfortable moving forward with that item? If
not, I can remove that with the permission of the motion maker and the second and we
can have it on the agenda for next week.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I might defer to Mrs. Canning in what she finds or thinks. I see the letter on --
for March 14th where the applicant agrees with all site specific comments and
conditions, if you think that that concern was included as one of those conditions that
the applicant agrees to.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not sure that the applicant is
aware that that -- the staff report for the final plat is not in my packet, nor is it in -- so, I
can't answer it. Maybe we need to put it off for a week, so we can answer that question
for you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: As the maker of the motion, I would move that we pull FP 06-010 from the motion
approving FP 06-007 and FP 06-006. And, then, I will deal with that after this.
De Weerd: Okay. And second agrees?
Wardle: Yeah.
Rountree: Second agrees.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 21 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you. So, the motion is to approve Items 10 and 11. Mr. Berg, will
you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Amended Ordinance No. 06-1210: AZ 05-043 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 11.7 acres from RUT to R-4 and R-2 zones for Sunstone
Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black
Cat Road:
Item 14:
FP 06-008 Request for Final Plat approval of 23 single-family residential
building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.17 acres in R-2 and R-4 zones
for Sond Subdivision by Clayn Sonderegger - 1155 and 1123 North
Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 we will put on the agenda for next week, March 21st. Okay.
Items 13 and 14 are amended ordinance numbers 06-12110 or one zero and FP 06-
008. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as discussed previously, the
amended ordinance is before you because of an incorrect annexation description sent
to the state. So, we are -- the purpose of that is just to include the R-4 zoning, in
addition to the R-2 zoning. The -- I asked you to pull Sond Subdivision, because there
was a little bit of discrepancy on how street width would be measured. I did get a
chance to talk to fire Chief Ron Anderson and it is understood that streets will be
measured from back of curb to back of curb. So, condition number 21 , which states that
there will only be parking allowed on one side of the street would not apply, that the fire
department will approve parking on both sides of the street with a street section that's
33 feet measured back of curb to back of curb. So, that was a concern of the applicant
in their letter, but the fire department has agreed that that's how street sections will be
measured. So, I think we have got that taken care of.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, do you have any questions? If not, I would
need a motion to approve Items 13 and 14. Or -- yes, Mr. Berg, will you, please, read
ordinance number 06-1210 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Amending Ordinance No.
06-1210, an ordinance -- excuse me. An amended ordinance for annexation of property
located on the northeast quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, 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-2 and R-4 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 22 of 76
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: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is
there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? I will be really boring. Okay.
Hearing none, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 13, Ordinance No. 06-0210, with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 13 with suspension of rules. Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move we approve Item 14, FP 06-008.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is approve item 14. 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 15:
Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2006: 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: Thank you. Item 15 is a continued Public Hearing from March 7th, 2006. I
will, again, open this Public Hearing. Len.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 23 of 76
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, again, there was a confusion on the
date for this. I think I'm a step behind on that. I believe the date's set for the 21 st. I'm
seeing a nod from the clerk.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would entertain a motion to continue this item to the 21 st.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to continue this item to March 21 st. All those in favor say
aye. Okay. Thank you. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: VAC 06-002 Request to vacate sewer and water
easements within Lot 15, Block 1, Brenda Estates Subdivision by the
Brenda Estates Homeowners Association - west of Ten Mile Road and
north of Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: Item 16 is a Public Hearing on VAC 06-002. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for vacation of
sewer and water easements for Brenda Estates Subdivision. It's located south of Ustick
Road, east of Black Cat Road, about in the middle of the section there. You can see
the red circle around the area in question. The applicants wish to vacate the sewer and
water located in Lot 15, Block 1 of Brenda Estates Subdivision. They are currently
applying to ACHD to turn over the property that their private street is on, so they want it
to become a public street, and ACHD requires that they vacate any existing sewer and
water easements to do that. So, that is why they are before you today. The areas in
that lot are commonly known as Brenda Lane, Daily Lane, and Interlachen Lane. The
Commission did not make a recommendation on this item. It doesn't go before them, so
it's not applicable. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council.
You do have -- you do not have Findings. Legal staff normally prepares a resolution to
document your action on the vacation requests. And with that I'll end staff's comments
and answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Does the applicant have anything they would like to add? Is the applicant
here? If you will, please, state your name and address.
Christensen: I'm Ron Christensen. I live at 2216 North Interlachen.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 24 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you.
Christensen: And I'm the president of Brenda Estates Homeowners Association. So, I
really -- you know, if you have got any questions I will try to answer them.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you, sir.
Christensen: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Okay. Seeing none --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Seeing no further testimony, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item
16.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 16. 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 16, VAC 06-002, and direct staff to prepare a
resolution.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 16 with direction to staff to prepare a
resolution. 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 17:
Public Hearing: VAC 06-001 Request for Vacation of a drainage and
irrigation easement on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7
Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.9 by
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 25 of 76
Brighton Development - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of
East McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 17 is a Public Hearing on VAC 06-001. I will open this
Public Hearing, Item 17, with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Quenzer Commons
Subdivision No.9 vacation. It's located north of Ustick Road, west of Locust Grove.
And the applicant is requesting that Lots 1 through 6 in Block 27 and Lots 1 through 7,
Block 28, 1 through 7, Block 29, and 1-7, Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision
No. 9 be amended to allow zero lot line setbacks, which would -- which requires
vacating the platted utility easements along the side yard lot lines. Again, the
Commission does not act on these application, so you have no recommendation before
you. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues for Council and you do have
findings in your packet, but you don't need to address those findings. Staff will prepare
resolutions reflecting your decision tonight. With that I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is applicant here this evening? Okay. Do you have any comments? No
comments by the applicant. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to
provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we close Public Hearing on Item 17.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 17, VAC 06-001, and direct the staff to prepare a
resolution.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 26 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 17. 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 18:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92
acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada Countv Hiahwav District Ustick
Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick
Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 18 is a Public Hearing on AZ 05-060. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Ada County Highway
District Ustick Road property project. It is located south of Ustick and east Eagle Road.
Just to note that every project before you tonight is within a half mile of Ustick Road. I
thought that was interesting. This is just an annexation and zoning requirement. The
applicant, ACHD, has applied for C-G zoning on these 4.92 acres. The property is right
here. They are not proposing any -- to construct any commercial buildings at this time.
This does come forward with a recommendation for a development agreement from the
Commission and what's currently proposed in that development agreement is that --
aside from the standard ones, is that prior to issuance of any building permit the subject
property be subdivided, that a street buffer, constructed in accord with city code, be
installed along Ustick Road and the future collector roadway. That the preliminary plat
includes the entire 4.92 acres. So, no out parcels. And that no direct lot access to
Ustick Road would be allowed. This is not intended to prohibit a public street
connection to Ustick Road, of course. And that in case of any division of the property,
cross-access to parcels south and west of the site be granted at intervals to be
determined by ACHD. So, that would be on the remainder of the property. And that a
landscape buffer would not be required along the east side of the future collector
roadway, but that there would be one on the west side. We don't have any elevations
before for you tonight. The Planning Commission did recommend approval at their
February 16th hearing. Becky McKay from Engineering Solutions spoke on behalf of
the applicant. Gary Inselman from ACHD also spoke. No one spoke in opposition.
Fitzroy Belcher did comment on the application. He lives off of Duane Drive, which is
just to the east as shown here. And key issues of discussion by the Commission were
the 20 foot landscape buffer on the eastern property boundary. The road alignment with
Allys Way, which is just north of this property, just on the other side of Ustick. And,
then, cross-access requirement to other properties south and east. The key
Commission changes to staffs initial recommendation were to remove the within 18
months requirements from the development agreement language and to add on page --
add that there would be no direct lot access to Ustick Road, except for the future road.
And to add a comment in the development agreement that the landscape buffer would
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 27 of 76
not be required along the east side of the future collector roadway. Mrs. McKay did
hand out some comments that she had on the development agreement provisions. You
do have Findings for approval before you tonight. Those do include discussions about
the development agreement, but the -- Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm wrong. I think
you can change the provisions of the development agreement as you're going through
the process without changing the annexation findings, but I'm not sure on that issue.
And with that I will end my presentation and answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: I guess, Anna, my question is at Planning and Zoning did they have a
discussion? Generally we do not annex without a plat. Did they have that discussion
and --
Canning: Madam Mayor, are you -- are you speaking in reference to the requested
changes that the applicant is requesting? We do sometimes annex without a plat.
Usually we have some concept plan at minimal for you or some future development
proposal. A little bit of the tricky part on this one is that normally we don't dedicate
roads, excepted through a plat, but this is a very unique situation in that it's -- the
applicant is the highway district themselves. It's been a -- kind of a little bit of a
challenge to figure out what to do there. I guess what we would -- this one is a little
tricky. Maybe it would be better for the applicant to state their concerns with the
conditions of approval before we get into too much discussion on them. So, you can
hear why they are arguing for this.
De Weerd: Okay. I would appreciate hearing from ACHD, their feelings about that.
Would the applicant like to come forward? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: We have been retained to represent Ada County Highway District on this
particular application. Just to kind of give the Council and the Mayor background as far
as why this application is before you this evening, because it is unusual. I think it's my
first time representing the highway district. When the rebuild for Ustick Road, Eagle
Road intersection was planned, ACHD went through and acquired right of way --
purchased right of way from adjoining parcels. This particular skinny parcel you see
here had an existing home right up adjoining Ustick Road. The parcel was 166 feet
wide and I think approximately 1,290 feet deep. So, it's really skinny and very long.
The particular property owner -- I think it was an elder lady -- indicated to the highway
district she had no interest in selling off a portion of her property for Ustick Road
improvements. If they wanted right of way they would have to purchase the home and
the entire parcel, which consists 4.92 acres. So, in order to, obviously, get this rebuilt
here in front of the Lowe's store, ACHD purchased the entire property. At the same
time the property due west of them, this Una Mas or whatever I think it's called, is before
you this evening. This is the application that is behind us also requesting annexation
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 28 of 76
and rezoning to a C-G. It was the hope of the highway district that they would take the
right of way off Ustick Road that was needed for the rebuild and, then, retain 60 feet
along the eastern boundary for a future continuance collector. I don't think Anna's got a
bigger map. Oh, yeah, there she goes. I got to put my glasses on. I can't see
anymore. Okay. So -- there we go. So, it is the hope -- Allys Way is located down here
-- or that's the signal at Crossroads Marketplace or retail center at Ustick Road. ACHD
wants to have a collector roadway come down this eastern boundary and, then, it will
enter into this property and, then, come in and intersect at that existing signal at
Fairview Avenue. It's also their desire that when this property here develops, that they
will get some type of a collector roadway going out here at this half mile and that is
based upon, obviously, minimizing the number of approaches along the Eagle Road
corridor and facilitating interconnectivity throughout this section and funneling this traffic
out to signals. Also, I think in your Comprehensive Plan there is quite a bit of discussion
in this mixed use regional area designation to minimize the number of access points
and to promote frontage and backage roads for any commercial developments. And it's
the hope that through cross-access easements the proposed Gateway Marketplace
that's located here and is currently, I believe, back at the Planning and Zone
Commission for some redesign, that they would interconnect with Una Mas, therefore,
intersecting here with this potential collector roadway. Now, obviously, since the parcel
is 166 feet wide and they need to retain 60 feet for a collector, it's really not usable for --
so any attempt to provide the Council with a site plan would be just not possible. ACHD
has met with the Gateway Marketplace development team, also with the Una Mas team
and myself, talking about the interconnectivity and in hopes that this parcel would be
placed with this parcel here when -- in the future for development of the entire portion as
one. That is the hope and the desire. We have read the staff report. ACHD does
understand that they are going to be entering into a development agreement. They did
have a couple of things they wanted me to clarify. I brought some copies for the
Council. I did provide one to the staff. It's on page seven of the staff report. If I could
hand these out. On page seven, the bullet items that the staff has recommended and
the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that be included in the
development agreement, under bullet number three, as you see the bolded area, ACHD
wanted me to add that sewer and water service extension in the future collector shall
not be required of Ada County Highway District. The reason that was requested is there
is the 12 inch water that's already in Ustick Road that's been extended down to the
entrance at Redfeather, a 12 inch water main was extended and your sewer main was
extended along the slough here or what I thank they call the Finch Lateral. And it's my
understanding that that's where this area will sewer. And so we don't want to,
obviously, be required to provide services within that collector. You may have Mr.
Grady comment on that statement. On item five, the sentence reads that prior to
issuance of any building permits the subject property, excluding that portion retained by
Ada County Highway District, be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian
Unified Development Code. And the reason we wanted to add that is ACHD does not
want to -- it mandated that they be part of a plat for the portion that they are retaining for
existing and future right of way. And I think bullet number six states that preliminary plat
shall be submitted to the city on the portion of the subject property not retained by
ACHD for existing or future right of way. Do you have any questions?
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 29 of 76
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who
would like to provide testimony on this item? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Broadhead: Okay. Michelle Broadhead. My address is 2875 Duane Drive. We are --
I'm representing several of the neighbors from the Perkins Brown Subdivision and I
guess I -- I e-mailed to all -- everyone except for the Mayor and I don't know if you got it.
Just some of our concerns regarding this. We have -- did have several meetings at
which we have asked a lot of questions like the landscape buffer and fencing and the
irrigation canal that runs between our property and the property of ACHD and what will
happen there. There has been talk of walking paths and bike paths, but so far what we
get when we ask questions is that will all be determined at a later date. The Planning
and Zoning meeting that was held on February 16th, they approved having no
landscape buffer, which is contrary to city -- unified city code. And that -- we were taken
by surprise at that, because they had told us that that wouldn't be discussed at the
Planning and Zoning meeting. So, I guess what our hope is is that nothing will be
decided at this point until they have some specifics with regard to what it's going to look
like on our property and the minimum that we hope is at least some fencing there,
because most of us have livestock that would be right next to this collector road, so --
there are other -- in fact, I have got one if you would like one of these, Mayor, that I
didn't have your e-mail.
De Weerd: That's all right. It is on -- in our public record.
Broadhead: Great.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Broadhead: Okay. So, anyhow, that's our main concern. We are hoping that there
wouldn't be any decisions without some input from the neighbors, which is what they
have said we would be able to have, and have had none. And none of them are major
concerns, we just would like answers, which they don't appear to have or be willing to
give.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 30 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay.
Do you have any closing remarks? Becky, have you -- have you seen the letter that we
received?
McKay: No, I have not.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I think while -- Becky, if you want to take a second to look at that, I have got a
question.
McKay: Okay.
Borton: That third item that Becky mentioned to Mr. Grady to see if you had any
comment with regards to the sewer and water service extension.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we either need water and sewer down
Duane Drive or through this future ACHD parcel. So, at this point I would prefer to keep
the place holder and at our -- as we work through in the future we could remove that
requirement.
Borton: But leave it in for now?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I could clarify, Mr. Grady, I believe the requirement says that they need to --
the applicant would construct the actual line. Are you talking about leaving an
easement of some sort or to leave the condition that they provide that?
Grady: I would say we typically do require them to construct it. But in a case where we
are trying to get Duane Drive -- get access down through there -- and I'd say that's a
good possibility that that will happen, then, we wouldn't require here. Normally it's to
and through. I know that this is a little bit of an odd case, so it would really be at your
discretion.
De Weerd: Okay. Did that answer your question?
Borton: It did.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Becky.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 31 of 76
McKay: I'd just like to kind of discuss some of the comments that were made -- based
on, obviously, the limitations of the property, as far as width, that is what the driving
force, so that we have some usable area to, obviously, conveyor put with the property
to the west. Secondly, the fact that those lots in Duane Drive are 640 feet deep and all
of the homes are located up along the Duane Drive corridor here. This is Summer's
Funeral Home. The LDS church is here. Mr. Inselman has indicated that ACHD was
going to try to make some overtures to Summer's, to the LDS church, to see if they
would be interested in taking access off that collector and, obviously, trying to do away
with some of those access points that already currently exist along Ustick. This would
also function for future re-subdivision of the 640 foot deep lots. We have seen in the
past in some of the other old county subs where they did the really deep lots and where
the homes were up on -- along the local street, that if a road was built to the rear, that
we did see some re-subdivision take place. So, that was one of the other thoughts that
came to mind. At this point in time Ada County Highway District does not have any
design for the collector. So, therefore, to make, you know, any commitments as far as
what they are going to do with the irrigation, I don't have any plans to show them.
Obviously, Mr. Inselman indicates that he will cooperate with the neighbors as far as
any piping of ditches. It would be, obviously, the responsibility of the highway district.
This will be a 60 foot right of way with a 46 back-to-back collector roadway, three lanes,
plus a bike lane that would be built along here. Fencing. He indicated to some of the
neighbors at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that he would
coordinate some fencing with them to make sure that -- that we didn't create a problem,
because some of them do have pastures, they do have animals. There is between two
and five acres, so they can legally have animals. The landscape buffer, they agreed
that it made sense when the property developed that there be landscape buffer on the
west side, but they did not believe that ACHD wanted it on this -- this east side. The
west side was acceptable, but the east side. It just starts eating up so much of the
width of the property. It will align directly with the center line of the Lowe's collector
located right here. Have I answered all your questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: If the property -- I'm a bit confused on the landscape buffer on the eastern side.
The property is about 165 feet wide and you have got a 20 or 25 foot landscape buffer
and 60 foot, roughly, for a future street. Tell me -- it sounds like there is space. It
doesn't sound like a space issue. Is there a different reason why there wouldn't be a
buffer?
McKay: Well, it's as far as what's usable. We have got 166 feet in width. ACHD will
utilize approximately 60 feet of right of way. Then, that leaves 106 feet in width that
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 32 of 76
they could, obviously, sell to the adjoining property and as far as the usable area. If the
landscape buffer is placed there, then, that would, obviously, be a barrier for any access
to the collector for redevelopment of the Duane Drive properties. It also -- in my
comments ~- or my discussions with Mr. Inselman, ACHD, you know, they -- they
typically don't go out and maintain a lot of landscaping and I think their main priority is
interconnectivity within the interior of this section to try to cut down on the potential
access points along that Eagle Road corridor and along the Ustick corridor.
Borton: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I can ask for clarification and maybe Mr. Inselman can help us. When we
are talking about building the collector, we are talking about building in that 60 feet a
modern street that is curb, gutter, and sidewalk and it's finished product, not a --
essentially, a strip of land that won't be -- have anything on it; is that correct?
McKay: Yes. They intend to build that. If, obviously, we can get the interconnectivity
here, the cross-access with these other parcels, and access to Eagle Road -- direct lot
access is not granted, then, this would be the backage road as recommended in your
Comprehensive Plan for development of this particular Eagle Road corridor. So, it will
be improved. It's a full section.
De Weerd: So, is the intent to build the road up against the property lines of that
subdivision?
McKay: The right of way would be adjoining their boundary. Correct. It will be
adjoining their boundary. And all their homes are located right up in here. And, then,
these -- most of these are like pastures, gardens, large yards and, then, the 46 back to
back would be within the 60 foot right of way.
De Weerd: So, we will have something similar on Pine where you have -- oh, what is
that subdivision by Crossroads? Where you have a fence and, then, a sidewalk and,
then, a road.
McKay: Yes. I think that's what -- Gary may want to elaborate on that. I'm not involved
in -- as far as their design of it. Yes. He indicates yes.
De Weerd: Which is about the ugliest thing I have ever seen in my life. Okay. Thank
you.
McKay: You're welcome.
Grady: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 33 of 76
De Weerd: Yes, Len.
Grady: We weren't aware that there was an issue with the water or sewer prior to this
meeting, so, if possible, if you could give me a week to research this and to make sure
that we are requiring something that makes sense.
De Weerd: Thank you, Len. Okay. Council, if staff needs to bring further information
about water and sewer back, we would need to keep the Public Hearing open for that
additional information or at least their response. What would be your desire?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If there is no further discussion at this point, I would move that we continue
the Public Hearing on this item until the 21 st and at that point take testimony from the
city staff as it relates to the continuation of sewer and water.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue this Public Hearing, Item 18, to March
21 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55
acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East
Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 19 is a Public Hearing on AZ 05-061. I will open the Public
Hearing with staff comments
Canning: Madam Mayor, could I take just a moment to talk to one of the speakers, the
last one? It will just take me a second. Is that okay or would you like me to go forward?
I can call her. Never mind.
De Weerd: If you can introduce this and maybe talk to them in between.
Canning: Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This next
application is for Una Mas, which means one more, and it is immediately adjoining the
ACHD property to the west. It is on -- again, on the south side of Ustick Road and it is
just an annexation and zoning application as well. They are asking to zone 9.55 acres
to C-G. Again, they haven't stated a specific square footage of commercial
development that they would like to see. They have provided this concept plan. It does
show four buildings and, actually, the concept plan does show the ACHD right of way
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 34 of 76
conceptually. This would be the remainder ACHD property that they mayor may not
acquire and, then, this would is potentially one way it could develop with cross-access
easements going to the -- further to the west and that property is within the pipeline for
your consideration as well. Once, again, a DA is recommended and some of the
unusual provisions of that development include that prior to the issuance of any building
permit that the subject property does go through the subdivision process and that a
street buffer, constructed in accord with city code, be installed along Ustick Road and
the future collector roadway. So, this -- if it adjoins the future collector roadway that
would be apply. That the preliminary or short plat includes the entire 9.55 acres, no out
parcel. That there be no direct lots access to Ustick Road and that the existing
driveways to Ustick Road may be for construction purposes until the future roadway is
completed. That in the case of any division, cross-access to parcels on all sides of the
site be granted. That the applicant provide a minimum of one commercial cross-access
drive to the properties east and west of the site, which would be designed in accord with
our private street standards. And that would have a 24 foot right of way with sidewalk
on one side. And that the applicant shall work with ACHD to determine if a public
frontage road shall be provided at the southern boundary of the site. Let me go up to --
this is -- would be the southern boundary. A little easier to see on this one here. And
that would, basically, be for a 42 foot public right of way. Again, we do not have any
elevations of any proposed commercial structures. The Planning Commission did
recommend approval at their February 16th hearing. In favor -- I am not sure how to
say the name. Hanson Rice Engineering. No one spoke in opposition. No one
commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the acquisition of
the remainder ACHD property and the applicant indicated that they do not know what
will occur with the ACHD auction. And the road alignment with Allys Way and the
potential public road at the south property boundary and, then, cross-access
requirements to all the properties west and east. There was no changes to the staff's
initial recommendation. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before
Council. You do have Findings for approval tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here? Do you have any comment?
Okay. The applicant has no comment. Council, any questions for staff or the
applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, if I could make one more comment. I'm sorry. I should
explain that this is the half mile mark and we do anticipate that in the relatively near
future that we will have an application on these properties and that there would a signal
placed at that half mile location and you would have a collector road coming this way
and, then, a collector road coming that way. It was talked about as the frontage road
system, but I thought I should give you that little broader perspective on what's going
on.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 35 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none -- okay, Council, what would
you like to do?
Bird: Madam Mayor, hearing no more testimony, I'd move we close AZ 05-061 Public
Hearing.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'm not so sure I understand or agree with the need or desire to approve this
annexation at this time. It seems like what's going to take place on the property, at least
is somewhat unknown and also seems somewhat contingent on what takes place
maybe next week with ACHD's application and request and where the roadway mayor
may not fall within that property and, then, how that might impact what property, if any,
is left over for ACHD to sell, which, then, might -- sounds like become part of this
property, which, then, impacts how this property is set forth. All those concerns just
make me hesitant to approve this request at this time. I don't necessarily see a benefit
to rushing through it, at least until we know what's going to take place with the highway
district's request next week. If we get answered there, that might impact what takes
place here. So, I'd rather -- my sense is to take them in that order.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comment from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I don't disagree with Councilman Borton. I would have a
question for counsel in terms of can we defer a decision until after action on the
previous item once its hearing is closed?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, our
ordinance doesn't require that you take an action today. If you have, obviously, other
information you want to have, whether -- if you want more information you can open the
hearing or if you simply want to wait to see how this property and this decision to annex
is in the best interest of the city and making that decision relates to another parcel of
property, you certainly have the ability to table this item for one week. If it was longer,
certainly, that may be a different -- different consideration, but one week is probably not,
so --
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 36 of 76
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with what Councilman Borton said. I -- but I didn't feel we need to keep
the Public Hearing open. I mean I have heard everything I need, but I do believe we
need to -- this should come after the previous application, seeing how a lot of this is
dependent upon the other parcel. So, I would have no problem of tabling this for one
week.
De Weerd: Council, I guess I will just add my few comments to this discussion and
since the conceptual plan does include ACHD's piece, I do have a concern about the
fence, a sidewalk, and, then, a road. We do have it in a couple of areas of our
community and it really is a hazard. If you have watched any kids walking on those
sidewalks down a busy road and do not fear for their lives, because we all know they
don't always pay attention and it really is a concern. If they are going to show a site
plan that includes the roadway and includes ACHD's parcel, they do have a landscape
buffer there. If there would be an opportunity to run that road a little bit further to the
west, so that there is a landscape buffer between the fence, the sidewalk, and the road,
it would be certainly something that would be more of an amenity to our community and
certainly less of a safety issue. So, just my two cents worth. I would look for your
direction. If you would like to have it continued, I would need a motion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we table Item 19, AZ 05-061, request for annexation and zoning
until March 21 st.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue this item to March 21 st. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Public Hearing: VAR 06-007 Request for a Variance from UDC 11-2A-6
to measure street setbacks from the property line rather than the back of
sidewalk for Vallin Courts Subdivision by Walker Homes - west of North
Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Item 20 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-007. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 37 of 76
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for a variance by
Vallin Court Subdivision. It's located south of Ustick and west of Meridian Road. It is in
this area right here. It's kind of the darker yellow area there. This is a variance
application and it is a request to measure the street side building setbacks from the
property line instead of the back of sidewalk. What happened on this application is that
it went through the preliminary plat and the final plat under the former development
code, under the -- Titles 11 and 12 of the Meridian City Code. At that time we were
measuring front setbacks from the property line. I thought I -- I thought that most of the
properties that had detached sidewalks in an easement had already constructed out.
As it turns out, this one was left out, so this one was kind of in between the two codes.
They really had planned on measuring setbacks from the property line. It is a smaller
lot property. The lots were specifically designed with a product in mind. So, they --
you're not really approving anything different than what was approved with the
preliminary and final plat. The difference is in how we measure setbacks now. One of
the reasons we did go to measuring setbacks from the sidewalk line is -- instead of the
property line is because we had been getting sometimes the sidewalk in the ACHD right
of way, sometimes it's not and this gave a more uniform appearance to the streetscape.
But staff is supporting this variance request. We do feel it does meet the findings for a
variance, because they were, essentially -- they are only asking for what they were
originally approved. They just got -- their building permits weren't pulled before the
code changed, so they were not able to construct what was originally approved. So, we
do think it meets the findings for -- it doesn't grant a right of special privilege that is not
otherwise allowed in the district. It does relieve an undue hardship because of
characteristics of the site and it's more of a timing characteristic than it was a physical
characteristic. And we don't believe it will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare. So, we do feel it meets those findings. We don't have elevations for you.
Again, this is a variance request, so there is no Commission recommendation. To our
knowledge there are no outstanding issues, but I do notice that there are a lot of
neighbors here today. You do have findings for approval in your packet. With that I'll
answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Seeing none, is the applicant here?
If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Walker: Greg Walker, president of Walker Homes, Incorporated, 880 East Franklin
Street, Suite 306.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Walker: Are there any questions you may have?
De Weerd: You agree with all staff comments?
Walker: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 38 of 76
Walker: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any member of the public who
would like to provide testimony on this application? If you will, please, come forward.
And state your name and address for the record.
Simunich: I'm Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road. I have a couple of
questions regarding this subdivision. It's not related to the setbacks, so I would like to
have a few minutes to ask a couple of questions of the Council here. I have got some
pictures here I'd like to pass out, so you can look -- to the Councilmen and you can look
at them and have a better idea of what's taking place.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Simunich, we can put that up on the screen. If you'll give it to
Anna. Okay. Mr. Simunich, is this regarding the Public Hearing that is before Council
right now?
Simunich: It's regarding Vallin Court Subdivision.
De Weerd: Okay. But is it pertinent to the hearing that is open tonight?
Simunich: It's not pertinent to the setback, but it is pertinent to the subdivision and to
the adjacent landowners.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess since the person testifying, Mr.
Simunich has indicated it isn't related to this, I mean I don't -- I don't want to muddy the
record on a variance on gathering other information that doesn't relate. If there is
something that you need to discuss with the planning staff or the legal staff about some
other compliance issues, we can certainly have that, but I don't want to muddy the
record of a variance on information that you have now testified to be related to the
variance. That's the only information that Council really can listen to tonight is related to
the application that's in front of it, not something else that might be related to how it's
being built or some other concern you have.
Simunich: Then, I might ask one question. Why are we not informed as neighbors as
to changes in the plans of these subdivisions?
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think Mr. Simunich -- I mean if
that's your concern, I think you need to have that discussion with the planning
department or the building department if you're talking about changes made to a plat or
changes made to compliance when those plats are approved. Those are something
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 39 of 76
you could certainly have a conversation with those departments about it, but it isn't
pertinent to the information that the Council has to make a decision on tonight.
Simunich: Well, thank you, but it looks like to me there were changes made in these
plans after they have been approved and we don't know about them until the actual
construction has taken place.
De Weerd: Mr. Simunich, if you can get with our planning staff tomorrow and ask the
questions. If you need to, you can certainly come before Council, but you do need to
see -- or take your issues to staff first, so we have a chance to respond.
Simunich: I will. I will, Mayor, but we have gone to Planning and the answers are very
vague. They don't return the phone calls. They have so many recordings and I will try
again. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Simunich, Len has your pictures for you as well. Thank you. Okay. Is
there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Question for Mrs. Canning. Anna, can you tell me if a variance isn't allowed or
provided for at this hearing, what's the practical effect on this property or this
development?
Canning: It effectively cuts off five feet of their property. The sidewalk encroaches five
feet. So, they are asking, basically, for a five foot reduction. They had designed the
units with a ten foot spacing from back of sidewalk. And the current code would require
15.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, if you will, please, get a hold of Mr. Simunich in the morning.
Okay. Council, any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. Do I have a motion
on this Public Hearing?
Bird: Is there anybody else that wants to testify?
De Weerd: I had asked that. Any other testimony on this application? Does the
applicant have any concluding remarks? Any further statement? Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 40 of 76
Wardle: Seeing no further testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 20.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 20. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Is there any discussion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that -- or I do have a question of legal staff. We have got finding that
reflect this variance; is that correct? Madam Mayor, with that I move that we approve
Item 20, VAR 06-007.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve VAR 06-007. Mr. Berg, will you call--
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. There is discussion.
Rountree: There is discussion and a point of clarification and it would be for Bill. Just
so I'm clear in understanding the situation, that this is a situation created by the city in
its action related to subdivisions, ordinances, and the length of time this project has
been approved. So, in fact, we have created the hardship?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, that's my
understanding in discussing with the staff and the staff report that this simply fell in the
gap between the changes in the ordinance. What was previously approved by this
Council is what they are attempting to build, but now under the current ordinance that
wouldn't be compliant, but the hardship, as you stated, is, really, created by the changes
in the ordinance in the time period it took to build this.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 41 of 76
Item 21:
Item 22:
Item 23:
Item 24:
Item 25:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25
acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville SQuare
Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-
G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville SQuare Subdivision by Red
Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54
single family residential lots, 22 multi-family residential lots, 14 common
lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville SQuare Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville
SQuare Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle
Road:
Public Hearing: MI 05-013 Miscellaneous request for a Private Street
application for multifamily and commercial development for Bienville
SQuare Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle
Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Public Hearings 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are all related. I will open
all of these public hearings on AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, CUP 05-052, MI 05-
013 and VAR 05-023. No?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you might want to separate out Item 26
on the variance from the rest of the application.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I thought Mr. Nary told me earlier
today that they need to keep the annexation -- they can't move on the variance until the
annexation -- are you just suggesting they move the variance to the end or --
Nary: Right. That they hear the variance issue separate and apart from the others.
Partly so the full Council can hear all of the application, but also because they can't act
on the -- the Council can't act on the variance until you have at least acted on Item 21.
Maybe that was what I guess maybe I just wasn't clear with Mrs. Canning earlier in our
discussions, but--
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. I will open up Items 21 through 25. Open
them with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Bienville Square project.
It's located on the south side of Ustick west of Eagle Road. It includes one portion of
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 42 of 76
property that is currently annexed and one that is currently within the county and that's
why you have both an annexation request and rezone request as part of the approval.
This is a preliminary plat with conditional use approval to; basically, construct a retail,
restaurant, and office uses, as well as a mixture of attached, detached, and alley access
residences on approximately 27.36 acres. A portion of this property, the portion that's
currently zoned and annexed in the city was included in the Kissler, Cobb, Egge
annexation project and there is a corresponding development agreement with a
conceptual plan and I do have that concept plan if you want to refer to it. The overall
design of the site -- I'm sorry, I can't go down that, because that's associated with the
variance. Let's see. The application as currently submitted does show an access to
Eagle Road on the concept plan and I will get to there. However, it's conditioned so that
it works either way. So, the conditions of approval do accommodate not having access
to Eagle Road. This always gets-difficult for me. Sorry. I didn't think about it this way,
so it's taking me a moment to adjust my presentation. I apologize. We have
recommended a development agreement with this application. That development
agreement would accommodate a number of special provisions. One was a phasing
plan. The applicant -- this would be developed in phases, but the staff felt it was
important to get the landscape buffers along the southern and the eastern and the
western property lines. So, basically, everything except the northern property line we
would ask that that landscape buffer be installed with the first phases of the
development. The applicant -- as far as nonresidential buildings, those occur here at
the front part of the property and they have requested a maximum of 54,000 square feet
of retail, restaurant, and office spaces. The development agreement as currently
proposed would limit the applicant to their request, with an allowance of up to 20
percent additional commercial square footage, which would make it a total of 65,000
square feet for more marketable conditions. The maximum square footage of a single
building would not exceed half of that maximum request. Regarding the residential
buildings, as shown on the remainder of the property, they have presented several
elevations for both the alley access residential, the townhouses, and the detached
single family residential projects. So, let me get to those. These are some of the
products. That's the attached. That's the detached. I'm not sure on the apartment
complex one. I know the applicant has a presentation prepared that will provide more
elevations for you, but -- although these elevations are -- should be included in the DA,
we would also like some clarification on specific height, bulk, types of materials, and
location for each type of elevation to address the concerns of adjoining property owners
and include those within the development agreement. Then, regarding pathways, the
applicant would coordinate with the parks department and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District to define the location of the multi-use pathway, bridge maintenance, and
landscaping along the Finch Lateral, which is along the southern portion of the property.
As part of the project the applicant is requesting several zones. Those are shown here.
It would be C-G at the front of the property along Eagle Road. R-15 toward the interior.
And, then, decreasing the density to R-8 as it nears the other adjoining property owners
in Carol Subdivision. The Commission has recommended approval to you. They heard
it on February 16th, 2006. Bob Unger from Redcliff Development spoke in favor. There
were several neighbors that live on Leslie Drive that spoke in opposition or commented.
Those included Bill Knorpp, Steve Grant, Candy Seeley, Linda Morris, Betty Rosso, and
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 43 of 76
David Thurston. All of them live on Leslie Drive. The key issues of discussion by the
Commission were the Eagle Road access, the perimeter buffers, including landscape,
screening, elevations, pathways, canals, and fencing material. Cross-access
requirement to other properties to the north, which is the Sadie Creek Promenade
property. And revised condition -- the key changes that the Commission made to staffs
initial recommendation were to revise condition 1.1.16 to read that Eagle Road access
is essential and full access at the quarter mile is preferred and to revise condition 1.14
to read that no changing to the landscaping along Eagle Road are required. The
outstanding issue before City Council -- again, as I mentioned before, this -- the
conditions are worded to, hopefully, accommodate either -- or they are designed to
accommodate either approving the variance or not approving the variance. And, then,
the Planning Commission did make a special recommendation that they wanted to pass
along to you and that -- they requested two things. They were fully in support of a --
and that's the next conversation. Sorry. The Commission has requested that if you
deny the variance that this be -- that the site design be remanded back to the
Commission, so that they make revised recommendations on the site plans showing no
access to Eagle Road. You do have Findings for approval in your packet and I will
answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: Any of none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Unger: Mayor and Council Members, my name is Bob Unger, I'm with Redcliff
Development. Our address is 787 East State Street, Suite 125, Eagle. And it's 83616.
And we appreciate the opportunity to present our project to you here. Waiting for the
PowerPoint to pop up. And I, like staff, am going to have a little bit difficult time steering
away from the variance and concentrating on the other applications.
De Weent I'm sure you can do it.
Unger: You bet. Okay. Well, first off, we want to state that we think staff's done an
excellent job in reviewing the project and they have been helpful in this final design that
you're seeing this evening. We also appreciate their general recommendation for
approval, of course, with the exception of the Eagle Road access, which will be
discussed at a later date, or later time this evening. Our proposed plan, as staff has
stated, we are looking at putting retail in this area; we are talking about condominiums
or townhouses in this particular area. We have rear load single family residential here
and front load single family residential in this area here. We have modified our plan in
order to comply with ACHD requirements. We will have -- there will be a public road
that comes through Sadie Creek Promenade. These are all public streets here. Runs
up -- this is a cul-de-sac that's been reviewed by ACHD and approved and that's where
the public streets end. We have no public streets accessing Eagle Road. Go to the
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 44 of 76
next one, Anna, please. Very quickly, these are the retail site once again, and we are
showing these two pictures, because these are the same ones that were shown to you
by Sadie Creek Promenade and the reason we are showing the same ones is that we
will be working with that developer to coordinate a unified appearance throughout their
project and our project. These are the townhouse section of the project. These are the
structures that we are proposing. They have the capabilities of either being condos or
townhouse. We are beginning to lean a little more towards the townhousing, so we will
have to make the lot lines appropriate. These particular units are three bedroom, two
bath, and also two bedroom, two path. They would be individually owned and they are
in the square footage of 12 to 15 hundred square feet. Anna. These are the proposed
idea of what the rear load units would look like -- the structures would look like. We
have a private street that runs through the middle here, which would access the
garages on all of these lots. These lots are in the 4,700 square foot range. We will
have architectural requirements throughout this project and on those -- those structures
will be at least bare minimum is three bedroom, two bath, ranging 16 to 24 hundred
square feet in size. Anna. And, finally, the front load structures, garages in the front, all
of these lots are in the 6,000 square foot range and, once again, we are requiring
minimum three bedroom, two bath, 16 to 24 hundred square foot structures. The Finch
Lateral which runs along the southern border of this project, we have met with the
neighbors who live along the south on more than one occasion. Our initial plan was to
pipe the lateral. After meeting with the neighbors, we found out the neighbors don't
want that piped, so, consequently, we have backed off of that and we come back with a
plan that meets the city requirements and this plan right here -- it's kind of hard to see
here, but what we have is a row of trees along our -- the pathway, the pathway would be
a ten foot wide pathway to meet the city requirements. Another row of trees. Then,
along here we have a wrought iron fence, so as to be able to see through it. Some
shrubbery. Then, an 18 foot area over to the top of the bank of the lateral, which is
required by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation for access and maintenance of the lateral itself.
We would maintain all of the landscaping and -- between the lateral and our project as a
part of our project. In fact, it still would be within the project, since the lateral lays within
an easement. Anna. We are providing a great deal of open space in this project. We
are proposing a clubhouse and pool in this area right in here. This is to be a tot lot with
equipment, swings, jungle gym, et cetera. This area we have -- we have volleyball court
and basketball court and some horseshoe pits. In addition, throughout all of this area in
here, this is all -- there is over 60 feet of separation between these buildings and this is
all considered to be open space and throughout all of the residential portion of this
project we will be providing picnic tables and barbecue pits. For use of -- by the
property owners. Excuse me. As far as buffering and landscaping, we are providing a -
- proposing a 35-foot landscape strip, with a meandering sidewalk along Eagle Road.
We also -- all of this open space, we are meeting -- the minimum requirement is 25 feet
of buffer along here, which will all be trees and shrubs. Along the western boundary we
are proposing 30-foot buffer here, which includes a berm, extensive landscaping, trees,
placed in accordance with city code. I believe that's 35-foot every -- every 35-foot there
is a tree. Then we would have a pathway and another set of trees that would be offset
from the most westerly row of trees. Then, along these -- the western lot lines of these
lots we would, once again, be putting in a wrought iron fence, which would match what's
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 45 of 76
-- what we are proposing to come up through here. We do have -- we are showing the
pathway along here, along here, and back up into here and we do want to run it on up
and tie it into all of this, so that there is a continuous pathway that can be -- folks can
utilize. At this point, if you would allow, Rod Haggett with our office has been working
on the fencing issue along the western property and I would like for him to discuss that
part with you and, then, I'll come back and do the closing on it very quickly.
De Weerd: Okay.
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Haggett: Rob Haggett, 787 East State Street, Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Haggett: Madam Mayor and Council Members, thanks for the time tonight to come up
here and discussion the fencing issue, which oftentimes when developers come in and
take an undeveloped piece of property and start adding things to, adding density and
developing, as we are here, we do feel like this is a good project, however, there are
always questions from existing neighbors, existing property owners, about the fencing.
What are we going to do to keep our project somewhat separate from theirs? In this
case -- Anna, if you can go back to the -- that slide right there. As Mr. Unger was
mentioning, the property owners to the south, we have discussed and met with them
numerous times and come up with a plan for a wrought iron fence with extensive
landscaping. The property owners to the west, we have discussed with them numerous
times on different types of fencing available. The type of fence that we would prefer to
put into this project on this west border would be a Trex wood composite product fence.
It's a long life, long lasting fence, with a 25 year warranty. It's something new on the
market. It's an excellent product. That's the type of fence we would prefer to put in as a
developer. The reason we would prefer that is that we are developing this area of the
project as residential. We will have some very nice single family homes in here.
However, it seems that in numerous discussions with the neighbors that unanimously or
almost unanimously they would prefer to see some type of decorative masonry fence.
We sent a letter out this morning that, hopefully, the Council got copies of that. If you
haven't, I have got copies of that letter here. The letter was sent to Mr. Berg this
morning. We are willing to commit to a masonry -- decorative masonry fence on that
west property line, if the Council deems that that would be appropriate after hearing
public testimony from the adjacent homeowners. We are trying to be good neighbors
here. We are trying to develop what we think is a good project. And, like I said, we
would prefer to put in a Trex fence. We feel that that's a better -- it looks better in a
residential area. In fact, Anna, if you can go to the next slide, we have the pictures.
This fence right here is from the actual Trex Corporation, that picture, and it's a very
nice, long lasting fence you can see. It blocks -- it's a solid fence all the way down to
the ground. In any event, like I said, we are willing to do a decorative masonry fence if
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 46 of 76
that's what the Council feels would be more appropriate for this part of the project. And
I'll turn the rest over to Mr. Unger at this time and will answer questions at the end.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Mayor and Council, Bob Unger with Redcliff Development again. Since we are
going to discuss the variance separately, then, I will just go ahead and close on this.
We do want to thank you for your time and the time of your staff. And as staff stated in
their report, our proposal does substantially comply with city regulations and we feel that
it would be a very nice addition to the city. We ask for your approval of all of our
applications and we will wait on the variance and I will stand for any questions that you
might have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time, Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Unger, there was a comment in the staff report with regard to the open
space. The documents indicated there is about three and a half acres of open space
that it referenced asking the applicant to remove buffers, the landscape buffers, from
that calculation, what that density would be. Do you have that number and know what
that number is?
Unger: Mayor and Mr. Borton, no, I don't know what that number is. I believe -- and I'm
not sure whether staff is solely going with, you know, dedicated open space or whether
they are including this area also. So, I truly don't know what that number would be. I
could probably figure it out and cover that for you in rebuttal.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: And how much space is between the condominiums and that area you just
referred to? What is the distance?
Unger: Madam Mayor, that's -- I believe it's 65 feet. I know it's over 60, but it's under
70. So, it's between 60 and 70 feet of separation.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: I need to respond to a statement the applicant made, just so that there is no
confusion in the future if someone is reading these minutes, but changing from a
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 47 of 76
condominium project to townhome project, the private streets would no longer be
allowed. So, I just want the applicant to know that and for the record to reflect that.
Thank you.
Unger: Madam Mayor, we are aware of that.
De Weerd: Okay. What bearing does that have, then, on the plat? Because, then,
there is a road width that changes as well; is that correct?
Canning: Yes, ma'am. They may need to do a new preliminary plat for that portion
that's currently shown in the R-15 zoning district.
De Weerd: And would that be a substantial change?
Canning: It would be a substantial change. That's why they'd need a new preliminary
plat for that area.
De Weerd: So, it would have to go back to Planning and Zoning?
Canning: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. And you understand that, too?
Unger: Madam Mayor, yes. Let's say that as far as the application is concerned that is
before you today is solely for condominiums and not for townhouses and we are aware
that if we decide to change to townhouses, that we would have to come back through
with a revised preliminary plat, yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there is nothing further at this time --
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have a number of people that are signed up to
testify. Sue Sullivan. She's neutral and she's for the variance. Okay. You signed up
under annexation, so I just thought you wanted your two cents worth. Okay. Billy -- and
I --
Knorpp: Knorpp.
De Weerd: Knorpp. I'm sorry, the printing is--
Knorpp: Yeah. You were trying to read Billy script and it doesn't work too good. Sorry
about that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 48 of 76
Knorpp: I should have been more careful in a public document. My name is Billy
Knorpp. I live at 2972 Leslie Drive. So, my place of residence is about right there. I
have several things to ask. First of all, as you have perceived, we have had multiple
opportunities to discuss these issues with the developer, but it does appear that every
time they change a little bit. Now, we seem to be getting close to a solution here in
some ways, but what I would like is that somehow in your minutes or your discussion or
somewhere you write in stone some of the agreements that we have with them and that
it be -- it has to be done that way or they got to come back to you to change it, so that
we, then, have an opportunity to discuss it again with you. Those issues are that the --
now, I'm not directly affected, but I will just list them, the ones that we have major --
talked about. The stone wall on the west side has been discussed multiple times and
they have agreed to do it even tonight. That just needs to be written in. I believe that
everyone on that side would want that, although I'm -- like I say, I'm not exactly part of
that. The other part is the -- on the -- on my side of the subdivision -- or of the
development, all along this lateral, the Finch Lateral, they have agreed to put in a
double row of trees with the fence and shrubs and -- surrounding that path that's
required in there and I didn't see anything in the presentation that was just given, so I
don't know what's in front of you, but I would like it written in that they have agreed the
entire length -- because on the last drawing that I saw there were gaps where they didn't
have room, because they were putting in a parking lot or putting in something, but they
weren't putting in trees. I would like it written into the agreement or to the -- your
statements here that they have agreed to do that and that they will do it. They will make
it so that they rearrange it in one way or another so that there is a continuous stream,
continuous path of green -- of the double row of trees and the shrubs. The last is
providing some way for easy circulation of the cars when -- up here in this piece of the
development there are many -- going to be a lot of people up in there for those
businesses that are going to be there. Our concern is that if this is a right-in, right-out,
they are going to come here -- these people that are up in this part of it, which will
probably be many if those businesses are functioning, they will choose to go -- if they
want to go north, they won't be able to if this doesn't continue to be right-in, right-out -- if
it is made right-in, right-out by that barrier that that they are going to put into the middle
of Eagle Road. That means they would go out right, turn right into our subdivision,
follow the road around, and go left to go out on Ustick. We need to have, whatever you
end up with, somehow an easy path, so that there is good circulation for the cars to get
out of there and not come through our subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Knorpp: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Ray Tomczak. And I should know your last name.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 49 of 76
Tomczak: You should.
De Weerd: But I only call her Mallory. I have never called her by her last name.
Tomczak: Okay. It's Tomczak. Ray Tomczak.
De Weerd: Tomczak. Thank you.
Tomczak: 1502 North Leslie. And I agree with a lot of what Billy Knorpp had said about
this project. I am for the masonry fence wall on the west side there. One thing that I
don't agree with is the homes along the west side, that they want to put in there, one of
the main agreements that we had when we went to the Planning and Zoning, when
Rewe first wanted this changed to a -- rural to a commercial, was that we would have
light office along the property line and somehow they have totally let that go to the
wayside and I'd like to know why that was not addressed and is there anything we can
do to change this around. The other thing that Billy didn't address, maybe, is that with
all the commercial there along Eagle Road going through their subdivision, that's not a
good mix there, especially if they don't get a full access on Eagle Road. Okay. Thank
you.
De Weerd. Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Candy
Seeley.
Seeley: Hi, I'm Candy Seeley, I live at 1567 North Leslie. I am across the street from
the houses that actually border the west side of the development. I was at the Planning
and Zoning meeting when Mr. Unger actually did submit that he would put the block
fence in, so that it would match the development to his south -- or north -- to the north of
him, so that we would have a congruent-looking fence across the whole division, not
just behind the houses in his division, but also that will cover the Sadie Creek division.
He had already agreed to that. It's on record with Planning and Zoning. It has become
a really huge issue with us and he keeps -- every time he says it's going to happen he
tries to change it and he keeps doing this constantly and we are just getting tired of
being lied to by this gentleman. So, that's, basically, what I have to say regarding that.
And -- oh. It will be something that will be brought up by a couple other people, but in
the last drawing we had we didn't have any tot lots or any volleyball or whatever courts
you have got going there on the south side, to be -- having the extra noise and
everything on the properties that are bounding to the south of them. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Now, I really can't read this next one, so -- I think it's -- I
know it's -- the last name begins with a Van. Okay. Just for our records if you will,
please, state your name. Mark Van Hume. I just -- Mark, I was just asking it so I could
make sure we had it down for the record.
Van Hume: Okay, Ma'am. Thanks. Mark Van Hume, 2654 Leslie Drive.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 50 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Sandra Knorpp signed up against. And that is noted in
our record. Thank you. Jim Lott.
LoU: Madam Mayor and Council, Jim Lott, 1343 Leslie Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lott: I'm not directly bound by any of this. I am across the street, so I'm supporting my
neighbors, basically. And I have been coming to a number of these meetings and this
project has been morphing as we go along and it seems like every time we get to a
certain point promises are made that something else is going to change, but if you will
accept what we are doing here now, we will fix the problem later, and it's not happening.
So, what's happening, basically, is this development is not contingent with the
development that's to the north, basically, and so they want to keep changing this wall
down here. But tonight all of a sudden this is now been agreed upon to be some sort of
a -- just a steel wall, basically, a wrought iron wall, and I don't think the neighbors really
agreed to that. And so we are trying to be as consistent as we can in our neighborhood
and keep the continuity we have there. We are trying to protect, basically, the value of
our properties and what's going to happen with this -- with this, basically, as stated
before, people are going to use our subdivision now as an access road to get back and
head south onto Eagle Road. We can't figure out what is the fair thing to do, but if you
come into our neighborhood, which we would hope all you would, you will -- you can
have a picnic in the middle of our street anytime of the day. There is no traffic. And we
have seen a little bit of it just having an accident on Eagle or Ustick, where all of a
sudden it's a parade going through our neighborhood. And when you're talking about all
this going on here, it's going to, eventually, have to come through us as far as the -- any
of the consumers that are using these areas here. Another thing I'm kind of concerned
about is the density of the houses here. Where are all the guests and visitors going to
park? They are going to be on the street there as well. So, if you're going to start using
this now as some sort of an access road to get back onto Ustick, you're going to have a
lot of congestion in this area. Are the streets wide enough to handle police and fire and
the rest of it, because if you're looking at the size of these lots, if there is anyone visiting
or parking in front of those houses, it's going to get pretty dense in those areas. So,
what's going to happen in this whole area here? There is going to be a lot of, basically,
vacant automobiles parked during the day. So, those are my concerns and, basically, I
just want to protect our neighborhood and our values. Thank you very much for your
time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Lott. Okay. Also signed up is Joan Lott. Signed up
against. Okay. Thank you. Just for the record. Steve Meredith. Thank you. I thought
it was much longer than that.
Meredith: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, most of the issues --
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 51 of 76
Meredith: Oh. My name is Steve Meredith and I live at 3066 East Leslie Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meredith: Most of the concerns that I have have been addressed. My only concern is
the traffic at this point and the way I see it is it would be nice to see more circulation
through this whole development and bring it -- let me see if I can use this pointer here.
And, actually, I'd like to see this road come through, wind around through their
development, and back out up here someplace, and will eliminate going out here onto
Eagle Road whatsoever. It will send their traffic back out here at the intersection where
they need to exit anyway, and that will pretty much eliminate the issue for us. And 1
thank you for allowing me to express my comments. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there a Jane -- Josh. Josh, if can tell me what your last
name is.
Drinkard: Drinkard.
De Weerd: Drinkard.
Drinkard: D-r-i-n-k-a-r-d.
De Weerd: No way. Okay. I'll believe that. Okay. Can you spell that once more for
the record?
Drinkard: Josh Drinkard. D-r-i-n-k-a-r-d.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. You know, I need new glasses. Mark Snodgrass.
Representative Mark Snodgrass.
Snodgrass: Mark Snodgrass. 1406 Leslie Way. And I, actually, am -- I don't have the
same history as some of the other neighbors that are here. I, actually, have purchased
a property that is adjacent just right here in the cul-de~sac on Leslie Way, so I am a
person who is going to be looking at the new subdivision quite a bit and, you know, one
of the things ~- as I said, I haven't had the same kind of experience as some of the other
people that have been here. I have been to a few of the neighborhood meetings that
Redcliff made me aware of, which I very much appreciated. You know, I think that
everyone here knows that this piece of property at some point in time is going to be
developed and so I think that coming up with a plan that gives as great amount of
security for the people that are a part of that and provides transitional zones from Eagle
Road all the way over, is definitely in the best interest of everyone, including new
members of the community as well. Essentially, the two issues that I have been really a
part of have been the -- the western fencing here, I would like to be put on record as
stating that I would be in favor of a cinder block or a decorative masonry fence versus a
Trex-type fencing. I think it's a little bit more long lasting sort of thing. Some people
would debate whether or not it's as attractive or not, but with being a person that has the
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 52 of 76
greatest amount of exposure to the new subdivision here as far as the bordering area,
that's probably what I would prefer, just for that. The other thing I would prefer would be
-- and I'm not sure if this is appropriate now, but would definitely be in support of full
access here onto Eagle Road. I'm not sure if ITD is going to be okay with that or not,
but I think that that would help to alleviate some of the problems that we would have. If
this is granted full access, I think you're going to have people that are going to be able
to turn left onto Eagle Road at that light at that point in time would also provide a buffer,
so that -- or a stopping point, which would allow people on Leslie to be able to get out
onto Eagle Road turning right if they so choose and that might be a little bit easier. But,
you know, I know we are going to get it developed at some point in time. I think it's a
reasonable and rational plan. There are some things that I was not aware of. I wasn't
aware that there was going to be some of the tot lot things here, but that could have
been an oversight on my part as well. But we appreciate the opportunity for you guys to
listen to what we have to say and I appreciate your consideration.
De Weerd: Thank you. Well, maybe you can get us some funding for Eagle Road, so
we can get the appropriate safety devices in there.
Snodgrass: We are working on GARVEE as we speak. Thank you.
De Weerd: Well, we don't ask for much. And I won't pass up an opportunity either.
Okay. Betty Rosso. We do have a letter on the record and it is noted. Thank you.
Okay. Those are the individuals who have signed up to testify. Is there anyone else
who would like to testify? Please come forward.
Grant: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie
Way. My property is on the western boundary about somewhere along in there. And I
also submitted written testimony, which I hope that you have a copy of.
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you.
Grant: But I wanted to note a couple of things. First of all, the commitment that was
made at Planning and Zoning with regard to the masonry fence on the western
boundary I think is well documented and plenty of testimony has been given tonight, so I
will just add my -- that's what I would like to see and that's what they have committed to.
In addition to that, that would continue what they are going to do at the Sadie Creek
property. Their plans are, as you heard a couple of weeks ago, is to build that style of
fence and to have it continued only makes sense. We appreciate their willingness to
agree to the 30 foot buffer, rather than a standard 25. Again, that's continuing what the
folks at Sadie Creek have already committed to. I guess everyone has made comments
about the traffic issue. I also agreed with some of the testimony that's been given that
this is not a really efficient layout with -- I mean it just doesn't seem to provide the
proper access, especially with the car loading on here that's going to occur, I mean, you
know, if you're over here or you're here, you got to wind your way all the way through
here, that just speaks to have more traffic coming in and out of here and I don't think
this is an efficient design. And as I noted in my testimony, written testimony, I know
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 53 of 76
Commissioner Zaremba spoke at length in favor of this as full access. I take somewhat
exception to that, because I don't think -- he was in the hopes that there would be a light
there some day and as I noted in my testimony, I don't think that's going to happen,
because they are requiring funding from the developers for the light that's going to be
here and I have never heard anybody discuss funding from the developer's on either
side that would help make ITD convinced that that would be a thing they would want to
do. Plus, I think they have a -- they have indicated a natural concern for that -- only one
of those at the half mile mark. Obviously, there could be variances given, but my -- I
would like to see that -- the variance denied. I just think that will continue to be a
problem for our neighborhood, that it will force traffic down our street, whether it's right-
in or right-out or full access. So, again, I would just recommend that that not -- that
variance not be granted. I believe that covers the issues that I have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Okay. Is there any further testimony on this
application? Yes, ma'am.
Helms: Janeen Helms. 1374 Leslie Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Helms: Another western neighbor. So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank
you so much for this opportunity to speak. I'd just like to remind folks that when the
masonry fence was discussed, it was hoped that the style and color and basic makeup
would continue that of Sadie Creek more or less exactly. I think that the cross-over
between the two properties occurs right in the middle of someone's backyard and I'm
sure that they would appreciate it if it was a very similar product. I'd like to thank the
Planning and Zoning for encouraging that the buffering be done early in this project. I
would certainly appreciate it as an adjacent homeowner if the fencing, landscaping, was
done fairly early to just kind of minimize the dust and all during development. During
the Planning and Zoning hearing there was some question about the multi -- the front
load homes I guess they are called right along the boundary. How many of those would
be two story and all and I believe no answer was gotten to that. I don't know if there are
zoning requirements for maximum height or anything, but I was kind of interested in
knowing how tall those properties might be. So, that's all I have and I'd answer any
questions if there were any.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Any additional testimony? Okay.
Would the applicant like to come up to respond? If you will restate your name for the
record.
Unger: Mayor and Council Members, once again, Bob Unger with Redcliff
Development. Okay. A couple of -- an awful lot of what was discussed here pertains to
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 54 of 76
the access to Eagle Road, which is part of the variance. So, do you want me to address
this now or do you want me to wait?
De Weerd: I would like you to wait, please.
Unger: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Madam Mayor and Mr. Borton, to respond to your
question on the open space, if you take away the buffer areas, that reduces our total
acreage by 8.95 acres.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Unger: I mean .895. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm glad you raised your eyebrows.
Borton: Down to about 2.5 acres?
Unger: Correct.
De Weerd: So, what is the percentage?
Borton: I think you were at 12.9 percent originally.
Canning: Madam Mayor and Council, before we get too far into that conversation, I
suspect that that was a holdover from the Sadie Creek one, that the two staff reports
are patterned after one another. The residential portion of this project, which, actually,
had no required land use buffers, because it's residential against residential, the open
space that the applicant is providing all qualifies as open space. The property
immediately to the north, however, had commercial zoning and commercial zoning is
required to do a landscape buffer. So, there appears to be an error in the staff report
there.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. But we appreciated your calculation.
Unger: You're welcome. Okay. Just to try to run through a couple of quick things,
though. The pathway in the buffering and the fencing that we are showing this evening
was reviewed with all of the southern property owners. As a matter of fact, although
they didn't want the wrought iron fence, they wanted a solid fence, with the Finch Lateral
being opened; city code requires that that be a fence that you can see through. You
can't have a solid fence running along there. And that's why we have gone with the
wrought iron fence, but, in addition to that, we have double the number of trees along
this buffering area to provide a better visual buffer for the folks that live along this area
here. As far as the amazonite wall -- and I'm going to say it one more time -- and what
happens -- and what has happened -- and I will be perfectly honest with you -- you
know, I stand up here and agree to the masonite wall and, then, later on in the
discussions the owner says, well, are you sure we can't do something else and we try to
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 55 of 76
talk to the property owners and it looks like that I'm lying to you and lying to them,
because we keep looking at this possibility of maybe coming up with a nicer looking
fence. The bottom line, you have a letter from us that says we will construct a
decorative masonite fence along the western border and we will do that and I'm saying it
on the record right now. You could put it in the development agreement if you'd like to.
But we will do that.
Bird: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Is it masonite or masonry or--
Bird: Is it masonry or masonite? There is a big difference.
Unger: masonry.
Bird: masonry. Okay. masonry.
Unger: I have done the same thing myself.
De Weerd: I thought maybe I was missing something.
Unger: masonry.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Unger: You're welcome. I can't talk about that yet. Okay. Ah. There was concern
about parking -- sufficient parking for this project. All of these condo units have garages
and there will be two car garages to each unit. So, that right there, in itself, provides
two parking spaces per unit. But, in addition to that, we have provided additional
parking throughout this portion of the project for visitor parking, et cetera. There will be
no parking along this section of the road. It will be posted that way. These are all public
roads and there is -- on-street parking is allowed, as in any other single family
development and which is exactly what this portion of the project is. Okay. I can't talk
about that. I can't talk about that. The wall. I think we got it. I think I responded to all
the things that I can at this point in time, so I will stand for any additional questions you
might have.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Anna.
Canning: Just by my notes, if the applicant might want to address the tot lots and the
play areas and the height of the structures along the western boundary.
Unger: Okay. Mayor and Council Members, the tot lot -- we have the tot lot projected --
you know, shown in this area right in here, because this is where the clubhouse is, this
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 56 of 76
is where the pool is, felt that was an appropriate place. Typically the volleyball court,
basketball court, and the horseshoe pit that we were showing over here, are -- those are
more -- those are typically used by adults or teens. So, the idea was to have the tot lot
located over here where they would be separated from the more adult-type activities,
which would occur here. That's why we have those separate locations like that. If the
Council feels that we need to change those around or staff feels they want those moved
around, certainly we can work with that and we do have additional open space in this
area and down through here. The idea of the tot lot being here, it's located close to the
clubhouse and better supervision. As far --
De Weerd: Can I ask a question while you're on the tot lot? You have it backed up
against a commercial area or a mixed use commercial office area, the tot lot. What kind
of safety measures are put in place? Is there a -- is there fencing along that -- that
property line as well?
Unger: Mayor and Council -- and possibly staff might correct me if I'm wrong. I believe
that Sadie Creek Promenade is required to put some sort of fencing or wall along that
boundary. I know it is -- it is something that we specifically sent a letter to the city
specifically requesting that they be required to do that and I believe they were.
De Weerd: I don't think I remember a fence in there, so--
Canning: Madam Mayor, I don't have the Sadie Creek file with me tonight.
Unger: Madam Mayor, if, in fact, they weren't required, which I would be very
disappointed that they weren't, but if it was not required, it would behoove us to go
ahead and fence this area along here.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I do know that they were required to address the issue of a
buffer for a commercial use adjoining a residential use. So, at the time of construction
they will have to have a land use buffer between the two uses.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: But I'm unsure on the fence.
De Weerd: We may want to look at that.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members --
De Weerd: I guess my concern is just that tot lot next to a commercial area and how
that separation would be done.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 57 of 76
Canning: Maybe just want a fence -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you may
want to consider just fencing the tot lot as well.
Unger: And we could do that, Madam Mayor, fence around the tot lot itself, if that's a
problem. And the other question was I believe the height of structures along here. We
are not proposing any restrictions on height there, other than what meets code and what
would be allowed by code. A two story structure would be the maximum story height
and I believe your maximum total height is 35 feet or -- yes, 35 feet. So, we certainly
would not exceed the city zoning requirements for height along there.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any additional questions that you want answered?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, if you'd go back to the design concept for the commercial. That is
what I would expect. And that's consistent with Sadie Creek. I said the same thing to
them. That sets your design and architectural criteria. Okay? Now, would you
juxtapose or just show what they show for condominiums? I have a problem between
what you're showing with the commercial and the product you're showing with the
condominiums. They don't work together, in my opinion. So, I have got a design issue
there. I'm not sure that that's consistent with the concept of a leisure center that's being
proposed for this area. Just to let you know. I envision 23 buildings sitting there that
look like barracks. I mean I don't have any information about materials, colors, design
variation. We have been very specific on some of these of late, since we have been
blessed with some that are less than satisfactory in the City of Meridian. So, just to let
you know, I have a concern there. I don't know that you can address my concern this
evening. I would want to see other designs. I would like to see materials. I would like
to see color schemes. I would like to see something that's consistent with the vision you
have created for the commercial. I'd like to see the same vision for the residential.
Particularly the condominiums.
Under: Madam Mayor, may I respond?
Rountree: And that's more along the lines of discussion, but you certainly can respond.
Unger: Thank you. The commercial design concept came straight from Sadie Creek
Promenade, because we have always agreed that we would work to provide an
appearance that is -- you know, that is uniform with them, so, it somewhat restricts our
ability to design a structure that would go along with that. Now, these structures are
very residential in their appearance. In fact, I -- this shows single car garages. We
have revised the structures to provide two car garages in here. But the entire design of
these structures are very very residential looking. They are in no way, shape, or form
any kind of a barracks looking structure. You know, they have nice covered front
porches. The material that we would have on this -- it would be -- excuse me --
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 58 of 76
masonite type siding, which you're pretty much seeing standard on homes throughout
the valley right now. And we would go with more natural colors throughout the project.
I mean we are not going to paint every structure the same color. We will have varied
colors throughout. They will all still be more of a natural tone type colors. We are also -
- if you look at these -- these areas in here, the gable ends, those -- you know, that
won't be just regular siding, that's going to be more of a shake type appearance on
these. And we will mix them out -- mix them up throughout all of the projects and mix
the color variations. Masonite -- or I'm not -- sorry. Asbestos--
De Weerd: Asbestos?
Unger: Let me back up. I'm a builder from way back. We used to have asbestos
shingles, now they are fiberglass shingles and, actually, they will be more of the
textured 30 year warranty type shingles. So, they are -- you know, we are trying to put
in something that -- in fact, this design does not exist anywhere in this valley, because it
is a brand new design that we have just brought to the valley. In fact, the final
architectural plans have not been totally completed. Very close, but -- in fact, our first
project -- we will be building these structures in our first project in Boise probably six or
eight months out -- down the road yet. So, they are very very unique. Anna, could you
go to that -- I believe it's down to the landscaping strip, because I really think it -- they
do have -- I think we do have a decent -- oh, it still doesn't show up well. It didn't work.
This picture, actually -- I can't tell it either. But I believe this picture here shows it -- but
it's not there, so you just can't see it. Could I just -- you can pass it around and look at
it. It does give you some sort of idea.
Bird: Why don't you put it on the overhead.
Unger: Oh. Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: While Mr. Unger is doing that, I have the Sadie Creek findings -- or the Sadie
Creek staff report in front of me and it appears at the time -- and I think my recollection
is the same as Madam Mayor, I don't know that that was fully decided and according to
this staff report that was submitted when that was heard before the Council, there was
no detailed fencing plan and the staff requirement was that a fencing plan would be
submitted prior to final plat. So, I don't know if that sheds any light on it, but it may not
have been resolved yet as to whether there is fencing between these two different
projects and there is, of course, a lot of discussion regarding cross-access between
those projects as well. But that's what the staff report indicated at the time and, again, I
don't recall that there was a final decision on fencing on the night of that application.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 59 of 76
Unger: Madam Mayor. Although it's hard to see through the trees, this is one of the
structures here. The side view of one of the structures. As is this one right here. Of
course, they are -- this is the open space between the -- between the structures with the
driveway back over in this area. Now, this was -- this was done by our landscape
architect to actually show you the landscape buffer that we were running along here.
But it does give you some idea of the appearance of them, if that helps. What we were
going for was that right there, so --
De Weerd: Are there more pictures in that?
Unger: Madam Mayor, what they are shooting for is this overhead shot that our
landscape architect did, she plugged in some buildings. They are not representative of
the buildings we are going to build, but she was putting something in there, just so that it
wasn't a -- just a blank piece of land sitting within the commercial part. So, I think what
they are trying to accomplish here is to show that to you to say that, well, this is what
they are really planning on doing, instead of what we have just discussed. And certainly
show that, Anna, please.
Anna: Is that what you're referring to?
Unger: I think that's the one. What happened here -- and, once again, these are the
four-plex buildings and that is a design and she specifically had, so she was able to put
these structures on here. Then, she took some -- just some standard commercial
structures that they have on record not ours, and just put them on here to show just --
just to fill in the blank. And it's not what we are going to build. It has never been what
we were going to build. And solely -- this whole -- these pictures that you're looking at
right now were solely for the purpose of showing the landscaping, the path, and all of
this along the southern border of the project. It was never intend for anybody to use
these structures for any use whatsoever and the only reason I even brought it up was to
maybe give Mr. Rountree the opportunity to get an idea of what these structures would
look like.
Rountree: Thank you.
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: Anything further, Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, if you could put up that commercial section again. I have a couple
questions, but I have got a couple comments first. I agree with Councilman Rountree's
concerns a great deal. Before I get there, a couple of thoughts or comments that I have
got with regards to location of tot lots and volleyball courts. It seems -- I don't know if
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 60 of 76
obvious is the word, but it seems obvious, that a tot lot next to a potential brick wall,
which abuts the back of some commercial building is maybe not the best place to put
that or the most convenient. On the other side a volleyball court next to a fence and a
canal, a volleyball -- having grown up playing at Park Center and swam in the pond
many a time to fetch those, you're just enticing young kids to hop your fence and jump
in the canal to get it out.
De Weerd: There was no swimming in that pond.
Borton: There was when my volleyball goes in. Any kid under 18 is going to jump in
and get it, so -- at any rate -- Anna, can you put up the commercial?
Canning: I'm trying, sir. It's--
Borton: Here is another comment of mine and this is -- and I'm relatively new at this,
but I'll tell you what I'd love to hear in any situation like this where there is a meeting of a
developer and neighbors and it's long and lengthy and over the course of some time
there is an agreement at the end of the meeting, that it's put in writing and that it's some
sort of nonbinding memorandum of understanding. We do it in litigation all the time,
even when you don't complete a complete agreement on any issue. But I'd love to see
that and never hear again situations where people come forward and neighbors say he
said A and you stand up and say, no, I said B and it's just absolutely worthless, at least
from my perspective trying to resolve what took place. I do note that the February 2nd
minutes of P&Z, Mr. Unger, you did make reference to the tot lot, the basketball courts,
the volleyball courts. You also made specific reference to your agreement to provide
fencing along the western boundary consistent with whatever Sadie Creek was going to
do. It's on page 47. You were very clear on that. So, with regards to meetings with
neighbors, if there is any chance to get anything agreed to, I'd love to see it in writing
before everyone leaves the room. I'm off my soapbox. Tell me -- tell me about what
happens up here. It seems like some of the drawings were consistent or required some
sort of access here. One of the ones shows kind of a parking lot wedged up against
what would be a wall. Is that not the case?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Borton, actually, no, there isn't a wall along here. This is a
curbing. We were working with the Sadie Creek Promenade folks on an access right
here, right-in, right-out access, which was denied by this Council. At that time we had --
this drive aisle came through, we had this access coming down, they tied together,
came down, and went out this way, an access here. And another access right here.
Since this was denied, this right-in, right-out access was denied, we have had to come
in and tie a drive aisle coming through here down to this area, which would come out to
the access, which would go out to Ustick Road through Sadie Creek Promenade. Also
one right here. So, they have some parking along here that -- you know, that they are
showing and this is a drive aisle that comes down and ties in here.
Borton: So -- Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 61 of 76
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: So, is that what that would look like, then, or is it actually going to be little stubs
to this development?
Unger: I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that. Stubs?
Borton: To the Sadie Creek -- whatever takes place over here.
Unger: There would be a stub here and a stub here. Sadie Creek Promenade was
required by the Council to provide cross-access for us to Ustick and we do have an
alignment. It goes out further here. I think in our overall plan it's easier to see. But we
do have alignments that work.
Borton: One other question -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: One other question. In your meetings with the neighbors -- the neighbors to the
west, was there any discussion or concern by them about -- I think they are an R-2 --
about an R-8 and the density adjacent to their property lines and if that was discussed
what did you get from that? Any concerns?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Borton, actually, the main -- the main concern, as I recall, in
those meetings that was brought up was that they would prefer to see office.
Borton: Sir?
Unger: They would prefer to see office along there, instead of residential. I believe that
was an issue from way back in the original annexation of the Rewe property. What we
are proposing is single family abutting single family and, as I recall, that's about the
extent of it. I mean I don't -- I don't believe the neighbors particularly supported the
single family -- you know, the density that we are showing, because their preference
was -- you know, would have been the office. But we have found that -- I mean this is
what we have moved forward with and we find that marketwise works best for our
project.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess just to take some of the questioning that Mr. Borton had, in terms of,
you know, the next item on our agenda aside, you know, you wipe off that access,
because right now you can't have it without the variance. So, without that access, how
best can your circulation -- how best can your traffic circulate internally? How I see that
alignment to the north --
Unger: Anna, could you get the full size plan up?
Meridian City Coundl
March 14,2006
Page 62 of 76
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's going to take me a second. This
CD keeps on crashing on me, so --
De Weerd: Well, you know, just as you show right here, it doesn't really show a good
internal connection. You mentioned something here and they have parking lot or
parking spot. Here it's also a jog, too. So, I guess I was thinking, as the neighbors have
testified, and even that -- I would -- if you can just kind of walk us through that
circulation and how these people who are destination to your retail -- and that is very
attractive. We got very caught up in Sadie Creek's architectural renderings and I'm
thrilled to hear that you're carrying it into yours. But how will you really capture the
traffic and the activity that's going in here to send them through that -- the other
development, since, in all likelihood right now, you do not have a variance. So, can you
kind of tell me what your plan is internally?
Unger: Madam Mayor, haven't thought this through completely, but -- let's work with
this. Sadie Creek Promenade has a right-in, right-out -- I can't even find it right now. I
believe right in here somewhere. They also have another access here and one down
here. They have a drive aisle that works through here, which will come down and make
this connection. Also, they have a drive aisle here that would connect to our project and
come out to the -- the other right-in, right-out. So, we would have circulation through
here and access out to Ustick and down through here and out to the signal, which would
be right -- located right here. One of the things that -- in our discussions and
negotiations with Sadie Creek Promenade on accesses, et cetera, it has always been
stated by Sadie Creek Promenade that all of these buildings are conceptual and that
they could be moved to provide better access through the project. You required them to
provide cross-access for us to get the -- for traffic, to get it out through there. So, we
would still have a good traffic circulation in throughout this area and access out to Ustick
in three different points minimum. At least three different points.
De Weerd: Okay.
Unger: That's if we didn't get our variance, which we certainly will hope to get.
De Weerd: So, three different points -- and I just see two right now. Oh, your point
there to the west. Okay.
Unger: There. There.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any additional questions?
Unger: Madam Chair, could I --
De Weent Yes.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 63 of 76
Unger: I didn't respond to one other question Mr. Borton had. His concerns about the -
- the courts here and the -- you know, tot lots. If those are real concerns, we can move
them to the interior somewhere. I mean if those -- if those are real real huge bumps in
the road, we can move them somewhere interior. They seem to be the best location on
the site. You know, we have -- the volleyball court is oriented this direction. There is
the fence there -- yes, there is only six feet, but, then, again, there is every 17 and a half
feet there is a tree. So, there is an awful lot of blockage here. The basketball court is
oriented in that direction. So are the horseshoes. The tot lot I think -- yeah. Okay. I
can see that as a real issue and I can move this tot lot up into this area. But if it is a
huge bump in the road or bump in the road, we will move those away from the
perimeter, if that's what you would like.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Members of the Council, with the questions raised tonight, I was searching
through the staff reports and findings. The analysis that was done for the residential
portion treated it just as a residential project, not as a multi-family development, which
the condos would need to be approved under. I'm not sure that the -- that that's been
clear along and we probably need to get that clear for the record. But as I read it right
now, the multi-family portion would need to come back in for a Conditional Use Permit.
Okay. Just as long as we are clear. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Do you have anything further?
Unger: No, ma'am -- Mayor, I do not. And we certainly would ask for your approval on
our project this evening.
De Weerd: Okay. That concludes the public testimony on these items, exclusive of the
variance. Okay. Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I actually have a question for Chief Musser. I'm curious your thoughts or
concerns from the department's perspective on this type of curbed alley, private alley.
It's been discussed I have heard before and other situations that the private alleys are
difficult for the police department to deal with. You don't -- you're not maintaining them
or leasing them yourselves and that design -- a curb design like that, is there any unique
concern in the department's perspective on anything from vehicle theft or burglary or
anything that might take place that that invites?
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, reference the
alleys, one thing that we have pointed out where they are private property, we won't
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 64 of 76
enforce on them, they are not under the city ordinances for alley speeds and that type of
thing or even -- even, in essence, parking. Short of looking at helping the fire
department in terms of having the access open as a potential fire lane on their end of it.
Currently at this time there seems to be a push nationwide for a little bit more of some of
this type of housing and, really, in all essence, with the -- without the materials that are
out there, it seems to be relatively open as far as with whether or not it's lending itself to
an increase in crime. In most instances they are finding that the neighborhoods are
holding their in terms having that. And especially within a mixed use concept plan like
we have here, you don't have a high saturation. High saturation seems to lend itself
more to potential crime, as opposed to having the mixed use concept. As far as the
traffic patterns and looking at other potential things in there with parking or any of that
type of stuff, time will tell in terms of where the traffic sits and parks at and most of that
will probably be based on who occupies the buildings. So, we will have to wait and see
as -- you know, if they are purchased ones or if they end up being rental-type units, that
type of thing, may be an impact on the parking. If they have garages, traditionally, we
find they use them. However, if it's a -- a group of say young adults that are renting that
type of a facility and they are sharing and maybe they have a number of them moving
in, then, you may see three or four vehicles, in which case a couple occupy the
garages, but a couple will be parked on the street. So, it, really, kind of depends on
who is marked out to it and who purchases it.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Anything further, Council? Okay. What is your desire?
Do you want to close the Public Hearing? Do you need additional information?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would be inclined to continue the Public Hearing. I'm concerned about
architectural design details. We do not have design review in Meridian. What you get
here tonight is what you get. So, I would like to see more information from the
developer at it relates to design, the quality of the product they intend to build, and that
would be where I am. I don't know where the rest of the Council is. As opposed to
closing the hearing and moving to deny.
De Weerd: Mr. Unger, I believe that the Public Hearing is still open and I do know you
have mentioned that this product would be new to this valley. Are there pictures that
you can get from where ever you're getting this concept, that these type of products
have been built in other areas? Can you get actual pictures? Certainly better than the
renderings you gave us. And you just heard the opinion of one Council Member, but I
think I also heard it from a second Council Member as well.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Council, Bob Unger with Redcliff Development. I assume that
Mr. Rountree is talking about the commercial and the condos or just the condos?
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 65 of 76
Rountree: Madam Mayor, Mr. Unger, you set the standard for commercial by your
renderings. I'm concerned about the condominiums.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Rountree, we do not have pictures or designs of the
commercial structures. These are pads at this point, as were Sadie Creek Promenade.
And our whole intention was to identify that we would work with them.
De Weerd: Mr. Unger, he felt comfortable with the commercial.
Rountree: I'm comfortable with the commercial.
commercial.
You have set the standard for
Unger: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.
Rountree: It's the condominiums.
Unger: And you're looking for the --
De Weerd: Mr. Unger, if you will --
Wardle: Madam Mayor, before you move off the commercial, I have in my packet a
rendering and a picture that's different than the one that I saw presented this evening,
that was presented at Planning and Zoning, and so I still have the issue addressed, as I
did with Sadie Creek shortly ago on the commercial aspects. So, if you could just
continue that and, then, address Councilman Rountree's issue, that would be great.
De Weerd: On the commercial?
Wardle: On the commercial.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I guess just if you can address the commercial and, then, to the
multi-family.
Unger: All right. Madam Mayor--
Wardle: Let me rephrase my question. What specific assurance does this city have
that the two pictures that depict some sort of a building -- what assurance does this
community and this city have that that product will be build? That's my specific
questions on the commercial.
Unger: Okay. Mayor, Mr. Wardle, let me ask you back. Whatever assurances you got
from Sadie Creek Promenade, we will give you the same assurances, because we are
trying to provide the same appearance that they are. They moved -- they were ahead of
us. They have set the standard and we are going to have to follow that standard. If
they brought to you structures, elevations, and designs and materials, et cetera, that
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 66 of 76
define those, then, certainly, we would do the same and follow suit with them. If they
did not, then, it's very hard for us to give you that, if you understand what I'm saying.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, maybe I should -- you can look at the minutes. For this Council
Member that wasn't enough.
Unger: Okay.
Wardle: So, I raise the issue again for the rest of this Council on that specific
commercial.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Wardle, if this Council would like us to provide something,
I'm sure that we can go to our architect and bring some things forward that we can show
you. Okay? I don't know if that's the consensus of the entire Council, but we are
certainly willing to work with you folks to provide whatever it is you're looking for. It's
just very very hard for us to do that. And if, in fact, the Council has not -- or Sadie
Creek Promenade has not been required to define precisely what they are going to put
up, then, maybe this will be our opportunity to set the standard and let them follow us for
a change. Because they certainly have put requirements on us inadvertently, such as
the masonite wall that separates the commercial from -- masonry wall. Thank you.
masonry wall that separates commercial and the residential. I mean they have dictated
that we will build 900 feet of masonry wall, where they only have to build 290. So,
maybe it's our turn to make them follow our design. And, certainly, if that's what you're
looking for, we will do that. We will come back with something for you. Because it
sounds to me like Mr. Rountree would like to see us tabled for additional design review
on our condos and maybe that's what we need to do. But I think, you know, what I'm
concerned about is, you know, fairness, in all reality here, is -- you know, we have got
Sadie Creek Promenade, who walked through the door, who had all of the neighbor
support with a concept plan, and they got approved. We are coming through with
something that we have actually defined some things and the neighbors don't support
us, we are the bad guys, and it makes it very difficult for us to -- you know, to say where
-- you know, where is the equality here? You know, we have standards for these guys,
but we can't follow the same standards, because they, actually, didn't define their
standards. See what I'm saying? So, it makes it very hard for us. But we will certainly
work with you and try to come up with something that -- you know, that you can look at
and feel more comfortable with. One question. Staff -- I believe that every structure in
the commercial portion of this project would have to go through conditional use; is that
right, Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the --
De Weerd: That would be painful.
Canning: -- one of the -- one of the conditions of the original development agreement,
which was on one of the pieces of the property, was that everything would come
through with a Conditional Use Permit. They have provided this concept plan to meet
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 67 of 76
the former requirement of the planned development, kind of overall concept approval,
and that's the CU you're providing -- approving tonight, replaces the planned
development CU that you used to see in the future. You could condition -- you could
place conditions to -- we have already discussed that the multi-family needs to come
back for conditional use approval. You could certainly select other areas where you
wanted to see that. Or not see it, as the case may be.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, my preference has been -- my preference would not be to have
each of those buildings come in for a conditional use -- to decide upon this issue as an
individual project, so --
De Weerd: So -- but what you are asking more for is more detail in the architectural
type of style.
Wardle: Those are my specifics.
De Weent More so than what we saw with Sadie Creek.
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. And Councilman Rountree wanted more information regarding the
multi-family and since everyone's asking for something, I am curious, and I have tried to
-- Anna, could you show the housing styles that are going to be on the most westerly
side? Are those the ones with the garage and the front door on the bottom floor? I
guess I was a little bit more concerned with the look of that and we had something come
in front of Council in Old Town that showed -- I don't know if it was a two-plex or a four-
plex and it was just -- the front showed just garages and a door and I liked the top floor
of it, but I guess the floor -- or the view from the street was of concern. And since
Council didn't say anything, I thought at least I could give you my two cents worth.
Unger: Madam Mayor, you're not talking about these, then?
De Weerd: No. No. But I agreed with Councilman Rountree. He already said enough,
so I wasn't going to say anything.
Unger: But the single family units -- the detached single family units along the western
boundary -- I mean they would be of a standard single family dwelling, then, I believe it's
16 to 24 hundred square foot structure. I mean we are not -- we are not specifying the
exact design that is going to be in that single family lot. We will have architectural
requirements, architectural committee for reviewing. There will be specific standards
and sizes and details on those single family buildings.
De Weerd: Well, sometimes it's really difficult to come after a project that we find very
ugly and we have one of those in our city. So, we have had discussions amongst staff
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 68 of 76
and this Council that we are -- we are very interested and committed to certain
standards in our city and we are raising the bar on that. We do have a level of
expectation and my interest in the renderings were that the first floor of those single
family dwellings showed me a garage and a front door and that's all I saw from the
street level. And so that was my concern. Certainly on the side that the neighbors see
in the back they are not going to see that and I'm sure they appreciate that. But I just
had more of a question as to what the street appeal is to that kind of a product, because
we have seen it and we see it every time we drive down Pine and Ten Mile. We see
garages and just doors. And so I just had that question.
Unger: And, Madam Mayor, that is exactly why we have the groupings of rear load
structures also, so that you don't drive down the street and see garage door, garage
door, garage door, garage door, garage door. That's part of the reason that we
designed it that way. And, of course, along the western boundary it made more sense.
I mean we couldn't rear load those like the other ones, so we do get a mix. And may I
say that the price range that we are looking at on these homes is in the 280 to 320
thousand dollar homes and we are not -- we are not going to allow entry level homes in
this project. It's not our plan. It's not what we want to do. And we will -- I mean this is
our project, we will build this project, and it's not something we are just going to sell
everything off and walk away and let somebody else do it. We have a commitment to
this project and that's -- you know, we will have control over that. I mean there will be
specific CC&Rs and architectural requirements built into this project and they will be
recorded, along with -- prior to our plan even getting recorded or at the same time.
De Weerd: I guess, Bob, if I could ask you when you do come back with some of the
other details, if there are products out there in the valley right now that are similar to
what you're trying to show here, if you could give us a visual on that, too.
Unger: Okay.
De Weerd: Like I said, I love the second floor. It's really nice. I'm sorry, but the garage
doors and the -- a row of them ~- one of the great things is we don't have design review,
but one of the bad things is we don't have design review.
Unger: Exactly. Okay. Council, anything else?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One question for Mr. Knorpp's benefit. For the record, are you in agreement to
doing the double rows of trees along the south side? There was a --
Unger: Oh, absolutely. Our plans shows it. In fact, my revised master plan that you
have actually has a detail showing exactly that.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 69 of 76
Borton: Okay.
Unger: And that's what the Planning and Zoning Commission approved was that
revised plan.
De Weerd: Sorry we have made this very painful. Anything else, Council? Okay. I
would entertain a motion to continue the Public Hearing on these items.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue the public hearings on Items 21 through 25 until -- in
April now. April 4th. Okay.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Rountree: Until April 4th and have the developer bring back to the Council for
consideration design concepts and renderings for the condominiums, some product
information related to the front load single family dwellings, and either specific design
criteria or specific examples of commercial, in all cases would include the combination
of varying materials, colors, and facades.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Well, I need a second before we would have discussion.
Borton: I will second. Maybe I shouldn't. Let's see if I do this wrong procedurally. I'll
second the motion, but the question would be whether or not it should be April 4th or
not, or a date later when Mr. Wardle's in town, to the extent that --
Rountree: He's out of town on the 4th?
Borton: On the 4th. Because Item No. 26, looking into the future. You said that's
continued and Mr. Rountree's not participating and it just makes sense to have three of
us to discuss these items.
Rountree: That's a good point.
Borton: I agree with continuing. I don't -- if the motion maker would move to continue it
to April 18th.
Rountree: The motion maker is agreeable to the 18th.
Borton: Second agrees.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 70 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anything further? I guess, Mr. Unger, if there is any way --
and I know it's not part of their motion, but if there is any way that you can get with
Sadie Creek to show the circulation points. Staff, if you could help facilitate that at all, if
that's possible, I think that would be helpful for Council. And, Mr. Nary, I don't know if
that is some conflicting thing with two projects or not, but --
Nary: You can do that.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, would you consider putting that as part of your motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I didn't ask you. But you are the second, so --
Rountree: Joe's the second.
De Weerd: Oh, Joe is the second.
Wardle: I just would like to point out -- we have got one other item that may affect our
next --
De Weerd: That's true. But we still want to know how they would work with --
Wardle: Sure. I certainly agree.
De Weerd: Would you consider adding that or I can just ask staff as a side note.
Rountree: I can add that to the motion as it relates to the fence issue.
De Weerd: Does second agree?
Borton: I'll agree. I had -- I think Mr. Wardle's right, I think that we might send them out
to have a discussion where they don't know, really, what they are discussing with regard
to circulation, but -- it will be frustrating at worst, perhaps, for the applicant.
De Weerd: Until you know if the variance is--
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I didn't include in mine any circulation. I just said related to
the fence issue.
Wardle: Oh.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Second agrees. I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 71 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. But I would ask staff to help facilitate that, depending on what
happens with the item. Okay. There is a motion and specifics on what to bring back.
All those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Bird: Nay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Can I explain it?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd like to have about five minutes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: It seems like -- it seems like we are getting to the point where we want to spend
the developer's dollars for him. What Mr. Rountree likes is -- Mr. Wardle likes as
commercial I think -- I don't like residential looking commercial. I like commercial to look
commercial and residential to look residential. I do agree with Mr. Rountree on the four-
plexes and stuff, just painting them different. If I got to be on the design and review,
everything would be brick.
Rountree: And glass.
Bird: And glass. So, I -- that's why I can't -- I figured that we keep passing these and
every once in awhile we decide we want to be on the design and review and I think as a
Council we need to decide whether we need a design and review and it shouldn't be us.
That's my reasons for nay.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. And it will certainly make it easier for the
development community, the neighbors, and staff when we get design standards set
that can help spell those out. So, I appreciate your comments. Okay. We have
continued Items 21 through 25 to April 18th.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 26:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-023 Request for a Variance to allow access to a
state highway for Bienville SQuare Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: We do have a Public Hearing on Item 26 for VAR 05-023. I will open this
Public Hearing with a question for Mr. Nary. Is it appropriate to discuss this before there
is an annexation decision?
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 72 of 76
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the part where I always get to be
the good guy or the bad guy. No, it would not be appropriate to hear this. I know these
folks have sat here all night, but because this property isn't annexed yet there isn't
anything to consider a variance for. The circumstances of this, too, just to also make it
clear, I know during the course of the testimony for the prior project there were
occasional references to the access to Eagle Road. The reason I didn't interject is
because the access point also has a relationship to the plat that's in front of you and so
it does have some minor relevance to what you were having to consider. If people have
an objection or a comment of some sort in regards to the variance access, they will
need to testify specifically on this particular item. But, no, I would recommend that the
Council continue this matter to probably your April 18th meeting would be the most
appropriate to hear it after you have made a decision on whether to annex the project
and I think Madam Mayor has pointed that out very accurately that the state of this
particular project, until this variance is granted our ordinance does not allow access to,
so that's what the Council has to consider in that format. But until it's annexed, there is
no variance that's necessary. So, you would have to set this over.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, with that note from our attorney, do I have a motion to
continue?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we continue Item 26, VAR 06-023, to April 18th.
De Weerd: I need a second.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue Item 26 to April 18th. All those in favor say
aye. Okay. Any opposed? Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 27:
Ordinance No. 06-1218 : AZ 05-055 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R~8 zone for Ambercreek
Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - North Meridian Road and
West McMillan Road:
Item 28:
Ordinance No. 06-1219 : 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:
Item 29:
Ordinance No. 06-1220 : AZ 05-053 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.87 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Windham Place
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 73 of 76
Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC - 2640 North Meridian
Road:
Item 30:
Ordinance No. 06-1221 Amendment
Ordinance for Open Burning and Air Quality:
to
Fire
Code
De Weerd: Items 27 through 30 are ordinances 06-1218, 06-1219, 06-1220 and 06-
1221. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these four ordinances by title only.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Before Mr. Berg reads the
title, I just wanted to clear up -- Deputy Chief Silva from the Fire Department had
contacted our office in regards to the fire code ordinance. There was a question that
was asked of him at a prior Council meeting. I don't believe I was present, but Mr.
Baird may have been, in regards to -- and I just want to get this straight -- in regards to
environmentally noncompliant wood stoves in regards to being the single source of heat
for certain types of residences and whether this ordinance change would impact that
ability for a low income family to use their only source of heat during the course of the
winter. Deputy Chief Silva indicated this would not affect -- this ordinance change
would not affect that. In actuality, because of some changes that have been done, it
would have affected it. That was caught by both Deputy Chief Silva and our Assistant
City Attorney Ms. Cain. They remedied that. That was returned to the clerk's office, so
the one that is in front of you is accurate to what Deputy Chief Silva had previously
answered, but he wanted to make sure that the Council was aware that that error was
caught, we did change it, it has been fixed, so what can be -- what is in front of you can
be approved, but he wanted to make sure that there was no one that thought he either
had misled the Councilor was mistaken that we haven't fixed that error. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Did I read the right numbers for those ordinances?
Bird: 1218, 1219, 1220 and 1221.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1218, an
ordinance for annexation of property located in the northeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, 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-8 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
Meridian City Council
March 14. 2006
Page 74 of 76
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 06-1219, an ordinance finding that Episcopal Church in Idaho, Inc.,
the owner of certain land -- excuse me -- certain real proper has made a written request
for rezone of zoning classification for real property located in the southeast quarter of
the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain
lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, within the corporate limits of the City
of Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-8 to L-
0 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of the 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 06-1220, an ordinance for annexation of property located in
Government Lot 5 of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of
the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining
the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-8 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: And Ordinance 06-1221, an ordinance amending Title 5, Chapter 2, of Meridian
City Code regarding a short title, a statement, purpose, definitions, prohibition against
open burning, exceptions to such prohibition, burning permits, providing for a penalty for
violations, and providing for a savings clause, amending Title 5, Chapter 3, of the
Meridian City Code regarding short title, statement of purpose, definitions, air quality
designations, air quality index prohibitions, burning solid fuel or refuge, applicable of
chapter, providing for a penalty for violation, providing a savings clause, providing for a
waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effect date.
De Weerd: You have heard the reading of these four ordinances. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing no one left, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move we approve ordinances 06-1218,06-1219,06-1220, and 06-1221,
with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 14,2006
Page 75 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard -- there is a motion to approve Item 27 through 30.
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 31:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) To acquire
an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 31 is an Executive Session. Do I hear a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per 67-2345(1 )(c).
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to adjourn into Executive Session per Idaho State
Code 67-2345(1) (c). Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: Motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 14, 2006
Page 76 of 76
De Weerd: All those in favor.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:44 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
4-- I 4-- I t/6
DATE APPROVED
-