HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 06-06
Meridian City Council Meetina
June 6, 2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, June 6,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Shaun Wardle, and Joe
Borton.
Member Absent: Keith Bird - Arrived at 9:53 P.M.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Jeff Lavey, Joe Silva, Doug Strong,
Len Grady, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
RolIMcall Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
_Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. I'd like to
welcome all of you hear tonight. It is Tuesday -- it is Tuesday and it is sometime. I
have already buried my agenda. June 6th. It is a little bit after 7:00. We will start
tonight's meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item NO.2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led
by the members of the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council. Please stand.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Kevin Moyer, with Meridian First
Baptist Church:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No_ 3 is our community invocation_ Tonight we will
be led by Pastor Kevin Moyer, he is with Meridian First Baptist Church. If you will all
join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of
silence. Pastor.
Moyer: Our Father in Heaven, we thank you tonight, I think first of all, for your many
blessings to us here in our Meridian community. We are really a blessed people and we
are so thankful to you for the wonderful growth that you're bringing and the many new
families, the homes they represent. We are thankful for the great sacrifice and work of
so many who pitch in, Father, to make this community a great one and we just are
grateful to you. We would also take a moment and recognize that with great growth
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 2 of 120
comes a lot of the challenges and joys and that we have this great process before us
tonight. We pray, again, as business is conducted that you would give great wisdom
and there would be discernment and that there would be a real peaceable spirit tonight,
Father, and that would work through things and that we would continue to be a
community that's just a great place to raise our families and to enjoy the blessings of our
great nation. We are thankful again for your faithfulness and your goodness to us in
Christ's name we pray, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Moyer. We appreciate you being here tonight. Okay.
Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: With Item No. 24, ordinance number 06-1233, Item 25,06-1234,26,06-1235,
and 27,06-1236, I move that we adopt the agenda as published.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 9, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of May 16, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Approve Minutes of May 23, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from
RUT to R-B (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 acres) and C-C (3.68 acres)
for Hiahtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner
of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential
lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on
22.94 acres in proposed R-B, R-15 and C-C zones for Hiahtower
MI:!fidii:lfl City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 3 of 120
Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden
Boulevard and Jericho Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family
detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a
neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard
for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner
of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: VAR 06-004 Request for a Variance to construct an
access to Chinden Boulevard, a State Highway, for Hiohtower
Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden
Boulevard and Jericho Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: VAR 06-009 Request for a Variance to allow for a patio
structure in the required rear yard for 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place
by Dana & Rhonda Patterson - 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
06-010 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary
structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-
3E-4C1 for TNT Tents by TNT Fireworks - 1601 S. Meridian
Road, 1600 Main Street, 1850 E. Fairview Avenue and 4051 E.
Fairview Avenue:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT
(Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) for Cabella
Creek Subdivision by A TM Development, LLC - northeast corner
of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family
residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed
R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by A TM Development,
LLC - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to
R-4 (32.86 acres), TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16 acres) for
Knicht Skv Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - northwest
corner of Chinden Boulevard and Under Road:
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 4 of 120
M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22
townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial
lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN-C
and C-C zones for Kniaht Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea,
LLC - northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road:
N. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT
to a R-4 zone for Cardiaan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC -
5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way:
o. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3
common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardiaan
Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur
Way:
P. Development Agreement: AZ 05..062 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates
Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane:
Q. Consent for Representation Oealina with Conflict of Interest
for Impact Fee Committee with Spink, Butler, LLP:
R. Water Main Easement Aareement for Meridian Hiah School
Tech Buildino by Meridian School District:
S. Aareement for Connection to Sewer I Water Services outside
City Limits for LOS Church at 5555 North Locust Grove by
Eagle FM Group:
T. Contract for Rip Rap Installation on Five Mile Creek at Ten Mile
Road by Star Construction:
u. Givens Purslev (Frank Lee) Retention and Conflict Waiver
Aareement for City Hall Contracts:
v. Aareement for Professional Services with Emilv Peeso for
Reconnaissance Survey of the City of Meridian with the
Meridian Historic Preservation Commission:
W. Contract for Timina for Barn Sour Run with Spondoro.com.
Inc.:
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 5 of 120
De Weerd: Item NO.5 is the Consent Agenda.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the
Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea; Bird, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6:
Update of the Property Tax Assessment for the City Of Meridian by
Robert McQuade, Ada County Assessor:
De Weerd: Item 6. Tonight we have our Ada County Assessor with us, Robert
McQuade. Thank you for being here.
McQuade: Madam Mayor, it's nice to be back. I just can't believe that this year has
gone by already and a lot has happened in that year, as I'm going to tell you in just a
couple of minutes. We mailed out the assessment notices in May 30th and usually I
come out and do these presentations in mid Mayor the first part of May, but we had a
problem this year, we didn't really get the assessed value for the taxable values nailed
down until just at the last minute and that is because of the new homeowners
exemption, the increased homeowners exemption also bringing the land in. So, we are
doing our assessment briefings a little bit later than we do -- than we had in the past, but
I think that there still is value to the information that I have. Just for members of the
audience, the reason I come out here is to give the Mayor and Members of the Council
a feel of what's going on with assessed values in the real estate market and also give
them some numbers that will help them in preparing their budget. As usual, we are
going out on a limb. These are preliminary numbers. They are going to be subject to
change, based upon phone calls we -- we are getting quite a few phone calls right now,
as you can imagine. Also, there is some exemptions that will be granted by the
commissioners and, of course, we have board of equalization which there will be some
values changed there. Last year it wasn't too significant. Also, this does not include
operating property, which the State Tax Commission performs all of the operating
property assessments and those won't be done until August. We have to be at market
value. I think this is really an important concept that people are going to have a hard
time understanding that we have to be at market value. We have seen some dramatic
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 6 of 120
increases this year and I'm going to tell you about those that's going on in your own
community, but a lot of people are just how can you increase it a hundred percent or
some people can't you use just a little lower. Well, the statute says that we have to be
at market value as of January 1 st. And just a little piece of information I think is
important for the setting, we have what is called a ratio analysis that the tax commission
holds us responsible for at the beginning of the year and is what they do is they will look
at our assessed values and they divide that by sales price and you would expect to see
about a hundred percent, we are suppose to be at market value. Well, January 1 st of
2005 our assessment ratio was one hundred percent. Our sales -- our assessed values
were just about equal to sales prices. At the end of the year, December 31 st, we did a
ratio analysis, we were 78 percent of the sales price. The value has been growing
double digits from last year. The total market value in the City of Meridian is 5.9 billion
dollars. That's up 45 percent over a year ago. Last year you had a 29 percent
increase, by the way of comparison. Taxable value, that is the market value less the
exemption, that's 4.6 billion, and that's up 37 percent over 2004 -- in 2004 -- or 2005 --
2004 you had a 31 percent increase. Taxable value. This to me is an interesting
number. It's 78 percent of the total value. Last year it was 82 percent of the total value.
That I think is the effects of the homeowners exemption, kicking in that additional
25,000. Also bringing the land into it. Residential 25,403 parcels. Up 16 percent over
last year. Market value is 4.3 billion dollars. That's up 47 percent in residential
property. Almost a 50 percent increase. By the way of comparison it's up 29 percent
last year. We thought last year was a hot year. Median increase for existing residential
properties and this is important numbers. Twenty-two percent -- in other words, half of
the residential properties in Meridian saw an increase less than 22 percent and half saw
an increase greater than 22 percent. Now, throughout Ada County the increase is
about 17 and a half percent. So, Meridian is just an unbelievably strong market. There
is a lot of demand for property over here. Last year our median increase in Meridian,
5.6 percent. Compare that to the 22 percent this year. And to go back one year further,
the median increase was 1.6 percent. So, the real estate market in Meridian has just
literally exploded. Commercial parcels, 3,456, that's a ten percent increase. Market
value is 1.6 billion. That's up 39 percent. And the median increase on commercial was
nine percent. I thought this was interesting and I'm just going to give you these
numbers -- let me just give you this right here, so you can follow along. Commercial
has a much higher average price, which tells me perhaps there was some large
commercial properties that were skewing the data and that's why the median would be
less than the mean_ Now, new construction, that's up considerably. That's 695 million
dollars. It's a 40 percent increase over last year at 494 million. And new construction is
important, as you know, but for the members of the audience, that is part of the budget.
You get to -- we all get to increase our budget three percent a year, plus the value for
new construction. So, that's why that's important, the 695 million. So, you can take last
year's levy times 695 million and the dollar amount can be added to your budget
increase. Residential you had 2,800 new parcels. Last year you had 1,800. That's a
15 percent increase, 417 million, up 81 percent over last year's 230 million. Commercial
you had a 128 new parcels. Last year you had 83. And your market value was 86
million, down 93 -- down from 93 million, just a slight decrease. Urban renewaL This is
important. It's 83 million, compared to last year's 41 million, your urban renewable has
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 7 of 120
doubled in value and that to me is a number that I would really pay attention to. In
Boise city urban renewal is taking a larger and larger piece of the tax dollars. Here is
another number that I thought was very interesting. Tax burden. Last year the tax
burden -- and that is who is bearing the cost of property taxes, residential or
commercial. Residential was 59 percent last year. And commercial was 41 percent.
This year residential is 65 percent and commercial is 35 percent. So, residential still is
continuing to bear the great part of the property tax burden. Some of the tax policy
changes that we saw, the homeowners exemption. We saw the land brought in this
year by the legislature. They increased it by 25,000_ And I think something, too, that's
really important that a lot of people have overlooked and that is that the homeowners
exemption is also indexed now, whereas in the past it stayed at 50,000. It was static for
a quarter of a century. Well, now we will start moving that at the rate of the increase in
the Idaho housing price index. I'm guessing next year the homeowners exemption will
be worth maybe about 86,000 dollars. It's 75,000 today. The increase in the property
tax reduction program, the circuit breaker, and also there is a new bill which permits
deferral of property taxes. For those who qualify for the circuit breaker, they could elect
to have their property taxes deferred until the property is sold or trades hands. I just
want to wrap this up by just saying there has just been unbelievably strong growth over
here in Meridian. A lot of new construction. I just want to close talking about land
values for a minute. This is where we have been getting a lot of calls about. I had a
woman today and she says how can you possibly increase the value of my lot a
hundred percent. Well, that's what's been going on with land values in Ada County last
year. I just want to give you a couple of sales here. One acre parcel sold -- these are
parcels -- we have a whole list of them that sold twice last year. One of them -- a one
acre parcel sold February 21 st for 189,000 dollars. It sold in August 26th for 325,000.
That's a 72 percent increase in six months or an annualized increase of 143 percent.
Here is a -- just slightly over a tenth of an acre that sold in July -- July 8th for 50,000
dollars. The owner of that turned around and sold that 20 days later for 75,000 dollars.
That is a 50 percent increase in 20 days or a 600 percent annualized increase. We had
a quarter acre sold January 17th for 69,900. By mid May it had sold again for 106,000
dollars. That is a 52 percent increase in four months, 155 percent annualized increase.
So, that's what we have been looking at. It's been extremely difficult for us to keep up
with this. At a two percent growth our appraisers can figure out what kind of trending
you need to add in August or September, even October. But this year they look back in
October and November they were so far behind, because the market had increased so
fast. they all had to go back in and revisit the trending factors. Where is it going to end?
I don't know. It's alarming. I think especially -- I think everybody, it's not just the senior
citizens, but I think everyone can't help but wonder where this is all headed. Madam
Mayor, Members of the Council, that's my message tonight.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 8 of 120
Rountree: On the sheet you handed out -- and it's just for my clarification. The last
item, assessment notice mailing dates, should that first date be '067
McQuade: Madam Mayor, Mr. Rountree, yes that is correct. We did not send those out
a year early.
Rountree: Okay. Make sure.
McQuade: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Is there -- is there any component of the housing price index that is done on a
county-by-county basis? Is it only statewide?
McQuade: It is broken down by -- there is one in Boise, Nampa, and Caldwell, I believe.
It's -- they do just aggregate beyond the whole state, into the smaller units. But the tax
commission will come up with the trend factor for the state. But this real estate market
is just prevalent throughout the state. I was talking to the assessor in Kootenai County.
There they are looking at 35 to 40 or 45 percent average increases.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Was there any discussion when the legislature raises the homeowners
exemption to somehow tag that on a county-by-county basis? Is that possible, do you
know?
McQuade: Well, I don't know if it would be possible. The discussion really centered
around should the CPI or the Idaho Housing Price Index -- the Idaho Housing Price
Index for last year I believe was about 15 percent. The CPI was about three, three and
a half percent, something like that. So, the debate was should we use the higher one or
the smaller one and I thought that the legislature was very wise in using the Idaho
Housing Price Index.
Borton: You should use Meridian's. That would be --
McQuad: Yeah. Or the counties.
Borton: Thanks.
Meridian City CounCil
June 6,2006
Page 9 of 120
De Weerd: You're own local. Any other questions? Thank you for joining us. We
appreciate it. These numbers are staggering.
McQuade: They are staggering, aren't they? It's just almost overwhelming.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McQuade: We will be back next year.
Item 7:
Department Reports:
A. Mayor's Office:
1. Paint The Town Proclamation:
De Weerd: We will see you. Okay. Item No.7, Department Reports. I do have a
proclamation. It is Paint The Town on June 10th and so this is a proclamation in honor
of that. Whereas on June 10th, 2006, the 24th Annual Paint The Town will take place
involving over to 2,500 volunteers, who will paint the homes of 86 elderly, low income,
and disabled Treasure Valley residents. And whereas approximately 12 homes will be
painted in the City of Meridian. And whereas the Paint The Town is a program of the
neighborhood housing services, Inc., and is sponsored by 94.9, The River, Idaho News
Channel 7, and the Idaho Business Review, Ada County Association of Realtors,
Allstate Insurance, BMC West, U.S. Bank, Washington Mutual and many other
businesses and organizations, whereas this outstanding community service project will
benefit senior citizens and disabled residents, who find it difficult to maintain the beauty
and condition of their homes. Therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of
Meridian, do hereby proclaim Saturday, June 10th, 2006, as Paint The Town Day in the
City of Meridian and aCknowledge those volunteers that support enhancing our
community. It's dated this 6th day of June and we hope that many of you will be
participating in this great event.
2. Mayor's Youth Advisory Council report:
De Weerd: I am also very honored to introduce to you tonight representatives from the
Mayor's Youth Advisory Council. They are here to present to you the annual report,
what they have been doing this last year. In front of you, you have their biographies
and what they have been involved in and what they are interested in. Would you all like
to come forward and, Bud, would you like to introduce everyone?
Henthorn: Well, our city has been recognized as one of the one hundred best places in
America for young people and I believe that is because the best young people in
America live here and this is the cream of the crop. Jennifer, Gina, RoAnne, and
Mallory, you're on.
De Weerd: Okay. RoAnne, you will have to use this microphone or this one.
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 10 of 120
R. de Weerd: Okay. This is the executive -- is it on? This is the Executive Board of
2005 and 2006 and going to be 2007. This is a group picture that we took. It's not all
members, but it was at a meeting. Okay.
Darosa: My name is Gina Darosa and I'm 17 and I go to Mountain View.
Bokenkamp: My name is Jennifer Bokenkamp. I serve this year as the Historian on the
Mayor's Youth Advisory and next year I will be Vice-Chair and I also attend Mountain
View. And I'm the Treasurer.
Tomzcak: My name is Mallory Tomzcak and I go to Meridian High and for the past -- or
for this year and for next year I will be the Secretary.
R. de Weerd: I'm RoAnne de Weerd. I'm current Chair and next year Chair. I'm 16.
I'm going to be a junior at Meridian and I'm a part of their various city committees.
Bokenkamp: Okay. Our first retreat was at Boondocks. That was the first time the
Meridian Youth Council for 2005-2006 really got together, bonded, and we had fun and
it was kind of good for us to get our names in the paper and get us out there.
Darosa: We also -- we had the opportunity to work in partnership with the anti-drug
coalition and the Meridian Kiwanis and we have helped advertise and distribute
literature and we partook in setting up and taking down and just assisting where ever
they needed help. We also made it possible for students who attended the event to be
able to get extra credit in school and that brought out a lot of kids that came with their
families, so --
Bokenkamp: And the State of the City address we set up and helped clean up and we
distributed literature on the Mayor's Youth Advisory -- about the Mayor's Youth Advisory
Council and about our Habitat for Humanity project.
R. de Weerd: This is the prayer breakfast that a few of our members went to. It was
hard to get members to come out, because it was 6:30 in the morning, something like
that. We set up the day before and we were there bright and early for everyone to take
tickets. We gave out door prizes to winners and we stayed after to clean up. I don't
know if you guys remember my presentation from the D.C. Convention. I told you guys
about my vision of the vending machines, healthy food. Well, Mallory, the Secretary,
helped me to bring that out and this is what we did.
Mallory: Our job was to educate Meridian principals on our proposed ideas to creating
healthier youth in Meridian by improving food in vending machines. Part of that -- what
we did is we talked about how healthy food in the vending machines increased revenue
for the high schools and we gave them examples -- you can see a pop there -- about
what kids have to eat every day in our high schools. We gave them a candy bar and
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 11 of 120
pop and showed them how much we'd love to have healthier choices in our vending
machines.
Bokenkamp: We also -- many of our members are part of the anti-drug coalition board
and we have been researching cause and types and more information about random
drug testing for extra-credit in high schools. We brought up this topic to the coalition
and now Tari Ferguson, a former Mayor's Youth Advisory Council member, and she is
the current Miss Meridian, she is using this as her platform and hopes to make a
presentation to the school board this fall.
R. de Weerd: A few members went to the health fair in partnership with the Boys and
Girls Club. We had a booth set up and we administrated giving surveys about staying
safe with strangers.
Bokenkamp: Oh. And we also received a grant and we were able to get a bungee fun
run and just -- we helped facilitate the activities that were outside for the kids at the
Boys and Girls Club fair, so -- and in April, in response to our no place like homeless
project, Mr_ Hubble of Hubble Homes donated a piece of land for Habitat For Humanity
to be used in partnership with the Meridian School District. The Mayor's Youth Advisory
Council accepted this generous gift at a City Council meeting.
Tomzcak: For our national and global youth service day project we decided to put on
an experiment in homelessness in coordination of Habitat For Humanity by raising funds
to build a house for that and also we got land donated, like she said, by Mr. Hubble.
And here is us, we spent the night in a park and we asked for donations for food to go to
the Salvation Army -- or for clothes to go the Salvation Army and food to go to the Food
Bank_ Oh. We raised over -- what was that, 112,000 dollars -- yeah. Oh. Oh. Also we
got educated on domestic violence. We plan on helping these people who presented to
us later on on how to like stop it.
R. de Weerd: I went with my mom to the Governor's Roundtable where I met
Kempthorne and that's pretty cool for me, because he mentioned my name in his
farewell speech, which I'll remember forever. But it was kind of fun, because I got the
Mayor Youth Advisory Council's name out to him and let the state officials know what
the little town, soon to be huge, which is growing, what we are doing. I took a trip to
Caldwell's Mayor Youth Advisory Council meeting and we are going to do some joint
projects with them, you know, expand our youth projects and we got a lot of ideas from
them, because they have been together for four years -- how long? Four years. So,
Meridian's Mayor's Youth Advisory Council has a lot to grow and we are excited for next
year and we are going to go full force. So, that's all.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Rountree: Keep up the good work.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 12 of 120
De Weerd: Girls, I do have an announcement for you and for Council as well. I did get
word from the Association of Idaho Cities -- we submitted a number of projects for a City
Achievement Award. The Youth Advisory Council Habitat For Humanity project won a
City Achievement Award at the state level. So, congratulations. Council, it's been my
great pleasure of working with the youth of our community and, as you can see, they
have made a big splash this year and they will have a planning session in September
for this -- the next school year and I will have no doubt that they will continue the large
projects and, indeed, they will make a big difference in our community.
3. Impact Fee Committee Appointments:
De Weerd: Item NO.3 is our Impact Fee Committee appointments. The names of that
committee are in front of you. I ask -- my request for you is to confirm these
appointments. Dan Wood. Jim Keller. Gene Strate. David Fulkerson. Phil Krichbaum.
Keith Borup. And Miguel -- and I don't how to say Miguel's last name. How about it,
Shaun?
Wardle: Legaretta.
De Weerd: There you go. Those are the names. Many of these are members who
have served on our impact fee committee for our parks for a number of years. Miguel is
the new name on this list and I would ask a motion to approve this committee.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the new committee for the Parks and Recreation
impact fee.
Borton: Second.
Rountree: Is that the commission?
De Weerd: It is an impact fee committee.
Rountree: Impact fee commission -- committee.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Clerk, do I need to call roll?
Roll-Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Council, one final announcement. I just told you that the Youth Advisory
Council, their homelessness project won a city achievement award. We also won
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 13 of 120
awards for the development of our state and federal highways ordinance, the Mayor's
anti-drug coalition, our K-9 training facility, and we received honorable mentions for our
online employment application, crime prevention, Meridian public safety academy, and
the animal shelter volunteer dog adoption program. So, it just goes to show you your
staff are very hard at work and we appreciate what they do.
B. Parks Department - Doug Strong
1. Update on Bids for the Meridian Youth Baseball Project:
De Weerd: Okay. Item B is our parks director. Mr. Strong.
Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Bringing to you tonight the
results of the construction bids for the 23 acre, eight field, baseball complex that's on
the west side of Meridian Settler's Park. We received two construction proposals for
that project and I believe you all have those numbers in front of you. Both proposals
came in over current budget and that's what I'm here to talk to you about tonight and
make at least a staff recommendation how to proceed and, then, certainly discuss that.
Because of the increasing costs of construction projects, it seems imperative that -- that
we get this project underway and we have spent since last week when we got the bids
looking at a variety of ways that we could do that and what -- what we have ended up
with is my recommendation to you tonight that we -- that you amend the budget to bring
it in to compliance with the low bid, so that we can get this project under contract and,
then, what we would do is request that Meridian Youth Baseball seek any donations that
they can get to bring those costs down once the project's underway. So, with that brief
introduction and summary, I would be open for questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Doug, have we looked at what we could take out of that bid to get into budget?
Strong: We have looked at a number of different possible donations to the project that
might reduce the overall cost. In order to get it under contract by statute, we have to --
you know, we need to take some kind of action that would be within current budget, so
-- if that makes sense.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, do you have something to add to that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, basically, the bids that have been done,
either if the -- if they are not acceptable and the city doesn't want to proceed, we'd need
to reject those bids that have been presented and start the project over. I think what Mr.
Strong was I guess desiring to do was get this project completed and going forward.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 14 of 120
So, I think that's the reason the budget amendments are in front of you, instead of a
complete rejection and starting over. But you certainly have the ability to do either.
De Weerd: Thank you. Did that answer your question?
Wardle: Yes, Madam Mayor. And my initial question -- Doug, could you elaborate on
what types of donations that we could potentially be talking about or --
Strong: The things that have been discussed as a possible donation of the electrical
work at the project and Trace Layton, who is representing Meridian Youth Baseball, has
pursued that and that would be a -- if that donation is possible, it would be a savings of
about 117,000 dollars, is what I understand. That's not a confirmed donation at this
point. These are all -- it's an example of the kinds of donations that they would be
pursuing.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Doug, on Mr. Wardle's question, is one of the options to reject the amendment
and perhaps reject the bids, put it out to rebid, and -- I think what he might have been
getting at are you, then, forced to stay within that budget amount or are you forced to
bid it out without dugouts, without backstops, what types of items would need to be
pulled out, if you know, to reduce the potential bidders' bids and the budget amount.
Strong: Well, Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, all of those would be what we would
be looking at as what we would take out to bring it down to current budget. The concern
we have, I guess, with rejecting bids and going through a process of taking items out so
that we can bring into current budget, is that process will take three weeks to a month to
rebid and costs continue to go up during that period of time. That's what we have
experienced with this bid is from the last time we were here and asked for additional
dollars for this project, costs have gone up this much just at this point. So, I guess we
run the risk of everything continuing to go up and even we are taking some of the items
out, still coming back with bids that would be over budget.
De Weerd: And, Council, that is one of the results of a two month delay in design of
why some of these prices have skyrocketed.
Strong: And, Madam Mayor, if I could maybe expand on that. One of the reasons for
that two month delay in design is that when we looked at the estimated costs of this
project back very early in the year, we decided we needed to do some value
engineering and bring those costs down and during the process of deciding on what to
do and the redesign of that, it took some time, construction costs continued to rise. So,
it's put us where we are today.
De Weerd: So, that value engineering kind of worked in reverse.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 15 of 120
Strong: It did lose some value.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I assume, though I don't see it stated here, that there is sufficient impact fees
to cover the increased costs over the estimated cost of 280,000?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, what it shows in our April budget report
of uncommitted impact fees of 720,000 dollars.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion or direction for Mr. Strong?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: One other question. It's a big item. I think I see Trace in the back. Maybe it
would be a -- I don't see Trace in the back. But the question for you or Trace, if he's
willing, what's the -- what's the net effect of not going forward with an amendment? Do
we run the risk of not only re-bidding it and causing delay and additional expenses to
the park, the fields that are not on schedule to be done spring of '07 and how that might
impact Meridian Youth Baseball and the citizens of Meridian, do you know any specifics
of what would happen there?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, actually, there are some impacts in that
regard in that any additional delay at this point would put the project behind schedule to
where the possibility of getting grass seeded this year and the field playable by next
summer season when Meridian Youth Baseball has actually been awarded a regional
tournament, I believe. The field would not likely be playable for -- if there is any further
delays in getting the project started, because we get passed a logical season to plant
and get reasonable germination in the field and just the fields in. So, that tournament
next -- for next summer would be in jeopardy again. We passed on one tournament
already because of delays in this project that could have been brought to Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 16 of 120
Strong: Actually, I should correct that. It was brought to Meridian, it wasn't played at
this field, it was played at fields scattered throughout the community.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I need your direction.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I guess a question for Bill. Is it a process of -- to want to go forward to amend
the budget or are we making acceptance or rejection of the actual bids?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, I think what -- I
guess, really, Mr. Strong is asking two things. He's asking for you to approve the bid
that's been presented at amount that's proposed, as well as amending the budget to
cover that additional expenditure. So, yeah -- so, you're correct in that it's really two
things that we are really looking at here, but the primary one is to amend the budget, but
accepting what's being proposed is included.
De Weerd: So, I would need two different bids -- or two different motions.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Unless there is further discussion, I'd move that we accept the bid proposed by
McKlvain Construction for the completion of the Meridian Youth Baseball project at
Settler's Park.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Would you want to give a not to exceed amount?
Borton: Not to exceed the bid amount of 1.969 million dollars.
De Weerd: Thank you. And second agrees?
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridii:lfl City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 17 of 120
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we approve the budget amendment request for the parks
department consistent with the acceptance of the McKlvain Construction contract of
1.969 million. I don't think it's exactly 280,000. And close that difference.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have motion to approve the amending of the budget. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just a comment on being the second budget amendment for
this specific project, I still think it's important for the community and we have a great
partner and we need more playing fields. The one thing that I would talk about within
the department -- and we have some budget hearings coming up, if the construction
market is doing what you're saying it's doing, and we are going to continue to be in the
business of building parks for our community, we need to pay close attention to those
trends and try to forecast for them.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, I would say that that is something our impact fee committee is
evaluating as the process comes forward with the update of the current impact fees and
consideration of additional impact fees. Those numbers will be considered at that time.
Wardle: And I understand that's the revenue side. I'm talking about the expenditure
side and the actual -- when we go to bid, that -- the parks department bids those jobs
out; correct, Doug? And so I'm just saying certainly that would be an additional function.
De Weerd: It's something you're going to see in each of our departments. I think Public
Works has already come back on an amendment for one of their budgeted items as
well. The costs are just very unpredictable and it's a very unstable market right now.
So, we will do our best.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: If I may throw my two cents in. I appreciate, Doug, your comment on efforts to
obtain donations on Meridian baseball and Trace had done a fantastic job of trying to do
that. The reality of it is it's very difficult and the market is moving, people are probably
reluctant to donate a bunch of time and there is lots of business out there. And I know
that's part of this project and the partnership, so I really really encourage Meridian Youth
Baseball and your department to continue to try and acquire whatever donations you
Meridian City Councll
June 6. 2006
Page 18 of 120
can. The city recognizes that and appreciates this kind of planning. In regards to Mr.
Wardle's comments, as we go forward, Doug, I have mentioned this to you, at some
point the expenses have increased at such an exponential rate beyond revenues, it's
just not going to do it. It just doesn't make business sense and the fields won't get
developed and the parks won't get expanded and they lay fallow for awhile and that's a
concern on the business end of it, while we try to address revenues, the costs concern
me and I hate to see that day, but it might come and where we have to say no and the
development doesn't go forward,
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Trace, thank you. You have been a great help in not only this particular
facility, but several others in the city and in the county. Yeah. Well, that's how I got
mine, too. Doug, I have been silent at this point, but it's time. We have grown weeds
far too many years. It's not just a ball field complex, it's the completion of the second, if
not the largest, community park in the City of Meridian and it will be a great asset to the
community to have it done finally. I look at the numbers and we are now exceeding
construction costs double what we paid for the property. So, the longer we wait the
more expensive it's going to be, it makes no sense to me if we have a quarter of a
million -- three quarters of a million dollars in the impact fee account not to spend it. So,
I think this is a wise move forward.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a response that I think that --
you know, your points are all very important right now and because this project is about
a five year old project and designed, ready for completion, it certainly needs to raise at a
priority level. The new projects that we are bringing forward might actually come up
against that wall of maybe no revenue or no funding and I think that's where we -- at
least I would recommend that we make that choice and finish the projects that have
been around for awhile, so that we complete fields that are just weeds and things like
that. So, talking about our budget process.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm sure it was implied by the maker of the motion, but I didn't hear it in the
motion, but the intent was that the amount that's budgeted -- or amendment is for -- is to
come from impact fees and I just wanted to make sure that was clear on the record.
Borton: That's correct.
Rountree: Second agrees. Call for question.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Meridian City CounCil
June 6, 2006
Page 19 of 120
Roll-Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Strong: Madam Mayor, just a clarification. The dollar amount for the amendment.
Clarification. That's--
Rountree: 280,000.
Strong: 280,OOO?
De Weerd: Well, the difference between the budgeted amount and the bid amount. If it
was 280, that's what it is. If it's less, then, that's what it is.
Strong: Okay.
Borton: I believe it's 279.
De Weerd: And two cents.
Strong: I rounded it up to 280.
Borton: I rounded it back down.
Strong: Okay.
De Weerd: I would like to also ditto Councilmember Rountree's thanks to you, Trace.
You know, Trace is the remaining sole member of the funding committee and we
appreciate everything you're doing. I think you have been with it long enough your child
probably won't even benefit. But we do appreciate your tenacity in sticking with us. It's
going to be a huge asset for our community and we appreciate that.
C. Public Works Department - Len Grady
1. Water Master Plan Update:
De Weerd: Okay. Moving on. Council, we have Item C, Public Works. Mr. Grady.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'll try to be brief tonight. I know we
have a large agenda. Late last year we completed two tasks -- completed the water
master plan and completed the sewer master plan. At my direction both consultants
held off finalizing those to see if we could get a little better idea of what was happening
in the south and perhaps refine those boundaries a little bit. It looks like that's maybe a
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 20 of 120
waste of time, so we decided to go ahead and bring those forward for approval. So,
what we are after tonight is for Council to direct staff to prepare a resolution to accept
both water and sewer master plans. With that I will turn it over to Dave Sting Ie.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Stingle: Madam Mayor and Council. Go ahead to the next slide. As Len mentioned,
we have been working with the City of Meridian for over the past year, CH2M Hill, to
prepare a water master plan. What that master plan looks at, then, is what is the
existing water use and what's projected water use. And, of course, with the growth the
city is experiencing, trying to find what the future water use is can be a bit of a
challenge. We have worked on that to identify that growth over the next 20 years and
also made some projection through build-out. We are looking at supply from a quantity
standpoint to make sure that the existing wells are adequate to meet existing and future
demands. Looking at storage, near storage reservoirs within the system to make sure
that's adequate from an industry standard perspective. Looking at the distribution
system to make sure we -- the city can provide both domestic and fire flow demands
everywhere throughout the system. And, then, water quality. Can the city meet existing
and future water quality regulations. This is a map of the existing system. It's a little bit
difficult to see it. I believe the Mayor and Council had received an advance copy of this
presentation. They may be able to see it a little bit better on theirs. But, basically, you
see a number of dots that are spread across the system. Those are, essentially, wells
and booster stations and reservoirs. The background colors there are pressure zones.
The city lies over relatively flat ground, so there aren't too many pressure zones
required, but a few of them are in order to maintain adequate pressure between about
40 and 80 psi throughout the entire system. Next slide. What are the system
challenges. Really, as we heard earlier, growth, of course, being the big one- And that
-- the big issue there is the management of where and when growth occurs. This leap
frogging effect of developers going far beyond your existing system is a major struggle
for the city in that you can't get water without piping and conveyance, storage,
treatment, and those types of things, out of the way from your existing grid. So,
controlling how and where that development occurs is important for that future
development of the system. Water quality. The only real issue on the water quality,
besides there is a few wells that have some high uranium levels and those need to be
watched and monitored. There is a federal regulation of uranium at 30 parts per billion.
A few of those wells have Slightly -- levels slightly above that, but they can still be used
on an interim basis during the summer when the city required peaking, they just can't be
used on a yearly basis. The city has a lot of additional supply, so there is a lot of
flexibility to move water from location to location. It's a supply issue at this point. This
needs to be something that should be watched. The strengths. As you can see, the
strengths list is quite a bit longer, which is very good news for the city. Number one,
you have a very proactive staff. The issue you're dealing with with this growth, you
need to take a look from a planning perspective every few years. The last master plan
was only done about three or four years ago and that's great. The kind of growth you're
seeing in the ten plus percent a year, you have got to continue to do that kind of
planning. Advanced modeling tools and users. I do a lot of this work across the region.
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 21 of 120
The City of Meridian has one of the most advanced modeling capabilities of anybody I
work with. The Public Works Department has developed its own modeling tool interface
to the hydraulic engine EPA net. Really, very unique in the industry. And so looking at
some of the ways that they are able to actually link billing records directly to that model
is -- you just don't see it anywhere else. I want to commend the Public Works staff on
that. The other thing that the city's done a great job at is building the robust pipeline
grid. Really, this is -- at a minimum a 12 inch pipeline grid throughout the system and
that allows for, like I say, both the domestic and fire flow flows to be delivered without
any problem. Distributive sources. That's another big strength, in that the wells are
distributed and located throughout the city and that allows water to be moved from a
number of different locations to areas of high demand very easily with that -- that robust
grid that we talked about. And, then, also the addition of multiple pressure reducing
valves between zones. That allows water to be able to be transferred between zones,
depending on if there was a number of wells out in one zone or a high demand in an
area, that water could be transferred very easily between zones and that's a big
strength to have that redundancy. Future system here is also difficult to see, but,
basically, you can identify a significant growth in the north and the south and these are
just basically planned developments for this year. As Len mentioned, we have been
waiting to finalize this a little bit and a number of these developments are already in.
So, the pace of growth here is incredible. From a summary standpoint, we want to
continue the existing infrastructure system development into the future service areas.
Right now there is three zones, three pressure zones, that we ultimately will probably
need to extend to five in order to serve all the customers within the growth boundary.
Continue developing within the multiple pressure reducing valves, the robust pipeline
grid, and the distributed wells. As you saw in this previous one, wells continue to
distribute out throughout the system. Very Important. The other thing that we are going
to be proposing to do is go to well and storage supply strategy. To this point your peak
hour demand -- in other words, the maximum demand that you would see at anytime
throughout the year has been supplied directly from wells. What we propose to do there
is to put some additional storage in some parts of the system in order to use that
storage water as peak, which will reduce the number of new wells that are required
throughout time. And based on an economic analysis, that would save the city several
million dollars over the next 20 years to go to well and storage supply strategy, versus
an all well strategy. I want to also encourage the city to continue the groundwater and
surface water evaluation to ensure that there is adequate quantity and quality of supply
into the future. And, then, the frequent planning exercises to address growth. So, any
question from Madam Mayor or Council?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
Stingle: Thank you.
Meridian City Cuuncil
June 6, 2006
Page 22 of 120
2. Sewer Master Plan Update:
Grady: With that I'd like to turn it over to Phil Krichbaum. He's done the sewer master
plan.
De Weerd: And I might also recognize Phil as Idaho's top engineer, received the
engineering award for the state of Idaho. Congratulations.
Krichbaum: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. If I could have the first exhibit there.
It may not be the best visual aid preparation. There we go. Back in November we
updated your 2003 sewer master plan to reflect some of the changes of your planning
area and just to give you a brief summary of the results of that impact and not bog you
down with methodologies used in the study, all that engineering tech talk here. So, the
planning area changes. There were two large areas that were modified from the 2003
master plan. The southern area here bounded by Columbia Road to the south and
McDermott Road to the west, about 7,900 acres, a little over 12 square miles. The
Northwest area, about -- it's the west by Can-Ada Road here and McDermott right in at
about four square miles. The remaining area that you see -- I think this is -- you have
handouts and all these exhibits. Pretty much remained unchanged from the 2003
master plan and with the exception of the little addition we did on your north -- North
Chinden, that bench area, that was included in this update. So, with this update you
have one cohesive model for your planning area and that's about 63 square miles
roughly. What kind of results are these additional areas? What are the results for
serving this area and the impact to what was already previously master planned?
Starting here at the south area, as you move south you're topography really changes
from flat as a pancake in north Meridian to, really, a rolling topography down south here.
And what that rolling topography of ridges and low lows, terrains, it really set the stage
for controlling -- or laying out your collection system with not a lot of different changes.
So, you're pretty well set to the local topography. The good thing about having the
topography there is that you could take advantage of it and you can kind of lessen the
sewer depths out there by following the prevailing ground swells. Generally in the
southern area there is two -- two main trunk line systems, each served by individual lift
stations. The southern reach here we just deemed that the Mason Creek trunk and lift
station, 18 inch, 21 inch, coming into a regional lift station. About seven cfs ultimate
peak flow design capacity. That would be something real similar to the North Black Cat
lift station, just to kind of give you a gauge of facility size there. Moving a little bit north,
that station, like a backup, pumps directly to a gravity line just below the bench, but
south of the interstate on McDermott. Does not leap frog over to the lift station. This lift
station is a little smaller, about three cfs, so about half the size. Eighteen inch trunk
coming down through here. We try to lay these things out on section line roads, mid
section line roads, but when you have kind of a set topography here, we have a low,
you have to follow the low spot, which, again, can mean more easements and that sort
of thing, to just let you know here. The northern area is a lot flatter and you can be --
you can do things several different ways, you know, similar to what we have got over
here in north Meridian. Big change up in this area is conveying the flow from the
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 23 of 120
southern reach eventually back to the treatment plant and how do we do that. Basically,
we will have to enlarge the McDermott trunk, that's previously an 18 inch trunk, that will
go up to about a 36 inch trunk. The 2003 master plan, it pretty well stopped here with
the regional lift station at McDermott and Five Mile Creek. We have relocated that down
to Can-Ada. So, you, essentially, can move the McDermott lift station that was before
back to Can-Ada and extended a large trunk here. That's a pretty good impact in terms
of the trunk line size. The depth over the 2003 master plan is about the same to this
McDermott trunk. The most challenging portion of this infrastructure in here will be this -
- this large trunk line here, it's fairly deep, this portion on McMillan Road, to the regional
lift station. This regional station is approximately 17 cfs and it's -- that's a large one.
That will be in the same realm as the recently completed Black Cat lift station. We will
have several phases of upgrades, but ultimately that will be -- that will be a large
regional facility. Pumps back independently to the treatment plant. We don't leap frog
over to the north Black Cat lift station, independent of the four mains on that one. I
know that was a real quick summary. The remaining portion of the sewer master plan
here is, you know, unaffected by this addition, other than, really, the McDermott trunk
and the new lift station here at Can-Ada. That's a real quick thumbnail overview. If you
have any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you, Phil. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if Phil would state the time line that this incorporates.
Krichbaum: Sewer master plans, you pretty much look at a build out ultimate system is
the way they are sized.
Rountree: Okay.
Krichbaum: They are sized for the worst case scenario, high irrigation water flow, wet
day, everybody at home on a weekend washing clothes. So, it's kind of bad -- you
know, worst case scenario, but that's what you have to design around.
Rountree: Minimal risk.
Krichbaum: Exactly.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Len, do you have anything to add?
Grady: Well, I'd like to thank both these guys. I think they did an excellent job. They
delivered on time and on budgets. I'll reiterate that I was the one that held them up until
we felt it was time to go ahead and get approval, so --
De Weerd: Great. Well, thank you, Len. Do you need any action tonight?
Rountree: Yes.
Meridian City CounCil
June 6, 2006
Page 24 of 120
Grady: Just looking for direction as to whether we should come back with a resolution.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we instruct staff to prepare resolutions to
approve both the water master plan and the sewer master plan to bring back to the
Council for consideration at our next regularly scheduled meeting June 20th.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to prepare the resolution. Any discussion?
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment to Len and Brad that thank you and thanks,
staff, for staying on top of this and maintaining the planning that it takes to stay ahead of
the infrastructure requirement for a community the size of Meridian. You guys have
done a great job. Appreciate it.
Grady: Thanks a lot.
De Weerd: And I know we all share those sentiments certainly to our consultants that
worked within budget and on time. We appreciate your help. And, Phil, you have been
around for a long time. We've appreciated your involvement with our city.
D. Planning Department
1. Letter to Board of Commissioners Regarding North
Meridian Area of Impact:
De Weerd: Okay. Planning Department.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in your packet tonight was a letter
addressed to the Ada County Board of County Commissioners and we just wanted to let
you know what that was all about. As you know, you met with them -- or some of you
met with them in November of 2004 about our proposed area of city impact expansion
to the north to accommodate the north Meridian -- the new plan for the north Meridian
area and at that time they gave us a checklist of things to do, one of them being
adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We have gone ahead and done those
and so this is kind of a letter to say, okay, we have done what you have asked, we are
now bringing it forward and would like to get this on your agenda and moving. I do want
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 25 of 120
to let you know that at the staff level there has been some resistance to moving forward
the application that was started in 2004. They feel that because we have added the
four square miles west of McDermott, that we should withdraw that application and
submit a new application. The timing issues could be significant in that we would not
make their planning and zoning commission's September hearing date, similar to our
planning and zoning commission, they are only considering comp plan amendments
twice a year and that for this year it looks like it's going to be September. So, the letter
is structured such that you will notice that we are encouraging them to accept the
previous conversations and to -- if they would like to meet again, set up another meeting
to discuss those four square miles, but to make it clear that those were included in the --
ail the north Meridian planning area efforts and should be included with our current
application. Does that make sense?
De Weerd: Yes. To me. Council, does that make sense?
Canning: Okay,
Rountree: I think that's what it says in your letter here.
De Weerd: You have adequately explained that in the letter.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no questions from Council, we can just go ahead and send
the letter out and move forward.
Canning: Great. Thank you.
E. Legal Department
1. Update on Architect and Construction Management
Contracts for New City Hall Building:
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Just briefly. This is an
update on the architecture -- or architect and construction management contracts for the
City Hall project. While I was out of the office last week Mr. Baird was able to work with
our outside Counsel we have hired for assistance in reviewing those contracts. He was
able to send those contracts out by the end of the week of last week. They are still
being reviewed by those two companies that we are in negotiation with. We haven't
heard back. Our expectation is there probably are going to be some requested changes
of the contact, so we are using our fairly standard, but there are, obviously, some
particular clauses that are specific to the City of Meridian's needs, so we anticipate
some discussion. Our hope is by your next regularly scheduled meeting we will have
ironed out all of those wrinkles and be able to bring those to you. But you know how
Meridian City CounCil
June 6, 2006
Page 26 of 120
lawyers are, sometimes that isn't always the way it ends up. But we hope that we can
all -- certainly Mr. Borton and I would be more inclined to get that done quicker, but
some lawyers aren't quite so amenable. But we hope to have it done before your next
meeting.
Rountree: I'd qualify that.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, any items -- any questions, comments for
Mr. Nary?
Item 8:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 9:
FP 06-022 Request for Final Plat approval for 22 single-family attached
residential building lots, 2 single-family detached residential building lots
and 3 common lots on 5.87 acres in an R-8 zone for Windham Place
Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC - 2640 N, Meridian
Road:
Item 10:
FP 06-024 Request for Final Plat approval of 25 four-plex lots, 11 garage
lots, and 5 other lots on 8.02 acres in an R-15 zone for Sommersbv
Subdivision No.2 by Liberty Partners, Inc. - Northeast Corner of West
Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Items 9 and 10 are final plats, 06-022 and 06-024. We have received
correspondence from the applicants that are in agreement with staff comments.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing that the applicants are in agreement, I move that we approve Item No.
9, FP 06-062 and Item 10, FP 06-024.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Items 9 and 10. Is there any discussion? Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Councilman Borton, you need to step down on these two?
Meridian City Council
June 6. 2006
Page 27 of 120
Borton: I do.
De Weerd: Councilman Bird is going to be joining us late. Do you want to go ahead
and move forward on this -- these two items or do you want to continue them until Mr.
Bird has joined us?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: City clerk, can we take action on them without --
Berg: Madam Mayor, the quorum is concerned with opening the meeting. As long as
you guys can make a motion and second it, I think we are okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, my only hesitancy about not having Councilman Bird here is
he was one of the councilmen that has concerns with this particular application. I think
they have been addressed, but if he's going to be here, it would be wise to have him sit
through this.
Wardle: I agree.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Berg, that was our understanding that he will be here. Is the
applicant here this evening? Mr. Campbell, if you would come forward. I guess we are
lacking one Councilmember. Would you mind if we continued this until later this
evening, so that he can participate in the discussion?
Campbell: He is coming?
De Weerd: Yes.
Campbell: No. We wouldn't --
De Weerd: Okay.
Campbell: We would not have a problem with that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you.
Item 13:
Continued Public Hearing from May 23, 2006: AZ 06-020 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for
Williams Pipeline by Northwest Pipeline Corporation - 1301 Locust
Grove Road:
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 28 of 120
De Weerd: We will go ahead and ask that Councilman Borton is brought in. We will
listen to Item 13 and, then, wait for Mr. Bird's feedback. Okay. I will go ahead and open
Item 13. It is a continued Public Hearing from May 23rd on AZ 06-020. And open this
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Williams Pipeline Project.
The property is located right there where the new Locust Grove overpass will be coming
by. And this is only an annexation and zoning application. We do have a site plan of
what they are proposing to develop_ They are asking for annexation and zoning,
because they will need to build a new building. This is their current structure and this
dashed line is the new overpass line. So, you will see that their existing structure -- they
are asking that it will remain, but they are going to move their offices to a new structure.
So, they are requesting annexation and zoning, so they can get that construction
underway. I do not have elevations. I apologize for some confusion in the staff report.
It says we need a DA. We don't need a DA. I think staff's thoughts were that we do not
need a development agreement in this case, because they will just be coming in with a
certificate of zoning compliance. We have met with them, they are aware of what the
DC requirements are. So, they are willing to abide by the new regulations, so we didn't
see a need for a development agreement. And the Planning and Zoning Commission
has recommended approval at their April 20th hearing. Wes Steel spoke in favor of the
application. There was no one in opposition or commenting. There was no key issues
of discussion, no key changes to the staff's initial recommendation, and to our
knowledge no outstanding issues before City Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff, Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Steel: Wesley Steel. 1250 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle, representing Williams
Pipeline.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Steel: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are in agreement with staff's
comments and the action approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you
have any further questions, I would be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I have
nothing else to add.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? What will the existing
building be used for? You will be relocating your office.
Steel: The existing building contains three uses. Their office portion. There are some
file storage. And, then, a small portion is vehicle maintenance. So, the vehicle
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 29 of 120
maintenance and storage will remain in that building, but due to the fact that the toe of
the slope of the overpass is going to be within five feet of the building and adjacent to
the building the overpass will be 17 feet high, with the traffic and the construction
running back and forth, they'd like to get their offices a little farther away. So, the
building --
De Weerd: I can certainly understand that.
Steel: The new building is offices and the existing building will be maintenance and
record storage.
De Weerd: Okay. And the shaded area there, what is -- what is the use on that?
Steel: Around the building is concrete sidewalk and patio. On the -- what would be the
east side of the drive is a drain swale for the parking area. This will be the drain swale.
And, then, this area is just sidewalk and patio. They have a meeting room here. They
have employees from -- they operate the -- they are a transport facility for Intermountain
Gas and they transport -- they are the pipeline that brings the gas from southern Utah
through Idaho onto Washington. So, once a month they have in our office meetings
where all of the field crews come in and they have a meeting area within the building.
De Weerd: Okay. And how about the area to the north there of your existing --
Steel: This?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Steel: Oh, that's a gravel storage area. They have some minor pipe supplies that come
in and out and so that's what that was proposed to be. It's the same way that the site
has been used for the last 30 years.
De Weerd: I know, but it is an opportunity to maybe not have it so prominently
displayed to our 1-84 corridor.
Steel: There is a piece of ground that's 50 feet wide that is between this property and
the corridor. We are not right on the corridor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Steel: It is fenced.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there is no questions, Council? Thank you.
Steel: Thank you for your consideration.
De Weerd: Is there any public testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none.
Meridian City CounCil
June 6, 2006
Page 30 of 120
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 13.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the Public Hearing and a second. All
those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have any discussion or a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 13, AZ 06-020, per staff's recommendation.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14:
Continued PUblic Hearing from May 23, 2006: V AR 06-011 Request for
a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500
square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for fireworks sales, Christmas
tree sales, and produce sales for Fat City Fireworks by Richard Handke
- 535 N. Eagle Road, 3301 W. Cherry Lane, 20 E. Fairview Avenue,
1375 E. Fairview Avenue, 97 Main Street, and for the lot at the northwest
corner of Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Berg, were you able to get ahold of Councilman Bird?
Okay. Thank you. So, we will go ahead and open the Public Hearing on Item 14,
continued Public Hearing from May 23rd on VAR 06-011 with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Fat City Fireworks project.
It is a variance application and similar to the one that you heard last week. It is for
various locations. Those were listed in your staff report, but just to briefly go over it, the
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 31 of 120
Albertson's parking lot on Cherry Lane. The northeast corner of Fairview Avenue and
Meridian Road in the Albertson's parking lot. The west -- just west of Stonehenge Plaza
northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin Roads. The Elixir Industries parking lot. And
the southwest corner of Main and Franklin. So, a total of six sites. The applicant is
asking for a variance from the temporary -- the temporary use section of the Unified
Development Code, which limits temporary structures to 500 square feet in area. The
applicant also submitted certificates of zoning compliance for the fireworks stands and
for two -- the request is not just for fireworks stands, but for also two produce stands
and two Christmas Tree lots. The produce stands and Christmas Tree lots would be on
the latter two properties, those being the Elixir Industries parking lot and the Main Street
and Franklin Road property. The original request was for 2,800 square foot on those
temporary structures size. They have amended that request last week to just 750
square feet. So, we do not have elevations. The staff recommendation is for denial.
Staff was not able to find that -- make the findings necessary to recommend approval.
The UDC does restrict the maximum size to 500 square feet. You have granted
exceptions to that, most notably last week you granted an exception up to 750 square
feet and, then, last winter you approved one at 700 square feet for a separate sales
trailer. I will I guess turn it over to the fire department to express their concerns as were
noted in last week's hearing regarding this issue and their comment letter to you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna.
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to reiterate our recommendations
from last week. Number one, the fireworks stands we are requesting that they be
limited to 200 square feet for tent size, 400 square feet for canopies. Canopies not
having perimeter walls greater than 25 percent. The reason is that we just don't want to
have a large quantity of fireworks, class C explosives, in anyone location at anyone
time, because of the possibility that customers can tamper with unprotected fuses and
cause a large fire to evolve. So, that's our -- the nature of our request. With that I'll
stand for any questions should you have any.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Is the applicant here this
evening? Would you like to come fOlWard. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Handke: My name is Richard Handke, 3565 West Muirfield Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Handke: Okay. And I'm asking for a variance from -- I'm not sure if it's the city -- it's a
new city zoning law now that's condensed it down to 500 square feet and I'm trying to
get 750 square feet of space to operate a business. I have been doing it for 20 years in
this town. We have been doing this business for 20 years and never had an incident or
an accident as far as anything -- personal property or anybody -- you know, personal
injury from doing fireworks in 20 years. I was aware of this new law change come --
when I went to do my new application permit for -- permits and stuff and didn't know
Meridian City CounCil
June 6, 2006
Page 32 of 120
about this until about three month ago. And I'm trying to figure out, you know, the
purpose and they are taking 80 percent of my working space away now, because we
used to have 2,800 square feet and now we are condensed down to 500 square feet.
I'm sure that Shaun, he's a business man, when you go and do this and, then, you take
80 percent out of the business, it makes it hard to operate and I'm just asking for a
request. I know that we are a local company and that a couple other companies were
granted that variance and I'd like to ask for the same.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who
would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Staff, any further
comments?
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one additional comment. Fat City did
have a problem with a large tent that they had erected at the corner of Ten Mile and
Franklin Road, essentially, last year and it collapsed and that was one of our concerns
of why we are so concerned about the size of the tents this year moving forward into
this Fourth of July.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Silva. Okay. Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I think the applicant wants to make a remark on that issue.
De Weerd: Okay.
Handke: Yes. I would like to comment on Mr.
De Weerd: If you will just state your name one more time.
Handke: Oh. Richard Handke.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Handke: Sorry. I'd like to comment on Joe Silva's -- he is correct, we did have a tent on
Tent Mile that did collapse on us, but I want to -- I want you guys to be aware of that
was like a 70 to 80 mile wind that came through there and the guy that put up the tent is
no longer in business. He sold his tent to another company and come to find out that
tent was about 30 years old and should have never been put up in the first place. And
that's about alii want to say.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 33 of 120
De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no further comments, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 14.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 14. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, question for legal counsel. If we were to have a motion to
approve, would it -- the reason for the variance be to follow policy which we have set in
prior applications of similar nature?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, the prior
discussion and what the Council approved in relation to the other variance was exactly
that, to be consistent with the Council's prior actions. I think Mrs. Canning stated in her
staff report there was a 700 foot variance -- square foot variance that was granted in
regards to a sale trailers and, then, the recent was 750 in regards to that. If that's the
maximum size that the Council wishes to allow for these temporary sales facilities, then,
yeah, as a basis of consistency that would be appropriate.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 14, VAR 06-011, the amended version to allow
structures up to 750 feet, to be consistent with prior Council action in requests of this
nature.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 14. Discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Berg. Yes. Discussion, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe one of the other findings we
have to make is regards the consistency in -- the findings you adopted tonight for last
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 34 of 120
week's hearing also included the discussion about the commitment of the fire
department to work on a consistent code and for staff to do a UDC change and that
helped us make those findings last time. I don't know if Council would be willing to
consider that as part of their findings for tonight. Sorry, I should have mentioned that
earlier. I apologize.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, certainly that was the intent of the motion. In addition to that, I
believe we had the discussion of this specific application being for fireworks and
comments from the fire department, but to look at any extraneous uses that may --
Christmas tree lots and things like that that may be in the future, as part of our UDC
change.
De Weerd: Okay. Does that clarify that?
Canning: Yes. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Madam Mayor, if I could just comment, where we got the 750 square feet is what
is in the fireworks permit code. So, it wasn't just pulled out of the air, it was with the
consistency of that code. And, yes, I will work with the fire department to modify the
permitting applications, too.
De Weerd: Thank you. And that was part of the public record in discussion last week
and clarifying what is allowed up to in the fire code. So, thank you for that clarification.
Will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from May 2, 2006: CPA 05-002 Request for
a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately
11.79 acres from Office to Mixed-Use Community by Conger Management
Group - 675 and 715 South Wells Street:
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.79
acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B
Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 06-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 84
building lots and 14 common lots on 11.79 acres in a proposed R-15 zone
for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715
Wells Street:
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 35 of 120
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
18 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Before I open these next items, Mr. Nary, as I
understand it, I can go ahead and open Items 15, 16, 17, and 18 as they are all related?
Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you can do that. The only caveat is when the point of
discussion of the items that -- I would like to make sure the Council is clear that they
need to separate out the Comprehensive Plan discussion from the remaining -- for the
actual project that's being presented to you. The issue before a court in determining
whether or not it's appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan is whether the Council
feels that there was enough evidence that this additional use or change in uses is
appropriate and that's the Council's decision is whether or not enough evidence exists
to do that. In theory you could approve Item 15 and not Items 16, 17 and 18. So,
whether -- and the inverse is also true, it would not necessarily be appropriate to not
approve Item 15, because you don't like the project, 16, 17 and 18. So, when you get to
the point of discussion, if you can separate that out for the record and, then, that way
the resolution that's necessary will have enough information contained in your record to
support that change if that's what you decide to do. So, with that long answer, yes, you
can open them all, just separate out the discussion at the end.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Rountree: Let's just do 15. That will make it easier.
De Weerd: If Council would like me to just do Item 15. The thing is, a lot of the
testimony would be related to the other items as well.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: If I might chime in to the -- the planning commission forwarded this to you
with a recommendation for approval if you considered it consistent with the
development application. So, they have asked you to specifically consider the
development applications when you decide to approve this or if you decide to approve
this.
De Weerd: Council, it sounds like it would be applicable to open them all up. If there is
no objection to that, I will go ahead open Items 15, 16, 17, and 18, a continued Public
Hearing from May 2nd on CPA 05-006, Public Hearing on AZ 06-017, on PP 06-017
and CUP 06-012. We do open in this Public Hearing process -- Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: As soon as you're done opening I have a comment.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 36 of 120
De Weerd: Okay. I did want to explain that process of our Public Hearing. We do open
with staff comments and allow City Council to ask staff any questions at that point. We
will, then, ask the applicant to come forward and the applicant is given ten minutes. If
the neighborhood has a spokesperson, they will also be given ten minutes to present
their issues and we will also want to know who that individual represents. Then, we will
take additional testimony that is not covered within the spokesperson and who they do
not speak on behalf of. Final remarks will be given to the applicant for -- to answer any
questions that came up during public testimony. And, then, Council will have an
opportunity to ask staff any additional questions, close the Public Hearing, and there will
be discussion among the City Council. So, with that said, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, for the record and by way of disclosure for the Council, I reside
in the Woodbridge neighborhood on Garner Street, which is adjacent to the property in
question. While I have specific knowledge of the whereabouts, I have refrained from
any discussions with either the neighborhood or the applicant and I do not feel that I
have any sort of a conflict of interest, but I leave that up to the Council to ask additional
comments or questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Wardle?
Rountree: Fine with me.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for that note. Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Conger Management
Group Comp Plan amendment and Wells Street project and it is located on the south
side of Magic View and, then, west of Wells Street. It does adjoin Woodbridge
Subdivision, which is immediately west of the property. And as noted, it does -- the
applications include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning,
preliminary plat, and conditional use approval for a multi-family portion of the project. I
will discuss the Comp Plan amendment first. The Comp Plan Amendment proposes to
amend the future land use from the office designation to -- I thought I had somebody
include that? Doesn't look like it. Currently it is an office designation on all these
properties that -- or that front Wells and Magic View and they are asking to change that
to mixed used community and is for the two parcels -- or two lots in the subdivision and
the -- it's about 11.79 acres. The Comp Plan defines the office designation very
narrowly. It is -- and there isn't -- there is not a lot of it within the city. It is to provide
opportunities for low impact business areas. This would include offices, technology and
resource centers, ancillary commercial uses may be considered, particularly within
research and development centers of technological parks. So, it is a very limited
designation within our Comp Plan and although our city code allows multi-family
development as a conditional use in the limited office category, which you may wonder
why they are not just using that, it wouldn't be consistent with the very limited definition
in the Comp Plan for this office designation. So, everything that's allowed in the light
office designation would not be appropriate within this office Comprehensive Plan
designation, because it further restricts it. The designation that they are proposing is
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 37 of 120
mixed use community, as I said, and the purpose of the mixed use designation is to
identify key areas which are either in-fill in nature or situated in highly visible or
transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design opportunities are
encouraged. So, having looked at those two designations, the Commission on October
17th of 2005, did recommend approval to the City Council, with the caveat that the -- it
be accompanied by an annexation and preliminary plat application to be heard by the
City Council at the same time, as noted previously. I did want to point out that if this
application -- if the Council decides to approve this change to accommodate use,
essentially, there has been interest in two other properties. So, if Council does move
toward approval, staff would appreciate some guidance on how to direct future
applicants or owners of property, in particular these to just north of this property we
know are considering a similar Comprehensive Plan Amendment and we want to be
able to give them good advice, although they are actually in the audience, so they will
hear it tonight, but it will be helpful for staff. I'm going to move on now and talk about
the actual development application. I think we have a nice view there. The
development as noted includes annexation and zoning of 11.79 acres to an R-15
designation and, then, preliminary plat approval of 84 residential building lots and 14
common lots on 11.79 acres. There is kind of three different building types. That would
be their mix of uses is the types of buildings. These are front loaded residential, with
common drive here and here, and these are front loaded -- also front loaded around the
perimeter. On the interior this is a MEW style development, so you have two private
streets, you have the minimum 50 foot width open space. These would be -- these
would front the open space and take access from this private street. So, the private
street functions as an alley, essentially, in these areas. These with the dashed lines are
the multi-family portion of it. They would be condo townhouse lots. So, very short
private streets here -- or drive aisles. And, then, we have the condo development, or
townhouse. The gross residential density is 7_12 units per acre. There is approximately
17 percent of the site is left as open space. The large interior open space includes a
gazebo and, then, there is a pedestrian pathway system. The project does meet the
multi-family standards, as well as the other UDC standards, particularly with regard to
private streets in R-15 district. The Commission recommended approval at their May
4th Public Hearing, again, contingent upon the Council giving a favorable
recommendation to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Dave McKinnon, Scott
Beecham, Betty Pearcy and Dave Pearcy all spoke in favor of the application. Ernie
Bader, Gene Fox, and Jim Flecker spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion by
the Commission were the density, housing types, and elevations, potential cut-through
traffic. That was with regard to the -- the development application, the annexation,
zoning, preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit. The key Commission changes to
staffs recommendation, there were no big -- no significant changes there. The
outstanding issue for the City Council really is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
appropriate. This was a lesser designation, even though it was a commercial
designation, it was very limited, as I pointed out earlier. Office backing up to these folks
is probably a lesser impact. However, staff's initial recommendation was favorable. We
think that the -- that the applicant has gone to great lengths to design a workable project
at densities that may be appropriate given the location on Eagle Road_ So, it was kind
of a hard call for staff in that we like to see the amount of design that went into this
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 38 of 120
project, but there is still the question of whether it's an appropriate Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in the area. Given that I will answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, would you help me understand how this area fits with the medical
zone that we have been talking about?
Canning: Let's see if I can zoom out a little bit. We did -- we did intend to come up and
include the -- the hospital here, so it probably -- that medical district idea. Maybe not a
specific zoning category, but that medical district idea would come up the east side of
Eagle and probably would include this area. These are -- it is fairly undeveloped fill.
We are starting to see some movement. There is a brand new big building going on
right here, so it is picking up, but it's not moving certainly as fast as some of the other
commercial properties we have seen in town, but it is somewhat secluded. I think the
applicant said this once before, so I will pass it along, to go along with that idea of the
medical district, this may be appropriate housing type for folks that are coming into
those areas that want to live close to the hospital.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Canning: I do have elevations. I'm sorry, I forgot. So, I don't have these labeled very
well. I apologize. This looks like the townhouses. These are the front loaded units.
Those are townhouses also. Alley loaded houses. There. I'm sorry.
De Ween::l: Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Good evening.
Beecham: Good evening. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Scott
Beecham, 405 South 8th Street in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Beecham: Dave McKinnon is going to get into some of the details of the development
applications before you tonight, but I want to start with a brief introduction to set the
stage for the discussion. The purpose for the land use map change requested before
you tonight is to provide for the introduction of a higher density smart growth
development pattern consistent with the stated goals of the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. Specifically, our development proposal is for a diversity of housing types near
employment centers and major transportation corridors. This development pattern fills a
need between the high density four-plex and apartment housing, and the large lot single
family homes currently being developed in Meridian. It allows for an affordable option
for nontraditional families wanting to live and work in Meridian. The rapid escalation of
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 39 of 120
land and construction costs has made it very difficult to find workforce housing in
Meridian. For the first quarter of 2006 the average price of a new home in Meridian
ranged between 250,000 in northeast Meridian and 475,000 in southwest Meridian.
The homes proposed for this development will fill a need for housing in the 200 to 300
thousand dollar range. It will allow for the nurse at st. Luke's and the EI Dorado or
Silverstone business park employee, to own and live in a nice home within a mile of
their office. Our proposal is one that the Treasure Valley has seen a lot of to date, but it
will be seen more often given the changing economic conditions per development. We
are excited about this development and how it's come together, specifically with regards
to the land plan and architecture on the different product types. We are confident that
this is a project that the City of Meridian will be able to point to as a positive example of
how higher density housing can be introduced in the existing neighborhoods in a
compatible manner. Specifically, this property allows for a nice transition from the lower
density single family housing in Woodbridge, Locust View Heights, Greenhill Estates, to
the more intensive commercial development we are seeing along Eagle Road. With
that I will close and turn it over to Dave, unless Council has any questions for me.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Thank you.
Beecham: Thank you.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, my voice is not that deep.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber.
De Weerd: You know you will pay for that.
McKinnon: I will pay for that. If you have read the minutes and you have read the letter
that I submitted to you, what I'm going to say is the same thing I said at the last P&Z
meeting. It was shocking for them, as well as it should be shocking for you coming from
my mouth. Read the staff report, I agree with everything in it. I have read the
recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission and I agree with all the
findings that they made at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. I agree with
their conditions of approval. As Anna said, at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, your planning and zoning staff had a
hard decision to make whether to support it or to recommend denial of this project.
They made the hard call after looking at the amount of design and depth that went into
this development and said we will make a recommendation for approval, but we are
only going to make that recommendation for approval if you come in with this project.
At that time we came in with a project that looks very similar to one you see in front of
you tonight with three major changes and these were changes that the Planning and
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 40 of 120
Zoning Commission recommended to us. In addition to that, the neighbors who are all
here tonight -- and just for clarification, I, just like Shaun Wardle, also live in
Woodbridge, just in case anybody's wondering and I recognize a lot of my neighbors
here tonight and we have had lots of meetings with them and I have had the opportunity
to make friends and meet them while going through this process where I may have not
had the opportunity otherwise. The three major changes that we made from the
conceptual plan that we brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission were, first, on
Magic View Drive we originally intended on having a traffic access to Magic View Drive.
The neighbors were concerned that this would encourage cross-traffic and cut-through
traffic through Woodbridge Subdivision. So, what we have done is eliminated the
vehicle access and put a pedestrian access there. We wanted to encourage people to
walk from neighborhood to neighborhood, not necessarily drive from neighborhood to
neighborhood. So, we wanted to provide a cross-connection where people could ride
their bikes and be able to go from one neighborhood to the other. Just if you have kids
-- my kids in Woodbridge ride their bikes from place to place to other neighbors. We
don't want to require everybody in the subdivision to drive anyplace. So, we made that
for the big change. In addition to making this change, we decided that even though
ACHD wasn't requiring one, we went ahead and commissioned a traffic study and in the
traffic study they came out and said for this type of development you typically see 5.8
vehicle trips per day for each household. We have a hundred households on this plan.
Originally when we went through the traffic study we had 108. After we met with your
Commission, met with the neighbors, we reduced that down to a hundred. So, with 5.8
units per -- I mean 5.8 vehicle trips unit, it comes out to 580 vehicle trips per day. The
traffic study came back from WGI and they said we believe that the great majority of the
traffic that's going from Woodbridge and from this subdivision is going to the east and
that's what the study came back and said people are going to 1-84 and to Eagle Road.
That's where the jobs are, that's where the traffic transportation corridors are. So, a
large majority of the traffic is headed this way. So, we felt if we got rid of this access
point it would eliminate the potential for additional cut-through traffic through
Woodbridge. So, we got rid of that. The second thing that we did is originally down in
this southwest corner we originally had a big box concept down in this area, it was
analyzed as a large mansion style home, a really large home. It's very large and
massing. It looks like a mansion. And we decided, you know what, after meeting with
the neighbors that really didn't fit a massing in scale in that area. It's a really cool
product, it's really neat, Stapleton in Denver, they have done a lot of that across the
street from mansions. We put six units in one of these mansions, you put it directly
across the street from a mansion. Really neat, but big and massive and it doesn't fit the
scale for what we have in Woodbridge and we are doing in the rest of this project. And
so what we did is we took these lots that were all along Woodbridge and we decided,
you know what, the best thing we can do here it to make those lots deeper and to make
them wider and so they are more compatible with Woodbridge. And so we have gotten
to the point now we have 16 backing up to 14 units on this side of the street. They are a
little bit smaller, but they are deeper, they are 100 feet deep and they are wider. These
are all single family homes. That first elevation that you saw just with one house that
Anna showed a little bit earlier, that was those houses. There is 16 of those. The
second thing we did to reduce density is originally we had anticipated doing some three
Meridian City COUnCil
June 6, 2006
Page 41 of 120
packs, tri-plex style homes with zero lot lines, so you have each end unit would be a for
sale unit and the middle unit would be a for sale unit with zero lot lines in between. We
said, you know what, that's just a little too dense, it doesn't fit with this area, let's go
ahead on the perimeter, since people would be driving in, let's go ahead and change
that, let's change those to a two-plex -- you know, a paired housing, but the lots are
wide enough that you can actually separate those as well to single family homes. It just
depends on the builder. And so the elevations that Anna showed you earlier -- we can
go through those in a minute -- those elevations can either be attached housing or
detached housing. We are showing them as attached on this drawing. On the interior
alley loaded, you're going to find development code doesn't allow for alleys if you have
no frontage for these homes, since we have had to do private streets here. These
private streets are 24 feet wide. Each one of these houses has its own two car
driveway and so you would have parking behind these units, in addition to these -- in
addition to the garages for each of these units. These houses in the middle front onto
an open space. That's something you don't see very often. It's kind of a different
product. But down on the bottom we have some condos and those are the three pack
type condos down on the southwest corner. The third real change that we made to this
site was our secondary access. Down here we have a cul-de-sac that's actually not
built. It's a dirt road. ACHD already owns the right of way. And so what we will be
doing is building that right of way down in this location and being able to take access
from this site. What we have done is tried to create a density by design. We didn't
come in and say let's see how many units we can fit on this site, we said what fits on
this site and, then, let's go ahead and design for that and after we have designed it let's
tweak it some more. So, we have made a number of tweaks to this project. What we
have got in front of you tonight we are actually pretty excited about -- there is a lot of
dense projects that are out there. There is not a lot of dense projects that have a lot of
design to them and what we have tried to do is create some designs that will actually
work and be compatible with the area. I was in Woodbridge -- we want this to be a nice
entry into Woodbridge as well. We have included a 15 foot wide landscape buffer along
Magic View Drive before the fence, so just as you're coming on Crosstimber you have a
feel of no houses fronting onto it. There will be no houses fronting onto Magic View.
This would be an entry corridor into Woodbridge that's nice and landscaped. There
won't be any houses fronting onto it, even those to the local streets. Anna, if you can go
to the elevations real quick, to give you a real quick rundown of those elevations.
Okay. Is that the first one? That's the first one. These are the houses that front onto
the MEWs area. And these are the alley loaded. These are three units in this_ You can
kind of see a separation in the colors. One unit here. Another unit right there. Anna, if
you can go to the next slide. Single family homes. These are the homes that back up
to Woodbridge. These are homes that can be anywhere from 1,300 square feet to
approximately 2,400 square feet. If you can go to the next slide. These are the condos.
These are alley loaded. Again, these will be fronting out onto the street, so you won't
actually see the garage. And if you'd go to the final. This is the paired housing. It,
actually, could be split -- these homes could actually be split in two separate units on
the perimeter. We are excited about this project. I have brought projects to you before
that I haven't been excited about, sometimes you're just bringing them because that's
what you have to do, and I will be the first to admit that. This is, actually, one of the
Meridian City Councll
June 6, 2006
Page 42 of 120
projects that design has really been paramount on this issue and I'm really sad that
Keith is not here, because he would really lay into me on that. That's the honest truth.
This is a project that we believe that's a good design and we are happy to bring it to you
and we think this will be a great project for the City of Meridian. It's near housing, it's
near jobs, it's near a transportation corridor. This is the type of area you want to see
density. You have a comprehensive land use map, you also have a Comprehensive
Plan and in the verbiage of the Comprehensive Plan there is a number of items that talk
about where you put density and Josh did a really good job in his staff report for that,
saying you put it by the jobs and this is the area where all the jobs are in Meridian and
you put it by where the transportation corridors are and this is the highest -- largest
transportation corridors in Meridian and it's very close to those. With that I'd ask if you
have any questions of me and ask for your approval tonight.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none at this time.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. McKinnon, we are, obviously, considering a Comp Plan Amendment. Do
you, by chance -- you mentioned just briefly the area in transition. Do you know any of
the vacancy rates in the immediate area?
McKinnon: Anna, can you go ahead and put up that slide, the aerial I handed to you at
the beginning? It will take just a second. There is a lot of vacancy rate there right now,
Councilman Wardle. Wow, that doesn't look real well. If you can maybe zoom in on
that a little bit, Anna. Boy, maybe you can go to your slide, Anna that you had for the
aerial for Magic View. That's not reasoned real well.
Canning: Just call me Vanna.
McKinnon: Thank you, Anna. Okay. Madam Mayor, Commissioner -- and Councilman
Wardle, these three lots were one of the first subdivisions that I did when I worked for
the City of Meridian approximately five years ago. They are zoned L-O. They have sat
vacant the entire time, except for a Subway that's been built on that site. They are L-O.
They are remaining vacant. The large lot right here, this was Winston Moore who
constructed this building and it's still not at full occupancy. This, again, when I worked
for the City of Meridian over four years ago when it was constructed. I did the final sign
off on occupancy for that building four years ago. It stili has another real estate sign out
in front of it. Most recently a new sign was put out for Steve Busalacki. It seems -- if
my memory serves correctly, he's also a radio personality, but I guess he's in real estate
now, too. This L-O zone, nothing's built on this site. We have a couple of hotels and we
still have some vacant uses here. The dentist office is located right here and we still
have some vacancy in these office areas right here. One side interest -- this is the IUI
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 43 of 120
building. This is the large 43,000 square foot building that's going up. I believe it's a
urology building. It's a very large medical building, to touch on the comments you had
about the medical zone. I talked with St. Luke's a little bit about they are discouraged
by the fact that they jumped across the street and the reason for that is they have
operating facilities and they would rather have those people having the operations done
at St. Luke's and that's the reason why they weren't allowed to build on St. Luke's
property, is because S1. Luke's wanted them to use that. So, they were a little bit
discouraged by that. Medical uses by their nature are high traffic -- high traffic
generators. They generate around 31 vehicles trips per thousand square feet. Typical
office is 11. So, it's almost three times the vehicle trips for medical office as it is for
typical professional office. And those are numbers that are generated from ACHD out
of the trip generation manual. So, in talking with ACHD, this five acre piece with the
43,000 square foot building on it has 1,600 vehicle trips, roughly, generated by that one
single building, whereas our project, with all 12 acres, would only generate 580 vehicle
trips. Just an idea for traffic. If that was developed at a typical office standard, you
would be talking about, oh, 43,000 square feet, that's 11 vehicle trips per thousand
square feet, 400 and some odd trips if it was just office space at that size. So, medical
office in this area would be a huge generator of traffic for what's basically a residential
collector system right now coming out of Woodbridge.
De Weerd: Does that answer your question? Okay. Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I do have a number of people signed up, but I would ask is there a
spokesperson for the subdivision? I see fingers pointing every which way. Okay. You
will have five minutes each. Would you like to start? Okay. We will, then, let ten
minutes between two or three of you. So, a total of 20 minutes. And whoever would
like to start, please, come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Flecker: My name is Jim Flecker. I live at 538 South Thornwood Way in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Flecker: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I'd first like to say, Dave, you did
such a good job I'm ready to vote for you. Scott did, too. I say that, because I want to
be clear that this is not an issue of we are mad at each other or anything else, we have
some honest differences of opinion. First of all, the Woodbridge residents are mainly
concerned with the traffic that's going to be generated through the only route to Locust
Grove. It's a residential neighborhood, in fact, if you -- I don't have one of those little
pointy deals, but -- is there one here hiding or -- okay. Now, I got to get trained on all
this, I guess.
De Weerd: That's all right.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 44 of 120
Flecker: Okay, All right. Yeah. Road goes down through here, up around through
here, right to the subdivision. These are all residents where children are playing, all that
kind of thing. So, we are concerned with the traffic coming out of here and going back
here and I'll speak to that. Woodbridge, that -- our addition happens to be a great little
shortcut between Eagle Road and Locust Grove. Locust Grove overpass is not even
open yet, you can only imagine what that's going to do. When that turns -- that will turn
that neighborhood road into what we think is going to be a major artery. Major concern.
A lot of kids playing there. Now, Conger did have that traffic study done and ACHD
approved it and I do have a little beef with that. Their conclusion that most cars will
want to go use Eagle, okay, the problem I have is that ACHD somehow called this
meeting and a couple days before the P&Z meeting, we weren't told, so we weren't
notified. I had previously personally met with ACHD on this issue and quite disturbed
about a private meeting. Now, I'm going to hang that on ACHD, not Conger, for reasons
that will become apparent later. But, nevertheless, I don't think that's right. I have my
own conclusion that that particular study is invalid. Now, I looked at all the goodies, too,
I'm an engineer myself, not -- I'm electrical, but, hey, I understand logic. But I looked at
the studies and did some of my own things and I don't think it's valid because the
conclusions are based on what's going to go on now and not what's absolutely sure to
be at the opening of the opening of the overpass and all that kind of thing over at Locust
Grove. Maybe they have some factors that we are not aware of, but this is not the place
-- the P&Z is not the place to challenge that. I wish I had had the opportunity to talk with
their engineers, but I didn't. Now, just plain common sense tells us that office traffic
patterns will be more desirable than residential. During peak times, for heaven sakes,
the offices are coming while the residents are going. Night and weekend traffic is right
away a whole lot less. The neighbors definitely prefer office. I want to point out to you
we didn't just say no to Conger's plan. In fact, we tried very hard to find acceptable
solutions. Mainly to the traffic. Many other people, but I personally met with ACHD,
ITD, city planners, et cetera, et cetera. One thing became very clear and that is there is
no fix for the traffic problem, either on Eagle Road right there or through our deal. Now,
it could have been earlier on, but this is one of those deals where things kind of got built
and now we have got to live with what we have got to live with. The biggest problem we
see is that development is too dense. Woodbridge has 279 residents on 80 acres and
this puts a hundred more on 11. Now, that's mathematically a huge jump. Now, the
other thing that I'm aware of and kind of interest in is Treasure Valley in general has a
really sloppy growth history. I think we all know that. We tend to make plans, spend big
money for them -- and I'm not piCking on Meridian, I'm talking in general, and, then,
change them at every whim. How about Eagle Road? I don't have to tell you about
that. It's supposed to be a limited access, but look what happened, we allowed changes
to the plan as everybody come along and says I need this, I need that, now we have got
an unfixable problem. Eagle from 1-84 to Franklin is the busiest area of road in the state
of Idaho. Wonderful. Now, I'm going to ask you guys, are we going to let this thing
happen again. Now, we have got a chance to maybe deal with this. Are we going to let
it happen again. You have a good Comprehensive Plan, we do, that the Woodbridge
residents like. Not only that, many bought with the idea this would be offices here. I like
that. And now we want to change the plan. We want to put density up around nine per
acre, as opposed to 3.5 per acre where Woodbridge is. Medical is, of course, coming in
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 45 of 120
and some of the stats on it, it depends on the type of medical office I should say,
whether it's a doctor's office or whatever. But there is some other factors there. But it
begs the question. If this ain't broke, why are we fixing it? Why are we changing the
Comprehensive Plan that's a good one. That's our side. Now, having said that, I do
want to say this: My compliments to Conger. I think they did, probably would do, a
good job. They have done all the right things. Dave and Scott have made themselves
quite available, They have had meetings with Woodbridge. I spoke and run into some
of these things in other counties and other states, for heaven sakes, before I moved
here some 15 years ago, and I think they have done as good a job as anybody I have
seen and, frankly, I have to say that, because if they had done a lousy job I would have
told you that, so I feel like, you know, credit should go where credit is due. It's a good
plan, but it's the wrong place. That's what we are going to say. It's still too dense. But
if it has to be, I think Conger is a good choice. I also have a great deal of empathy for
the owners, a couple of which are here right now, Dave and his wife. Good grief, they
have got their horses running around out there, lived there 30 some years, I'm pretty
near his age, I sort of understand those kind of things. They are literally being forced off
their property, because of -- and taxes, I mean I hate -- I hate what's happened there.
Now, I want to consider the future and here is where we need to really talk about this as
a Council and we already heard it mentioned by the planners, city planners, how about
the domino effect? There are more parcels, specifically up straight across to the north.
Down below them is another 12 acres or so, and there is some stuff in there that could
be, I suppose, but we could end up with some pretty dense stuff and it might be a dense
mess and when you allow something like this, what safeguards are you going to put in
place that the next folks bouncing along aren't going to put up something even more
undesirable. Are we to expect more Comp Plan changes just down the pike, once more
at the whim of whoever? If you nickel, dime, a little at a time, each may sound okay in
its place, but in the end we get an unfixable mess and Eagle Road is as good an
example as I could come up with. Your current plan is a good one and the residents at
Woodbridge like it. I'm disgusted, too, with the almost cart blanches' approval of
developments, especially with Ada County commissioners, personally. Also with the
high property taxes, as our assessor said, we all enjoy that. I'm not alone. The primary
election removed one commissioner and the other two better be looking over their
shoulder. And so should all of the local leaders. We have got a problem here. I'm not
telling you guys anything you don't know. I think the impact fees need to be hugely
increased. Land costs have gone out of site. Large impact fees can be easily
absorbed. I think we should not worry about sellers can only make 400 instead of 500
percent profit. And property taxes, I saw you all shaking your heads, nothing to be said
about that. I thank you for listening to me and I will take any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions at this time, Council?
Rountree: I have none. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Flecker: Okay. I have a copy here.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 46 of 120
De Weerd: Sir, if it's more convenient, we can bring this mike and you can sit down.
Fox: No. That's fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.
Fox: My name is Gene Fox. I live at 582 South Wood haven, along with my wife
Celeste_
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fox: And I will have some slides. They are not of my last vacation, but if -- I think that's
my -- that's not my first slide.
Canning: Sir, did you have the Powerpoint presentation?
Fox: Yes.
Canning: Okay. It will take me just a moment. Sorry.
Fox: All right. Well, during that period of time let me congratulate the Conger Group
representatives, because they are always well prepared, they always make skillful
presentations and they do such a good job that I believe they deserve a raise. Now, let
me ask you fellows how can I best get you a raise, by condemning you or praising you?
But let me start by paraphrasing Mark Twain who said -- allow me to paraphrase him a
bit and say like the weather, everyone talks about traffic, but nobody does anything
about it, except to make it worse. But there are big worses and there are little worses.
What you decide on this evening will have an impact on Woodbridge for the lifetime of
the community. I hope that that impact will not be one of the big worses. Okay. We are
still not getting my -- my slides up, but I'll continue. Conger Group is proposing to
construct -- oh, very good. This is -- this is my first slide and you can go to the second
slide. The Conger Group is proposing to construct 102 units, although tonight I hear the
figure one hundred. The Conger Group developed the Woodbridge community. They
did a good job. They are justifiably proud of their work and even display photos of
Woodbridge on their website. Now, these photos were not taken from their website, but
these are similar shots to what they have. They did such a good job that we as the
residents have been passionate in our defense of the community. Initially, it was our
goal to prevent the requested zoning change, but most of us became convinced that a
housing development is a better use of this property, so our efforts were turned -- were
turned to trying to get a lower density. If the Conger Group wanted to build 50 or 60
units, then, I would stand before you in support of their project. May I have the third
slide, please? The Conger Group is not obligated to meet with Woodbridge residents,
but they did. They have stated that these -- they have stated that these meetings have
resulted in a better product. I have no doubt that their product will be a good one, too
dense from our point of view, but we, so it appears, have lost the battle of the density.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 47 of 120
They also state that they made concessions to Woodbridge concerns. They have
pointed those out, so I won't repeat them very much. They eliminated an exit into Magic
View, which was a couple hundred feet closer to Woodbridge than the Wells Street.
The subdivision is that only ten percent of the Wells Street traffic will turn left to take
advantage of the convenience of the Woodbridge corridor. We think that this is
erroneous, but, then, we have apparently lost also that traffic battle. And the Conger
Group added more trees to the specification and have given us some credit for design
changes. We obviously affected their plans a great deal. Unfortunately for us, what we
didn't get was much more important to us than some cosmetic changes. We did not get
a lower density. In the beginning they wanted 109 units, then, they proposed 96, and
finally settled on 102 or 100. We asked for a mix of single story houses, rather than a
wall of two story units. We were reminded that we also have two story houses on our
street, five out of 15, but, then, it was pointed out that we could always remodel our
houses into a two story to match theirs. I really like that idea. We could have dueling
second story windows. But the Conger Group was under absolutely no obligation to
offer us anything. May I have the fourth slide, please? Right here is the property that
backs up to the Wells Street development. And we ask what else did Woodbridge
receive? We received about as much or maybe less sympathy and attention that I
received as a youth many years ago. At that time there was a movie about a young
fellow named David and his adversary Goliath. Because my youth was so many years
ago, it may have been a silent movie. I made a sling like young David, but the only
giant I slew was the back of my head. It hurt. In fact, it hurt a lot. My uncle told me that
I would feel a lot better when it quit hurting and he was right. The hurt did quit after a
couple years. The effect of being hit in the head tonight will last a lot longer than a
couple of years. One member of Woodbridge community made a number of contacts
with ACHD. You just heard him speak. The total effect -- total benefit of this effect was
a single line in the ACHD report to the effect Woodbridge residents had noted some
concern. No effort was made to examine these concerns. The Planning and Zoning
staff were courteous, but they are tuned in more to working with developers, rather than
concerned citizens. One staff member told me that there were some concerns about
the ratio of open space in the Wells Street development. That concern was not voiced
in the staff report at the P&Z meeting. The P&Z Commissioners were polite and
insisted that our concerns would be given all due consideration. But the concerns were
barely given any consideration at all. Our concerns carry no weight and were barely
discussed. P&Z was a quick carry. We got skunked five to nothing. P&Z did their job
and approved the project. And one of the Commissioners said this: The Conger project
is exactly the kind of project that was being encouraged at the zoning seminars that we
attend. Is there any wonder it was a quick jury. We tried to contact several members of
the City Council, including the Mayor's office. We were told that this was inappropriate.
I would like to congratulate you on the integrity of your political unit, because where I
previously lived they did business the other way, which was bribery and political and
buying of elections. The Woodbridge community never tried to block the sale of the
property in question. The tactic was never discussed. Nevertheless, it has been
suggested that such was our intention. The property owners wanted to sell and move
on. I do not blame them. They are being taxed to a high degree and cars pass by their
bedroom windows at all hours. Thirty plus years they enjoyed their property. They want
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 48 of 120
to move on. The property should have been zoned differently when the master plan
was first formed, but it wasn't. Now, they wish to sell and move on. However, their sale
is based on the contingency of a zoning change. We have had object to this project and
as citizens have voiced our objections. I was told that we are the cause of the traffic
problem in Woodbridge. I'm still trying to figure that one out. I was told that I or we had
not done anything good for Meridian, whereas this Wells Street proposal is good for
Meridian. Let me tell you what good I and others like me do for Meridian. We bring
passion to our community. We strive to preserve that which is important. We try to
protect the quality of our community and Woodbridge is an integral part of the City of
Meridian. This is our passion. But as we have lost at P&Z, so we expect to lose here at
City Council, because all of it appears to favor the Conger Group. Now, the fifth slide,
please. One or two remain for me and that is the boundary line between the two
properties. In the very fine print of the Wells Street plat drawing is a statement that the
existing trees will be removed and the developer will retain and protect the existing
fence. These two items here make those statements. May I have the next slide,
please? There are, in effect, two fences here. It would be good to know and
understand the true meaning behind the small print, but there is speculation as to which
fence is being indicated. And you know about this ambiguity to the fencing in the
Conger Group and they state exactly what we had all assumed, that the Conger Group
wishes to use our fence as their backyard boundary. And this is our fence. This is the
existing fence for this other property. But we, the people, do not choose that they would
use this fence. May I have the next slide, please? We choose that they should use the
other existing fence and we have no objection to that solution. We don't mind that they
have a scrappy wire fence, because we have a scrappy wood fence. The problem is
our scrappy wood fence was constructed on our side of the property line. May I have
the next slide, please. One of the Conger fellows stopped by my house awhile back.
He sat on my fence to view the nature of things and wished that he had his camera so
that he could record the view. This is what he saw. Now, the Conger Group was not
proud enough of this part of the project to put in on their website with the other photos of
Woodbridge. In an e-mail I received the statement fencing, if it is on the wrong spot, it
is a problem and can be fixed. But a later e-mail disavowed any problems with the
fence and I have received no more messages concerning this matter since then. I have
been trying to discuss this property -- property line problem with Conger for several
months, long before the last P&Z meeting. And the next slide, please. His property pin.
This is the north side -- north side -- north boundary of our property. There are property
pins that define the back ends of our property. Can I have the next slide, please? This
is the south end. That little yellow thing there, that's the property pin. The pins are at
both ends of the project and, then, there is one in the middle. May I have the third slide,
please? Right there. It's hiding behind a leaf, but it's there. I was unable to access
other pins that define each lot. This fence was built inside the property line because of
the nature of the rose bushes, which must have terrified the fence builders. The fence
could have been built on the property, but it was not. Now, the next slide, please.
Actually, could you back up two slides. I doubt that the fence was built without the
approval of someone higher up. My point here is that there is a lot of bramble and stuff
between the two fences. Someone higher up. The Conger Group was the developer.
Was the Conger Group responsible for this misplacement? May I have the last slide,
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 49 of 120
please? There are 15 houses in this line. I have been able to contact 12 homeowners
and they have all allowed me to speak on their behalf in this matter. May I have just a
little bit more?
De Weerd: Yes. You are summarizing, please.
Fox: I'm almost finished.
De Weerd: Okay.
Fox: I don't know if my neighbors are red or blue state people, but I do know that they
are all red, white, and blue people who have grasped the American dream,
homeownership. The America dream sanctifies property and we pay a hefty fee for that
sanctity in the form of property taxes. These are not fees that allow developers to take
our land, whether it is one foot or one inch. And we do not choose to abandon this
property. Not one foot. Not one inch. I spent some time at the P&Z office to determine
exactly how our properties are defined and was instructed that each corner has a rebar
pin. Even though the fence was built inside the property line, we claim this property as
defined by these pins. To say the current fence is almost on the line or near enough to
the line is not good enough. One might ask why is this foot or inch so important to us?
This is the answer. The Wells Street project was basically crammed down our throats.
Banged us in the back of the head, so to speak. I do not care if others think this is petty
or amusing, but just don't claim our property. Of course, the Conger Group does not
wish to build a new fence. They didn't want to spend the money. But here is a thought.
Perhaps this is where the employee bonuses are to be found. The Conger Group does
not owe us a new fence, because ours is scrappy. They owe us nothing, except for the
recognition of the correct property line. But they own Wells Street properties a fence,
either along or inside its own boundary. Now, they can use the existing wire fence or
build a new wire fence, or build a new wood fence, we don't care what they choose. But
, ask the City Council to do the right thing and require the Conger Group not poach on
our property. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question for Mr. Fox, if he wouldn't mind.
De Weerd: Mr. Fox.
Rountree: You said in your testimony that the folks you represent had a preference for
housing, as opposed to office in this area, and the gentleman previously indicated that
there was a preference for office, as opposed to housing.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 50 of 120
Fox: Correct. I did say that.
Rountree: Are you representing different groups of folks or --
Fox: No. We represent basically the same people, just some of us have come to one
conclusion over another.
Rountree: Kind of like the rest of us.
Fox: Yeah. In truth, we do believe that it's best to have housing there. I think almost a
hundred percent would say that. However, if we have this very dense housing, we'd
prefer to have offices.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Any other questions?
Fox: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Now I know there was one other spokes person, but the 20
minutes is used -- okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. When I call your name I will
indicate for the record whether you are for or against. If you wish to provide new
testimony, I would welcome you to come forward when I call your name. Celeste Fox.
Against. Peggy Slayton. Against. Thank you. Rita Exline. Against. Thank you. Jack
McKinney. Neutral. Thank you. Larry Hallstad. Against. Thank you, sir. Carman
Hallstad against. Thank you. Steve Birch against. Thank you. Ernie Bader against.
Bonnie Robinson for. I will ask that you will state your name and address.
Robinson: My name is Bonnie Robinson. I live at 715 Wells. Madam Council -- Mayor,
Councilmen, I moved to that address about 23 years ago, until the 2000s when the
Woodbridge Subdivision was developed adjacent. About a dozen of us neighbors lived
on that dead end loop with the fox, deer, quail, pheasants, baby geese, skunk, gophers.
They were the traffic. Today the traffic is from 300 or so homes that were put there
partly because of location, one and a half miles from downtown Meridian, right in the
middle of Meridian's largest employers and just down the road from Silverstone and EI
Dorado, development which will create lots and lots of jobs. While the growth in my
neighborhood has completely changed the life I had for almost 20 years, it has created
an opportunity for a hundred more families to have affordable housing close in.
Approval of the application before you tonight will not change the area dramatically as it
did when Woodbridge was approved. It will only make a small percentage increase in
all the elements Woodbridge brought with it. To put it in effect in perspective using raw
numbers, the proposed project will have 1/75th -- that's 1/75th the impact on
Woodbridge compared to the effect Woodbridge had on Magic View and not a single
Magic View neighbor opposed the Woodbridge application. Woodbridge residents love
their community for all the right reasons. It's well planned, well maintained, a wonderful
neighborhood, close to jobs, services, travel routes, shopping, almost everything you
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 51 of 120
could wish for. The pending application will make the extremely desirable features
available to a few more families. Because there was some information discussed on
the record last fall concerning our original zoning request, I have also brought copies of
the documents that were submitted by our neighborhood in 1999 requesting the zoning
designation of mixed use. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Okay. Rhonda Olson. Signed
up against. Thank you. Rich Allison. For. Okay.
Allison: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, Rich Allison, 916 North Main Street. The only
thing I'd like to point out is that -- and it's not being pointed out, is that approximately
half of all the Magic View lots are designated for commercial general, not L-O, and the
L-O, which we originally put in there, because I was part of the planning crew, was a
transition zone. And under the existing transition zone that we had back in 1993.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Lois Carlson signed up against. Thank you. Jennifer
Barber Signed up against. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Barber: Jennifer Barber. 688 South Torino in the Woodbridge neighborhood.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Barber: And I just wanted to make comment regarding Dave McKinnon pointing out the
urology clinic and the traffic flow there and how much more that would be. I think the
difference for the residents in Woodbridge is that that traffic will just go east to Eagle.
but this neighborhood that goes in, we have Home Depot and Winco is on the west side
of Woodbridge and all that traffic will likely come through our neighborhood at some
point. So, I just -- I think that's an apples and oranges comparison. I just want to point
that out.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have someone who printed and I can't read it. Paul? A Paul
Hann? Hohn? What's your last name? Holme. Thank you. Signed up against. Betty
Pearcy signed up for.
Pearcy: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Betty Pearcy. I live at
675 Wells Street. . And I just have some comments that I would like to make. I have
lived there 32 years. When' first moved there I was out in the country. There wasn't
hardly any houses around. In fact, we were the first house in the Magic View
Subdivision. Magic View Road was just a little turnaround. There wasn't a road going
through there. Now there is a -- since Woodbridge came in there is a road going
through there that goes right to the north of my property. And on the Comprehensive
Plan, my husband and , served -- we went to the first Comprehensive Plan meeting
when it was being done and we served on a committee and we went to many of the
meetings. There were a few meetings we didn't get to, but we went to many of them.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 52 of 120
And the people, like Bonnie pointed out, all of us in the Magic View Subdivision we
signed a paper and sent it in asking for mixed use for our ground. And when we didn't
get it, my husband called Planning and Zoning and he was told that each project as it
would come in could be considered and u because they didn't feel good in giving just a
mixed use to all that ground, they wanted each project to come in and, then, it would be
decided on the basis of each project as it was developed. And we just feel that that's
the best use for the ground. It's quite a ways away from Eagle Road. There is a lot of
commercial development to the east of us and commercial to the south of us and it's not
really viable for office use. This is the best use. There has been a lot of things said
about the -- the traffic and I don't -- I don't find the traffic that bad. 'walk out there. I
ride my bicycle. Many residents of Woodbridge Subdivision walk and ride their bicycles
around by our house and also they all go east. There is a big -- in the mornings when I
stand at my front window, it's like an exodus from Woodbridge, everybody going east to
get on Eagle Road and get on the freeway. The majority of my trips are to the east,
because that is where employment, shopping, entertainment, so on, is and I believe that
the residents that would live in this area, that would be the direction that they were
going. 'also would like to say that they were talking about the ACHD meeting. There
was a notice in the Statesman paper telling about the ACHD meeting. I read it and any
-- you know, if anyone has a paper, they did do a public notice about the meeting. Also,
I just -- I just would like to say that my husband and I have lived there 32 years, we
raised a few horses, and we just would like the opportunity to sell our property and
move ourselves and our horses to a more rural area. It's just become, you know, so
much traffic and such a -- with all the development around us, that we just want that
opportunity to sell and move to a more rural area and if -- if it's decided against, I mean
it's -- the others talked about what an affect this would have on their lives, this will have
a very big effect on our lives, too. Thank you. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Dave Pearcy. Signed up for.
D. Pearcy: My name is Dave Pearcy. I live at 675 Wells Street in Magic View
Subdivision. Madam Mayor and the Council -- okay. I'm used to hanging onto one
when I sang country music.
De Weerd: Well, we can give you that one.
D. Pearcy: I'm an old guitar player, so -- you guys will have to excuse me. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: No. That's great.
D. Pearcy: But my wife pretty well covered most everything that needed to be said. I
do support the project. I went over it real careful. It looks like it's going to be a big asset
to the city and the whole community and I think in time Woodbridge will -- if it goes in
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 53 of 120
and gets developed like it shows, I think in time Woodbridge will really be proud of it,
they will say, hey, we love this deal. I mean it's not that -- it's not anything that's going
to hurt us. We've never complained about all the growth and about them and they come
by -- you know, walk by my place, I'm always friendly with them. They look at my
horses and, you know, even sometimes their dogs will run through my lawn -- I don't
holler about it, I just say, okay, you know, it's just part of being out in the country and
part of life and, you know, it's nothing that's going to hurt -- affect or hurt anybody, it's
not going to lower their property value. I know that some of them pictures they took
were kind of myoid fence in the back, but I'm sure that Conger is just going to destroy
that and wipe it flat and build a nice beautiful deal and that will look a lot better than
them old rose bushes that's growing back there and that old tore down fence and I know
it's going to be better than them old hogs that could go back there, you know. But
anyhow -- I didn't mean to say that.
Rountree: Sure you did.
D. Pearcy: No, I didn't mean to say that, but it just slipped out.
De Weerd: We know how that goes.
D. Pearcy: So, that's all I have to say and I really appreciate everybody and your
patience with me and putting up with me and I'll get sat down and get out of here.
De Weerd: Thank you. Those are the names that I had signed up to testify. Is there
anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing
none, would the applicant like come up for wrap-up remarks?
Beecham: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. That's a tough act to
follow. I don't sing country music, but -- on a point of clarification, there is a couple in
the audience here that we need to thank for the Woodbridge community. It's not me. I
was happy to be a part of the team. I think Jim Conger would say the same thing. But
the O'Neals build great neighborhoods. I guess the unfortunate thing of building next to
that or proposing a project next to that is they actually build or create better
communities and homeowners associations. So, it makes you work pretty hard for it,
but I think we have had a very positive process with these neighbors. The first few
meetings that we had we had probably close to a hundred people at the first one, close
to 50 at the second, we are down to a handful of people who still have some very
legitimate concerns, but I think at the end of this process we are pleased and I think
many of the Woodbridge neighbors are pleased with how its progressed. Traffic,
obviously, is a major issue. There is an irony to this, in that the Woodbridge neighbors
are concerned about the traffic and opposed to this higher density residential
development because of the traffic it will generate, the alternative generates much more
traffic. Dave alluded to that. The numbers are very real. The patterns may change, the
time of day that that occurs, and days that it occurs may change, but it is a much high
impact for office. And that just doesn't apply to this piece of property, but everything
that happens in that Magic View neighborhood. Cut-through traffic was a specific
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 54 of 120
concern. We will look at it -- especially after talking to the property owners, as a much
larger neighborhood. We look at it as a neighborhood bounded by Locust Grove and
Eagle Road, the interstate, and Franklin. So, the folks in Magic View suffered from the
same cut-through and I think what our traffic study showed it they actually are taking the
burden of the cut-through today, but if you look at the neighborhood on a whole, not just
Woodbridge, it doesn't stop at that Woodbridge subdivision line, the traffic patterns will
generally flow east, residential patterns will flow east to the employment centers and
services. Office, according to our traffic engineer, would actually send a higher volume
of traffic to the west through Woodbridge, because of all the residential development
happening in northwest Meridian. That, again, according to our traffic engineer, who I
think did a good job, you can always play around with the numbers a little bit in terms of
-- not manipulating them, but reviewing them and analyzing them, we think he did a
good job. Washington Group International has a great reputation. In terms of density,
it's another piece of the irony with the traffic, if we were to reduce the density; they
actually applied to a single family detached neighborhood. They actually apply a high
traffic generating ratio to that. $0, our development will generate 5.8 per unit, per
Dave's comments. Single family detached development will generate 9.7, I believe, is
the current number per unit. So, you reduce it by 50 percent, you reduce the number of
units by 50 percent, it's a 10 percent reduction in the traffic generation. So, it's a bit of a
challenging issue there. We really want to concentrate on a design driven approach, a
good project, in a great location. The neighbors have talked about their interest in -- or
the owners of there properties have talked about their interest when the Comp Plan was
being developed. They wanted the ability to be flexible with the market. They were told
-- and it makes sense, that bring it in on a case-by-case basis. The City of Meridian has
been talking about this for a long time now. We want high quality, design driven density
in this city. Putting it close to employment and major traffic corridors makes sense.
Just as a point of reference, we are talking about 8.9 units -- or 8.5 units per acre. So,
this isn't a high density development, but it is higher. What we did is try and design the
project to minimize the impact on the existing neighbors and I think we have done a
good job of that. With that I will turn over the remainder of the rebuttal to Dave.
De Weerd: I don't think you have much time left, Dave. Twenty-nine seconds.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Dave McKinnon. 735 South
Crosstimber. I'll slow down. It's been fun working on this project. We think it's a good
project. We've had a lot of time to work on this project. We've had seven or eight
months since this project got moved to you with a Comp Plan amendment. We think it's
the right place at the right time. Things have changed. Land prices have gone through
the roof. You can't afford to build on large houses for -- large lots forever. We feel that
the time is now for putting in the houses near the employment, near the transportation
corridors. Ask if there are any questions.
De Weerd: Any questions, Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 55 of 120
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Dave, let me, I guess, start by saying regardless of this project, nothing is more
pleasing to hear than the people give great compliments to you and to Scott, so I
commend you both, regardless of what happens to the outcome, people might agree to
disagree. I do want to say that. That's a pretty impressive list to take the time to try to
address concerns from a hundred people down to much less, so that's fantastic and I
appreciate both your efforts for doing that. One of the questions -- I didn't see in the
P&Z minutes, I think you had mentioned this as 24 foot wide and are there also 24 foot
driveways?
McKinnon: Yes.
Borton: Is that going to be a 60 foot swath of concrete?
McKinnon: That's, essentially, what it becomes.
Borton: The reason I ask is referring to other types of projects and discussions on 16
feet, maybe they can go up to 20 feet and I haven't heard 24 feet. Is there a particular
reason why it's wider?
McKinnon: There is a particular reason. Joe Silva is here and he might want to jump in
on this. It's a fire department issue. We have no streets that front onto these houses
and you can't get a fire engine on an alley typically and Joe wants to make sure that we
have got a 20 foot apron behind the garage, so that vehicles are parked completely out
of that area and you can still have two lanes of traffic. So, if Joe needs to bring a fire
truck in, he can park it, he can pull out the extenders -- Joe and I have talked about this
a bunch of times. We have worked on some PIG processes, it's all the UDC stuff we
went through. He's got extenders on the sides of those trucks, he wants those to be
able to fit on asphalt, instead of being in somebody's yard.
De Weerd: We have heard the story.
McKinnon: I'll stop.
Borton: On behalf of Councilman Bird we appreciate it.
Rountree: Yeah. In his absence.
Borton: I was just -- I was curious 24 versus 20. The other question I had is -- I couldn't
read this language, is it six foot cedar all the way to attaching to the Woodbridge fence
on the southern border?
McKinnon: That's correct. Actually -- do you have the landscape plan, Scott? These
are actually fronts of houses; right? This is all, actually, front yards of these people's
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 56 of 120
houses. Don't envision a six foot fence along this. This is, actually, the right of way
right here as you're fronting on the right of way.
Borton: Okay.
McKinnon: So, there is, actually, front yards right there. These are alley-loaded
product.
Borton: Okay.
McKinnon: That's the unnamed cul-de-sac that's not built.
Borton: Okay.
Rountree: And address the fence.
McKinnon: Address the fence. I went over and took a look at the fence, jumped up on
the back of -- that Gene's fence and those pictures that you saw are exactly the same
ones I said I wish I had a digital camera to see. It's a fence, the six foot cedar fence, it's
a few years old, we all know how cedar fences age and that's just what cedar fences do.
It's not the greatest fence in the world, but it's not the worst fence in the world, and it
may be off by a foot one way or the other. Gene's pictures showed that pretty well. Got
up on top and looked. We couldn't see anything from when I was over there and Gene
went out and took a look at that. I've had a little bit of experience with property line
fences and property line fences very seldom do you actually find those exactly on
property lines and you got a four inch post you put in, you got to put in the fence on one
side of the four inch post or on both sides and so there is always going to be a little bit
of variance on that. We do plan on taking down the post and rail and the post and wire
fence. That's -- we don't intend on keeping that, as Gene suggested possibly.
Particularly a party fence is separating, but it's not always property line, just because a
fence isn't on the property line doesn't mean that that property is abandoned by
somebody, that in the future when a new fence is built it could be built on the property
line. My first home I ended up having to replace 120 feet and realized I had 18 more
inches of land once the fence got rebuilt. So, it can happen.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: So, if I can try to decipher what David just said is that you're not proposing a
fence?
McKinnon: Replacing a four year old fence -- or, actually, I don't even think it's four
years old yet. It may be three years old. It doesn't seem to make logical sense to me,
but if that's something you'd like to see is for that fence to be replaced, it will be
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 57 of 120
replaced and it can be a six foot cedar fence. The Woodbridge homeowners
association, which I'm a part of, won't allow anything but a cedar fence back there.
De Weerd: We have seen wars over fences and fence property lines, so it is important.
Because I usually get the phone calls. So, I'm sure this Council will address that.
McKinnon: That's fine.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions, Council?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: If I could comment on Councilmember Borton's question, the big difference is
that an alley provides secondary access and none of these lots here have primary
access and that's why the alley is a private street and why it's wider.
Borton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if I might impose on Gary, since he's here tonight, we'd like
to have him not just sit in the audience. I have a question, because it seems a lot of
issues relate to traffic and, unfortunately, we have public streets that are open to public
traffic and one of those streets happens to be in question here. Is there anything or has
anybody approached ACHD with some type of feature that can restrict traffic flow in
certain areas to make it less desirable to utilize the neighborhood streets as an
alternative collector? I believe the street in question probably was designed as a
collector or at least a portion of it. Has that been contemplated, talked about? Not that
you're aware of?
Inselman: Councilman Rountree, Gary Inselman representing ACHD, 3775 North
Adams, Garden City. Our traffic department has studied the area during the -- I believe
the .construction of Woodbridge and for awhile after that we had some portable speed
bumps out in Magic View. It was intentionally built with Woodbridge to not have a
continuous collector between Locust Grove and Eagle. I believe that -- if I recall
correctly, at the request of the developer of Woodbridge of concerns over these issues
and findings that our commission made on the action on this preliminary plat was that
the traffic from the proposed development would be compatible intra-neighborhood
traffic, just as the Woodbridge cars traveling down Magic View in front of this
development would be neighborhood traffic. If there is a problem in the future, we
would be happy to study it more, but there is no proposals right now to try to incorporate
any design features to --
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 58 of 120
Rountree: What kind of volumes would you anticipate on this system and are those
volumes consistent with the design criteria that are there?
Inselman: To my knowledge the volumes were consistent with our standards. I don't
have the number off the top of my head.
Rountree: Okay. Possibly David has those. Thank you.
De Weerd: Gary, while we have you up here, I guess I'm curious is there a long-term
plan for a backage or frontage to 1-84 through that older subdivision that would
anticipate at some point would redevelop? Would there be an opportunity or any
conceptual ideas on how you could set up a better route to -- to collect the traffic to
Locust Grove?
Inselman: Madam Mayor, we have not studied a potential frontage road along the
freeway through that existing sub to the west. No, we have not.
De Weerd: You would be considering stubs, though, if something were to develop to
the south of this piece of property, would you not?
Inselman: Yes. With each development application we would consider stub streets for
future connectivity.
De Weerd: Or encourage stubs I should say.
Inselman: Yes.
De Weerd: So, that would create possibilities. I mean there is a possibility at some
point for a connection to Locust Grove that would be more appropriate than through a
neighborhood?
Inselman: Well, again, Madam Mayor, it depends on the--
De Weerd: It's speculative.
Inselman: -- mix of traffic. We try to separate commercial from residential traffic. In this
case we are talking about two different residential developments. As you know, it's a
very difficult issue, stub streets and connectivity. There was. actually, an opportunity to
connect out of Woodbridge to the north and that was posed by the existing development
to the north. Another stub street to the north out of that same development that we
would hope to get a connection to in the future, the development of those lots to the
north gives people alternate access, so they are not all traveling down the same road.
But those are the battles we have to fight one by one on each individual application.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 59 of 120
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, there are no stub streets in this county development.
De Weerd: No, not today.
Canning: Yeah.
De Weerd: Thank you. Dave, did you have additional information?
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree specifically,
after our ACHD meeting, at the direction of the ACHD commissioners, we went outside
with John Lawson, one of the traffic people at ACHD and in the last two weeks we had
them put out -- hi, Councilman Bird. And we had them put out some traffic counting
devices and some traffic speed counting devices. They had them put on Bowstring,
which is this place right here right out in front of the Whitney's house and the -- I forget
the neighbor across the street -- to count the vehicle trips and you count the speed.
And the reason for the speed was to justify warrants for speed bumps within the
subdivision. They also placed traffic counters here, it's a series of two tubes so you can
count the number of vehicle trips and they left them out there for four weeks straight,
find out how fast people were going and how many people were going. Traffic numbers
came back consistent with our traffic study. In fact, those traffic numbers came back
consistent with the original traffic for Woodbridge. The thing that was surprising was
actually the speed. Eighty-five percent of the people are traveling 27 miles an hour or
slower within the subdivision. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour and so
people are actually traveling less than that. When I went to pick up the results from
John Lawson, he kind of clapped me on the shoulder and said I wouldn't count on any
speed bumps in the neat future. People aren't going through your subdivision fast
enough. But in addressing the other speed bumps that Gary said were in temporarily,
there is one on Magic View in this location. There is two temporary ones that have
been removed. Unfortunately for myself who doesn't like speed bumps, those
temporary speed bumps that were removed are going to be replaced in the future.
ACHD is going to be doing a lift on Magic View sometime later this summer and they
will be replacing those with two asphaltic speed bumps and so there will be speed
bumps that will remain on Magic View. The only other thing that ACHD has .- I guess
that Gary didn't touch on, is that this access strip we have for Magic View Drive, with all
the construction on Eagle, you can no -- well, you never were supposed to make this
left-hand turn out, some people did, but you can no longer make a westbound turn off of
Eagle Road when you're headed southbound. And so that's eliminated some cut-
through traffic. In order to cut through Woodbridge you now have to go down to the
stop light, wait for a light, come around two speed bumps, stop sign, speed bump, stop
sign, and, then, back to the subdivision. So, ITD has eliminated some of the cross --
cut-through by eliminating the access off lTD.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions, Council? I will note for the record that
Councilman Bird has joined us. Welcome.
Bird: Thank you.
Meridi:;.n City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 60 of 120
De Weerd: Council, any further questions for staff or the applicant?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: It looks like one of the spokespersons would like a word. Council, would
you like to consider further testimony?
Rountree: If it's new. If it's --
De Weerd: I guess I would have a question for Mr. Flecker anyway. Please come
forward. You need to wait until you're -- if you will restate your name and address.
Flecker: Jim Flecker. 538 South Thornwood Way. Got to do that every time. I realize
that. I'm following Dave. You asked the gentleman -- Gary or -- if anybody had
addressed that. Oh, yeah. Gary Little and one of your other engineers met with them in
that regard and that's -- the reason I want to mention that is because I think the hang up
here is ACHD -- or Ada County, because going north up into the other subdivision, there
was money paid I'm told by Jim Conger to open that one off of Bowstring and the people
didn't like it, so it's just plugged. And we have got another opportunity come along
there, but I'm told that Ada County, as long as people complain, they are not going to do
it. So, no, but this has been addressed. And I'm basically told, yeah, fat chance, go for
it if you want, but fat chance. Same with the access roads. I'm told that anyway to get
an access road down along through there is somebody is going to have to buy all the
homes along the interstate. ITD tells me that there is not enough room to do an access
down along the freeway or give up any kind of land because of their widening
considerations. But the answer to the question was, oh, yeah, we talked about that, but
I suppose it didn't get up to you.
De Weerd: Mr. Flecker, I do have a question for you.
Flecker: Sure.
De Weerd: As Councilman Rountree had asked Mr. Fox, he's in support of residential
at a lower density. You are in support of office. So, can you tell me who you represent?
Mr. Fox had shown on his slide the houses that he had talked to in those --
Flecker: Oh, okay, I think that's fair. I think -- the answer to that is both are true,
because here is what's happened. First of all, they wanted offices. Now, some people
came around and said, look, Conger did a good job. They are going to put a good
quality product there. Nobody's arguing that. People said, look, if the density comes
down, we would be in favor of these residents. But they are not in favor at the higher
density. Gene, did I represent that correctly? Okay. So, the answer is yes and yes. It
sounds a little different, but at lower density residence, we are a happy camper. At this
density, offices. And most of them fit that. so if I have answered your question.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 61 of 120
De Weerd: Yes and yes. Yes and maybe not.
Flecker: Well--
De Weerd: I do understand.
Flecker: Yeah. It's been an evolution, too. And they have worked with us. And, you
know, nobody is arguing about their product. I remind you of the domino effect. I think
that's a huge concern.
De Weerd: Thank you. And you are always allowed the last word before I close the
Public Hearing. Do you have any further comments? That is always scary to give you,
Dave. You don't have to take it. Okay.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, hearing no further testimony, I move we close the Public
Hearings on Items -- I have lost my agenda -- 15, 16, 17. and 18.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on Items 15 through 18.
All those in favor say aye. Let the record note that Councilman Bird abstained.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSTAIN.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion, Council?
Wardle: Procedurally, Madam Mayor, just to make sure that we are -- Mr. Nary,
considering Item 15 before we consider the --
De Weerd: Because my answers are always shorter than an attorney's, yes.
Wardle: Okay, Thank you. Madam Mayor.
Nary: I would concur.
Bird: I'd second that.
Wardle: With that, I will begin my -- my comments on the process from the Planning
and Zoning Commission and certainly echo the neighbors comments about working
together with a -- or the developer working together. This has been kind of a cluttered
process in the sense that we have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Planning
and Zoning Commission asked that we consider a full application with that and that's
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 62 of 120
what we have here this evening. So, having heard all of the comments, I think that just
to recap for myself, the neighborhood has been happy with the developer's product and
the promise to deliver on that product and I don't think I heard anyone disagree that that
would -- that would happen. And so I now consider the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, I guess, is the first that I have to do in my mind and when I asked
specifically whether there was a large vacancy within the area for office, I heard two
answers. I heard, one, there was a lot of bare ground and, then, I heard that someone
was building a 43,000 square foot facility that we had approved recently. So, I have to
consider whether -- whether this needs to be taken out of, essentially, the zoning it's in,
into a mixed use to allow housing and so for me the burden of proof is really removing
the office of the commercial designation from the inventory that the city has available.
And I'm having a difficult time getting to that point.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wardle.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: A good portion of what Councilman Wardle said -- or not a good portion, a
fair portion of what he said I guess I tend to disagree with. I'm not sure I heard great
amounts of support. There was certainly indication of appreciation of the applicant
trying to address concerns of the neighborhood. But, to me, the first issue we have is
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. And I go back to the first question I asked Anna,
is how does this relate to what it is we are in the process of trying to create in this area
as it relates to a medical complex, a medical district, and how do we speak of that in --
in turn and turn around and speak of changing the potential land use of this area. So,
I'm in the same spot Shaun is, except I think I'm a little more firm. I think that we
probably are right on at this point with the Comp Plan map for office in this area. I
would like to see the city pursue the medical district idea further and I believe we are
doing that. I have a sense that that probably will stimulate some additional office activity
in this area. The concern for the proposed use and the adjacent neighborhood as it
relates to traffic, my guess is is that whatever is proposed on this piece of property we
will hear the same comment on any and all future applications, because any growth in
that area, whether it's residential or office or commercial or whatever, is going to have
some people utilize public streets as public access and there is not much we can do
about that, other than try to discourage them through whatever apparatus or
infrastructure modifications that are made on current streets. I think David pointed out
the most recent modification to Eagle Road that eliminates the left-hand turning
movement into this area off of Eagle Road and the future concepts that ultimately we
hope some day will be on Eagle Road. So, at this point I'm not -- I'm not opposed to
what's being proposed in terms of a product, I'm opposed in terms of I think I would like
to see this area turn into the area I think it can be in terms of a support facility for the
medical district concept that we have been talking about for a number of months. So,
that's where I am with Item 15 and depending on where we go with it, 16, 17, and 18
might be moot.
Merirli::m City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 63 of 120
De Weerd: Thank you, Councilman.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I take a much less firm position on the amendment that's requested and what
might take place with this particular project and I, in light of Councilman Rountree's
comments and what could take place in this region and the medical district potential
there, I, actually, see this as being an asset -- this particular change being an asset to
the completion of that type of project. I agree that the traffic concerns that are
expressed would probably be concerns no matter -- or be brought forth no matter what
takes place on that particular property, but it is a unique opportunity to provide a
housing product, a residential product adjacent to or right next to some heavy
appointment centers and transportation opportunities, while there is -- I would be
hesitant to make changes to the Comprehensive Plan at the whim and change as
market factors which change quicker than we can control and probably than we wish. I
do see this change in this particular parcel as being one that can benefit the
development of the entire region, it's an amendment at least with regards to -- talking
about Item No. 15. It's an amendment that in the whole I can support and I do think it's
going to be a benefit to the region. And I don't make light of the change to the
Comprehensive Plan and how we try and forecast where the city is going to go over the
years and decades and -- but this is one that at least from what I have seen seems
warranted and probably will leave the city in a much better place.
De Weerd: Well, since Councilman Bird has not heard all the testimony and cannot
comment on this, I will say since both Councilman Bird and 1 were part of the
Comprehensive Plan change and all of -- I think I saw you every meeting that we had
and the design of this area was -- was more commercial. And even with the mixed use,
when we look at mixed use, we -- it is a mixture of uses, not by property parcel, it's to
see a more Comprehensive Plan of how all of that mixed use will interrelate to each
other. So, I don't think this is what the intent was even when discussion was on mixed
use. I can say this -- this project and the quality and the uniqueness of it would be
welcome anywhere, but if I remember Mr. Allison had said that we kind of did talk about
a transition. Woodbridge did exist when we were going through the Comprehensive
Plan and this isn't my idea of a transition and it's a quality project, I think that the
neighbors understand that, too, and sometimes you almost have that forewarning, be
careful what you hope for. We saw that in another part of Magic View and I think maybe
they wish that they had gotten what they had come to testify against. So, with that said,
I agree with what's been said. I believe there is a market and we are trying to get a
targeted effort to bring quality jobs and businesses into this area. One thing is
Woodbridge will have to deal with cross-through traffic, whether it's office or whether it's
residential, that traffic will be there. But I think we as a city also need to be committed
to looking at future potential opportunities with how that area also redevelops to make
sure we do have a functional loop not through a neighborhood, but as some of that area
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 64 of 120
redevelops. So, I know I won't be tying any votes today, but I did have to give my two
cents worth. Which has been inflated since Mr. McQuade was here to at least a dollar.
So, Council, what is your desire here?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a question for legal council. Mr. Nary, if we were to make a motion to
deny the Comp Plan amendment, would our findings be inconsistent with the Comp
Plan or -- does that make sense?
Nary: It does. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, state
code doesn't require finding specifically be made. The findings that -- or I guess the
analysis that has been previously used by this Council on these types of occasions is
exactly as you stated, was it appropriate in relation to all the Comprehensive Plan, is
there enough evidence that it is the appropriate time to amend the Comp Plan or not,
the proposed uses or expansion of uses are consistent with other surrounding area
uses that are proposed or already approved in that area, whether or not enough time
has elapsed to consider that, all of those things are pretty much within your purview to
decide on, your basic -- the basic finding -- or the basic decision point is whether or not
you wish to amend your plan at this time or leave it as it is. One Council member used
to state that what was previously planned was appropriate and there wasn't a necessary
to change it.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just for the purposes of continued discussion, it's along the lines of the benefits
that I have outlined before, that I see this particular project. With regards to
transportation and creating congestion on roadways and longer trips, another asset that
I see with this type of amendment and particularly this type of project is an opportunity
for those employees, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them, which will be
working within a quarter mile, if not a half mile from this particular project to have
housing near employment and relatively speaking affordable housing, compared to what
the market is bearing with other types of products. So, the people that will be employed
in the commercial areas in the medical district are going to be living somewhere and
coming from somewhere and if they reside miles and miles away, there is a greater
burden on our traffic and transportation systems than would be if this type of
amendment and product were included.
De Weerd: And, Councilman Borton, I appreciate those comments. I agree with them.
But, again, if it was a mixed use package that you could see how it would interconnect.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 65 of 120
I guess I put myself into the property owner on the other side of the fence, when I
bought that house this was not residential and it was not marked high density. When I
bought that house this piece on the Comprehensive Plan, if they went in and looked h
and, believe me, when I bought my house I didn't know there was a -- such a thing as a
Comprehensive Plan, but this was not designated for a high density and I guess that
would be more my concern. And see how it works within the bigger picture, like a mixed
use development would -- would be considered.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
. De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I can just also respond to Mr. Borton's comments. One of the things as we
look at this medical districting and we look at viability of eventually creating a cluster of
businesses, one of the things that can constrict and certainly ward off any efforts that
we may have would be a lack of opportunity within real estate to make those things
happen. A lack of opportunity for offices. And so while I'm certainly sensitive to
affordable housing and to housing the people that will be working in those industries, I
think we have got an opportunity here that was thought of before within our
Comprehensive Plan that should stay. And just also for the record, whatever develops
here will general traffic and, certainly, I would be one of those that's going to experience
that. There are some things that, hopefully, we can look at, other than speed bumps,
Mr. Inselman, but it will -- it will have an impact regardless.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, if there is no further discussion, do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Try to quote additional Council members. I move that we deny Item 15, CPA
05-002, finding that the property zoning in the current Comprehensive Plan is sufficient
and meets the city's needs.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion on Item 15 to deny. Is there any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, abstain; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary, for Council would you give an overview on these next
three items, what action needs to be taken, if any_
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 66 of 120
Nary: Madam Mayor, since you have already heard the Public Hearing you can take
action on all three items. They would -- based on the prior actions if they would be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Council can deny them. You can do
them separately or together. You will be getting findings back from Planning and
Zoning anyway, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we deny Item 16, AZ 06-017; Item 17, PP 06-017, and Item 18,
CUP 06-012, finding that because of the denial of Item No. 15 these items are
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion on Items 16, 17, and 18 to deny. Is there any
discussion? Mr. Berg, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, abstain; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN.
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from April 18, 2006: AZ 05-058 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keeao
Sprinas Subdivision by Todd Campbell- 5910 North Black Cat Road:
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from April 18, 2006: PP 05-060 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keeao Sprinas Subdivision by Todd
Campbell- 5910 North Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. We did continue Items 11 and 12 until Mr. Bird joined
us. I will go ahead and open those two.
Rountree: Is Mr. Campbell still here or did he give up?
De Weerd: Okay. Yeah. He's sitting in the back. Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I have got to recuse myself again.
De Weerd: Okay. We will pause for just a moment. Okay. I will go ahead and open
Items 11 and 12, continued public hearings from April 18th on AZ 05-058 and PP 05-
060 with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 67 of 120
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Keego Springs project. It was
continued from April 18th for revisions to the plat and to allow some additional time for
the applicant to work with the school district on an unresolved issue. The project is
located east of Black Cat and south of Chinden, as shown here. This is not the current
layout. I think I have tried to explain before we have a hard time getting an updated one
of those. But the current layout is shown here and the original proposal was for 201
single family residences. We are now down to 178 residences with the school lot. Here
is the school lot here. There were a number of issues that the Council had asked the
applicant to address. Those included the elementary school site at the south end of the
property. The lot sizes and fencing along the northern property boundary. The
elevations of the alley-loaded homes in the center of the property. And, then, to also
work with ACHD on the stub street to the south. And the Councilmember Rountree had
questioned the stub street at the north end. The applicant has been working with the
school district. I think Mr. Bigham's quote was that agreements are flying back and forth
between attorneys and that he is confident that it will get signed. It is not signed yet, but
he is -- was very positive about that occurring in the future. So, I think that the applicant
has addressed that concern. The lot sizes on the northern boundary have all been
changed to meet the R-4 minimum standards, so they are all 8,000 square foot lots
along that boundary. He did remove two lots to achieve that. The applicant also
proposed meeting with the owners of Rambo Subdivision to discuss types of fencing on
the northern property boundary. We don't know if that meeting has occurred or what the
results are. Perhaps the applicant can update us on that. We do have elevations for
the alley-loaded homes. I will get to those in just a second. The applicant has provided
a stub street to the south, so it does border the school district property here. And they
did talk to ACHD about the one to the north and ACHD preferred them to keep it that
way. Actually, Conger Group is working on a design that uses that northern approach.
I did -- there is one condition, 1.2.13, and the dates on that have -- need to be updated.
I put the revised language or suggested revised language in my notes. The first one is
changed, the preliminary plat date from January 24th to June 6th. We did get a revised
one in today. And, then, the second one is to change the -- the date as to finalized
negotiations with the school district from June 1 st of 2006 to December 1 st, 2006. And,
again, we anticipate it will be done much sooner than that. I also proposed some
strikeouts to say that just the applicant may replat the property identified as the school
site if negotiations fall through. It was a will before and I think that we can leave that to
the applicant's discretion as to what he wants to do with that. Maybe he wants to sell it
as a park. I don't know. But I just thought it would -- was better to leave some
discretion there. I did have the applicant look at that during the -- while he was up here
and he didn't have any concerns with that. So, with that J will end staff's update on this
project.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna.
Canning: Oh. Sorry. Elevations. Sorry. They are kind of small, but the applicant has
provided kind of a montage of all the different elevations. That's all I have.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 68 of 120
De Weerd: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? And we appreciate
your patience.
Campbell: I'm Todd Campbell. Reside at 2320 West Preston in Eagle, Idaho. I will get
to the elevations. I do have better renderings. I did deliver to staff earlier in May copies
of this to deliver to all the members of the Council. I'm wondering if you have those in
your packets that you can see a closer bigger version of those.
Bird: Of the plat or the --
Campbell: What's that?
Bird: Of the plat or the elevations?
Campbell: Of these specific photos.
De Weerd: Yes, we did get those.
Bird: Yeah, we did get them.
Campbell: Okay. We appreciate the opportunity to be able to come back in and talk
again about the Keego Springs project. We have had very fruitful timely discussions
with Wendell Bigham and the school district. Those issues are all but resolved. Again,
like Wendell said, the contracts are floating between attorneys and e-mails and if it -- if I
had much to say about it --
De Weerd: Say no more.
Campbell: Okay. If I had much to say about it, they would be inked and done and we
would be on our way and the school district would own the property. But, yeah, we
have agreed on most of those details. We have -- could you, Anna, pull back up the
landscape plan? Thank you. At the last City Council meeting you guys wanted us to go
back and address some issues on the plat, specifically along the northern boundary, the
motion was made to increase the size of those lots to a minimum of an R-4 lot size.
That has been done. We did end up losing a net of two lots. All of those lots have been
increased to a minimum of 8,000. I think there is five lots to the far east on that northern
border that are right at 8,000 feet and the rest are in -- the rest of those are all in excess
of 8,000 feet. We did redraw the landscape plan to show the park site, the pool, the
barbecue area all in one area. That was not reflected on -- in the last presentation.
Also, we showed a micro-path that we are currently proposing to the school site through
the subdivision where the red dot is. That will be a connection, pedestrian access, to
the school site, which we feel will benefit both our project and the Volt -- the Bainbridge
to the east -- excuse me. We also put in the stub street going south connecting into the
Volterra -- Volterra site along the western property line of the school site, which will lead
to the signalized entrance at the Volterra half mile mark along Black Cat Road. There
was some discussion on wanting some clarification on the alley width, a note on the
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 69 of 120
current plat that we have I think that has been submitted to you shows that we will do a
16 foot black top asphalt with two foot concrete ribbons one each side, for a total of 20
feet and, then, we would do our standard setback of 20 feet off the back of that concrete
apron for a 20 foot driveway, 15 off the front, for standard setbacks in the R-8 zoning_
Onto the elevations, Jim could you pull up the -- I do have a picture -- these are photos
that have been taken around the Meridian area on homes that I have constructed
myself in the Soda Springs, also Baldwin Park and various projects around town, some
from Hidden Springs where I have also built homes. These are artists renderings of
those homes that have been built and captured inside these actual photos. So, these
are similar homes to what we wilt be building in that alley-loaded area, because I am a
builder, as well as a developer, I will be constructing most of those alley-loaded product
myself. It's something I like to build and enjoy doing. The alley-loaded product has
been very successful in the Meridian area. It's something that's desired and I think
incorporating that into the overall Keego Springs project gives a good diversity in the
housing of the different -- the products that we are trying to incorporate within the
project with the larger lots along the northern boundary now and now the alley loaded
product also. And, then, incorporated with the school site, I think it's a desirable project,
with a pool. A little bit more of an intimate project for Meridian. I know that we have
seen some large large projects come in and we are trying to propose the same
amenities in a little bit smaller dynamic and we appreciate your consideration and hope
for your approval. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Campbell: Any questions?
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: No. I think he's answered all the questions I have.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I do have a couple of people who have signed up. J.J.
Howard. For. Okay. Rich Allison. For. Okay. Don Brown. Neutral.
Brown: He's a little taller than I am.
De Weerd: Just a little.
Brown: Just a little.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address.
Brown: Don Brown and it's 4595 West Ramblin Court. I'm lot number four on the plat
map. Where ever it went. Right there. And our desire and concern in our initial
meeting with Mr. Howard was two fold and we met with him back in October originally
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 70 of 120
on this project. We wanted to have the larger lots placed on the northern border and we
wanted to have a sturdy barrier between our two subdivisions, because we do have
larger animals, horses involved. We presented those desires all the way through the
process, the Planning and Zoning, et cetera. We met with Mr. Campbell for the first
time on 30th of May. He came to my house and we were presented the new plat. We
at that time expressed our desire again to have even larger lots placed along the north
border and at that time we also discussed fencing materials in which we were going to
look into different choices that could possibly come from that, based upon costs and,
obviously, some other issues. We could not agree on the property size issue. We feel
that a precedent has been set based upon some discussions by Councilmen Bird and
Rountree at the last meeting on April 18th when they mentioned that they would like to
see lots up to 17,000 square feet and that you guys had done that in the past trying to
meld two different subdivisions, one with larger lots and one with smaller lots. And,
obviously, you have got a pretty dense situation going on there between our two
situations. I know it's -- you have been through a lot of the same issues here tonight
that we are dealing with and that's density, boundaries, fencing, but we feel that there is
larger lots within the subdivision and what we did originally ask back in November was
that they reconstruct this project and put those larger lots up to the northern border,
because there are some lots that are 12, 14 thousand square feet, and we just feel that
that would be more appropriate along our property lines to maintain the flow between
the two subdivisions. And so what we are asking you to do is to request our desire to
have even larger lots put on the northern border, based upon the history of some of
your last motions and up to, as Councilman Rountree mentioned, 17,000 square feet.
And that's alii have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do you have any idea what your footage is on your back -- on your south end of
your lot, what the footage is?
Brown: I couldn't give you a guess. It's -- I'm not sure.
Bird: Three hundred feet?
Brown: I don't know if it's that --
Bird: That's your depth.
Brown: Yeah. It's significant. I'm trying to think how much fence I got along there.
Bird: Have you got five acres --
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 71 of 120
Brown: We have got, actually, an acre and a quarter, so --
Bird: An acre and a quarter.
Brown: -- it's probably -- all the lots within the subdivision are I think an acre and a
quarter or maybe a little bit larger.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I also have Mo Brooks who signed up neutral. Okay. Those are the
names that have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony
on this application? It's nice to be able to put a face with the names. I have heard the
name Mo Brooks, so -- yeah, you're famous. You have a field named after you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, he might just give signals from the sidelines.
De Weerd: We saw him doing that earlier. Okay. If there is no public testimony, would
-- Todd, would you like to close?
Campbell: Todd Campbell, 2320 West Preston, Eagle, Idaho. We did have a -- or I did
have a chance to meet with the residents of the subdivision to the north and we did
come to a relative agreement on the lot sizes. The gentleman who just spoke to you
lives right here and currently has about three lots that back to his property, where the
rest of them have about one and a half to two lots backing to their property and we
mentioned possibly moving this lot line right here -- you can see that very well, but
shifting it over to the east just a hair, so that we could shift most of those other lot lines
to the east a little bit. It would minimize and make some of those lots less than 8,000
square feet, but it would minimize the impact of lots backing to his property and he was
in agreement with that at that meeting at his house. There was a couple of other people
that, obviously, weren't benefiting from that, so they didn't support that and so there was
some dissent, I guess, among those neighbors in coming to agreement, but we did try
and meet the Council's motion on -- that they made -- that you guys made at the last
meeting to try and bump that up to the minimum of R-4. We did do that and we are
willing to adjust those lots if we need to to the east, you know, on the northern portion to
the east, with the fact being known that some of those lots farther east that don't impact
their subdivision may go down lower than the 8,000 minimum. We did talk about
various fencing types and, you know, we recognize their concerns with the livestock that
they have. They proposed a concrete fence. We proposed a vinyl fence. We kind of
met in middle ground on a different vinyl product. There was about 150 percent times --
150 percent more than the vinyl product that we were proposing, which we aren't
opposed to doing, but the benefit doesn't -- the costs -- I went out -- they were claiming
that the fence was much more sturdy than the vinyl product that we wanted to use, but
it's exactly the same sturdiness, it's just a different pattern on the fence, it's more of a
stone look. I do have photos of it, if you want to see it. It's a stone look, rather than a
tongue and groove look. But we -- you know, we are willing to do that, if that's
something that they want us to do. But, like I said, the benefit -- it's still a vinyl product.
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 72 of 120
I think a horse could still knock it down if he got a good running start on it or decided to
take a nap on it. If you don't have any questions, that's alii have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Regarding the fence set, is a chain link completely out? I know it's not the best
looking one there, but I don't think horses are going to bend it over.
Campbell: No, I don't think horses will bend it over. It wouldn't be -- no, it's not out on
our end. I don't know that they want to look at it, anymore than the residents of the
homes that we build would want to look at it. I think the residents might end up putting a
vinyl in there anyway and who knows if they will tear out the chain link. I don't know.
We will build the fence on our property to try and circumvent any calls to the Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Campbell: You bet. One other thing -- one other issue that I do want to bring up that I
forgot to on the original -- can I do that?
De Weerd: Yes.
Campbell: The school district did send a letter to you guys -- on the original motion I
believe last time it's a -- we are required to have an open site fence around the school
site and the school district -- Wendell, I did have discussions with him and he did say
that in very -- in many applications they have allowed a vinyl -- six foot Vinyl fence to be
used and that's something that we would like to use around that school site also. He did
reserve the right to put a chain link fence up on his side of the vinyl, but he said -- like
over in Tuscany around the school site in the Tuscany Subdivision and various
subdivisions throughout the city, they are allowing a vinyl product that we would like to
do on this site if possible. Just something to bring to discussion also.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council, on that?
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed? If not, I
would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 11 and 12.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 73 of 120
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on 11 and 12. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, on the discussion as it relates to the lot size, I think that a
similar discussion was held in the earlier phases of the Public Hearing. The Council's
wishes and motion included that they meet at a minimum an R-4 standard on the
northern lots, which they did. And, in fact, exceeded that on a number of occasions.
So, I think that issue has been resolved as far as I'm concerned. As far as the fence,
we have a fence requirement for subdivisions. I would expect the findings to include the
appropriate fence standards. This particular development and some that we have
wrestled with fences for in the past have caused me to reflect on at what point does the
neighbor have the responsibility to contain their own animals and at what point does the
new development have the responsibility to protect their new residents. And it seems to
me that we have been forgetting that in our concepts here, that adjacent property
owners have the responsibility to contain their property on their property and if they
don't have a fence there now that will contain their wildlife and/or livestock -- and I say
wildlife, because we might have an elk herd or a deer herd or a buffalo herd show up at
some point. Anyway, to me that's the responsibility of those folks and they have that
responsibility. It is a responsibility by our ordinance that neighborhoods provide a
neighborhood fence and we have standards for those and I think on occasion it might
be necessary that the two together and do something a little different, but I would say in
this case the vinyl fence that's being proposed by the applicant should suffice to meet
our requirements as it relates to a subdivision. So, unless there is other discussions, I
would make a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, was that as he discussed with the neighbor?
Rountree: As Mr. Campbell discussed with the neighbor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would -- and he can make his motion. I would agree with him, Mr. Campbell
went back and all we had asked was for at least a minimum of a quarter -- of R-4 lot
sizes. I, too, being raised on a farm, was responsible for holding our own animals in. I'll
guarantee you if they got out the sheriff didn't call the neighbor. So, I think the fence -- I
think it can be worked out. I think Mr. Campbell can work with the neighbors on that
point and I agree with Mr. Rountree that he did go back on the lot sizes and did make
them all R-4s, which we had asked, and we appreciate that. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 74 of 120
Rountree: If there is no further discussion, Madam Mayor, , would move that we
approve -. I keep losing my agenda here -- annexation Item 11 for Keego Springs
Subdivision, subject to testimony received this evening and comments previously made
by myself.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have a motion to approve Item 11. Any discussion? Mr.
Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 12.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the preliminary plat for Item 12, PP 05-060, Keego
Springs Subdivision.
Wardle: Second_
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 12 and a second. Just for
discussion, I did appreciate the applicant's last comments saying if there was a desire
for Council to have more parody on those that abutted the neighbors to the north he'd
like to make it up in the ones that do not have existing development to the north of
them. I don't know if you're -. if you consider that or --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This one Council won't, because I hope when they develop that they stay with an
R-4 and, then, back right up to them. At least we can make the new one, if I'm still on
the Council, we can make the new one, the south property, match up with these,
instead of having -.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if the developer is willing to do that and at the final plat stage
makes it work, then, I'm willing to consider it at the final plat. I'm not going to make it a
condition in my motion.
Meridian Cily Council
June 6, 2006
Page 75 of 120
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? And I would imagine that you wanted the
fencing material included?
Rountree: Yes. Per the city's ordinance.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Both on the property lines, as well as the adjacent school site. Assuming the
school bill goes through.
Canning: So, just to clarify, the rock -- the rock-looking fence on the north boundary
and just a solid vinyl fence around the school? Is that --
Rountree: The vinyl that was proposed by Mr. Campbell.
Canning: Just the standard vinyl.
Rountree: Yes.
Canning: Okay. And that would be on the school site as well?
Rountree: Yes.
Canning: And did the maker of the motion intend to include the modifications to
condition 1.2.13?
Rountree: As you noted in your comments, yes.
Canning: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: VAC 06-007 Request for a Vacation of a ~ortion of the
ACHD drainage pond to exchange right-of-way for SW 5t Avenue for
Waltman Court Subdivision (Track Utility) by Buffalo Hump, LLC - NW
corner of SW 5th Avenue and W. Corporate Drive:
De Ween:!: Okay. Item 19 is VAC 06-007. I will open up Item 19 with staff comments.
Meridiall City Coullcil
June 6, 2006
Page 76 of 120
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Waltman Court
Subdivision vacation. This is the one where if you had an abbreviated hearing agenda it
would have been on there. It's for the property located --
De Weerd: I don't know, Anna, I think just because of the name, I would put it at the
end.
Canning: Oh, the buffalo name? This is property -- it's a little difficult to see. It's a little
strip of land adjacent to the roadway here and it's kind of irregularly shaped. That is,
actually, ACHD right of way for the purposes of a drainage pond. There is a portion of
that pond that is not needed and the applicant is proposing to vacate the unused portion
and, then, they will do kind of a land swap with the West 5th Avenue extension that is
being proposed in that area. So, the total site of area proposed for vacation is 11,329
square feet and the applicant proposes to develop that as overflow parking for their
facility, which was located on the south side of the street. And I don't have any
elevations. Staff is recommending approval. To our knowledge there are no
outstanding issues before City Council. Just a note. If Council decides to approve this
vacation, they should direct staff to send a letter to ACHD. There are no findings
required. With that I will answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Erickson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ross Erickson, 1854 East Lanark
here in Meridian. Just real briefly, Anna did a good job in I guess summarizing a very
concise staff report. There was just one comment that the irrigation district had in the
comments section when the notices were sent out to the agencies and that was
regarding a pressure irrigation pipe that they thought might be on this property and I
actually did the design for that pressure irrigation pipe and it's on the property next door
just to the north, so I guess there is not really an issue there with that. Yeah, the
purpose for our request is just to get the city's consent for this vacation. If we do -- if we
are successful with approval tonight, like Anna said, you guys will draft a letter to ACHD
and, then, we will proceed with their commission with the vacation for the right of way
exchange and I guess with that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Erickson: Thanks.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 77 of 120
De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, seeing no further comments, I move that we close the Public
Hearing on --
De Weerd: Nineteen.
Rountree: -- Item 19.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd; Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Is there any discussion? If not, do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 19, VAC 06-007, and direct the staff to send a letter to
ACHD.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 19. If there is no discussion, I will
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15
(79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree
.E!!:!:n by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides
of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is a Public Hearing on AZ 06-004. I will open this -- oh,
Councilman Borton has a conflict.
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 78 of 120
Borton: I do have a conflict. I do need to recuse myself from this one as well.
De Weerd: Okay. I will open this with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Tree Farm project. It is
located north of Chinden, south of the Phyllis Canal. So, north of Chinden, south of the
Phyllis Canal and generally from -- from the edge of the Spur Wing development going
west to the other side of Black Cat. I think you can see it there. There are a couple
outparcels, one here and one in the interior of the project, which I will discuss briefly.
The application before you is just an annexation and zoning. The property was included
within our Comprehensive Plan on March 7th, 2006, and the proposed annexation
request and the accompanying concept plan are consistent with those Comprehensive
Plan designations. The proposed development is the annexation and zoning of 358.57
acres to a mix of different uses -- or zoning designations. And they are -- this is the
concept plan, so the zones are generally consistent with this. They include 66 acres of
low density residential, 167 acres of medium density residential. That would be R-8
zoning. And, then, 79.82 acres of R-15 zoning, about 17 acres of neighborhood
business or C-N zoning. And 28 and a half acres of community business or C-C zoning.
And I'll let the applicant go into more depth, but, in general, the low density zoning is
along the rim properties and, then, the medium density is toward the interior with the
higher densities being integrated toward the commercial uses, which are along the
Chinden frontage. Just a couple of notes. There is an existing wholesale nursery on
the property, as well as some single family homes. The single family homes aren't a
concern, they will be permitted uses, they will be removing their access to Chinden, but
they will be appropriate uses for the area. However, nurseries or urban farms, as they
are noted, do require Conditional Use Permit approval in the C-N zone, which is where
this one is proposed. So, because it exists staff has recommended that the tree farm be
allowed to continue. However, prior to city engineer's signature on the first final plat on
that property the nursery should be required to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance
permit and bring the site into compliance with all UDC standards. So, we are just
recommending that they come in for a CZC, basically, instead of a Conditional Use
Permit. There is a lengthy development agreement proposed. I was going to try and hit
on some of the highlights of that and the applicant has some modifications that they will
also want to discuss with you. But the out-of-ordinary provisions of the development
include that -- sewer service to the property shall be via gravity means to the North
Black Cat trunk. The City of Meridian does not guarantee sewer service in the time
lines outlined in the UDC, meaning the time for preliminary plat to final plat approval.
No interim or temporary lift stations shall be allowed. Prior to issuance of any building
permit the subject property shall be subdivided. That when a final plat records on this
property, no direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard will be allowed on the site and that
when the property develops, the Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard will be
abandoned and I will get into more discussion about Basco Lane. It is a private lane.
That access to the site from Chinden Boulevard will be restricted to the section line road
and the half mile between section lines only and, then, that two future access points to
this site from Chinden Boulevard be constructed as public streets that align with the
Meridian Cily Cuuf1lOiI
June 6. 2006
Page 79 of 120
existing or approved public streets on the south side of Chinden Boulevard and that the
public streets be constructed in accord with the circulation map approved for the north
Meridian area plan. Also, that at times -- at such time as plats and uses are proposed,
access to Black Cat Road extended shall be subject to approval by the city and the
transportation authorities. The staff report -- or the development agreement also notes
several appropriate public street access stubs and notes the properties that they should
go to. Basically, they are to the north, east, south, and west, with the particular note,
though, that the most appropriate place for the stubs to the north are Black Cat Road
and Basco Lane in its current location and that there should be two stubs going north. If
for some reason the Basco Lane doesn't work out as a -- as a crossing over that Phyllis
Canal, that there be another location provided. But that one was sufficient for the
Aldape property, which is on the north side of the Phyllis Canal. Staff left open the
option to require additional stub streets to -- to all directions, except north, basically. I'm
missing my second sheet. Oh, here I go. Hold on. And the development agreement
does call out the existing nursery, as I noted before. And, finally, that the Tree Haven or
MDC and all related entities shall quitclaim any right, title, or interest they have in parcel
four of Exhibit E and I think we will -- by the time this night is over be far more familiar
with parcel four in Exhibit E than we want to be. But it has to do with some odd parcels
along Basco Lane. I do not have elevations for you. Again, this is conceptual approval
as a concept plan as you see here. The Commission has recommended denial at their
April 6, 2006, Public Hearing. That denial was based on the provisions for future public
street access to the property to the north. The conversation was almost entirely
focused on the northern eventual crossing of Basco Lane across the Phyllis Canal. And
because it had not been resolved at the hearing date, the Commission recommended
denial of the annexation. At that hearing Derrick O'Neal, Doug Carnahan, and Peter
O'Neal all spoke in favor of the application. Tuck Ewing, Sherry Ewing, Arthur Rabehl,
John Ewing, and Bill Gigray opposed it. No one commented. And the key issues of
discussion by the Commission were the ownership of parcels near the Phyllis Canal
adjacent to the TECO One properties and adjacent to the Rabehl outparcel. And that
outparcel is a little more evident -- I believe it's this property here. Originally it was part
of the application, then, it was withdrawn from the application. I think as it stands now it
is stili withdrawn from the application. However, we did get a note from the Rabehl's
attorney, which is Mr. Gigray, that they have withdrawn their objections to this proposal
and put that on the record for Council's consideration. So, the remaining opposition
would were the properties of the Ewings with regard to the Aldape property and, then,
the TECO One properties. The key Commission changes to staff's initial
recommendation -- well, staff had recommended approval, so that was a major change
from the Commission recommending denial. The outstanding issues before City
Council is Basco Lane as a private lane that currently provides access to several
properties in the area and the outstanding issues is Basco Lane. Who owns it, what
restrictions are on it, what restrictions are on the access, and who should extend the
road to the Phyllis Canal are, basically, the three questions that were raised at the
Planning and Zoning commission. So, with regard to that, I will try and hit on those
briefly, although the applicants will want to provide you more information I know. There
is a number of small properties -- you can see them identified here. They are all along
Basco Lane near the Phyllis Canal and they have -- the term was used cloudy titles,
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 80 of 120
which is to say that it's been very difficult to determine who actually owns some of these
properties, especially these cross-hatched -- or some of the cross-hatched ones. And
the applicant has done extensive research into the issue in the intervening time since
the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and staff believes that they now at least
know the history of those parcels. They have also committed to making those
properties available for development of a road down the gulch to cross the Phyllis
Canal. That's with regard to the ownership. With regard to the access, the applicant
has worked with the previous -- or the current property owners in the surrounding area
that have restrictions on the use of Basco Lane or the future use of Basco Lane and it
does appear that they have been able to remove those access restrictions for the future
development or a road, again, into the Aldape property down the gulch where Basco
Lane is currently located. So, they seem to have addressed -- the applicant seems to
have addressed the restrictions on the access as well. Really, the big remaining issue
seems to be who should actually construct the collector road between the south side of
the TECO properties and the Phyllis Canal. The applicant has done the research and is
willing to give over property for the development of that road. The Ewings have
consented, likewise, that they would give over property to construction of that road. So,
you have both of them making the same offer. That seems to be the last remaining
issue to discuss tonight. Finally, I would -- it is very late, but I would recommend that if
the applicant wants additional time -- I think this project is worthy of ten minutes of
discussion based on the project. The discussion of Basco Lane and the ownership of
this small area here is really a very small portion of this project and I'd hate to see the
applicant use all their time to try and discuss the Basco Lane issue. So, I would
recommend giving an additional five minutes just for the discussion of the Basco Lane
issue and allow the applicant the full time to discuss the larger concept plan, because it
is worthy of discussion. It's a large addition to the city, it's -- it's different in that we have
a very detailed concept plan, but we don't have a preliminary plat to discuss with it, and
so I think there is a lot of issues that warrant discussion, other than just the Basco Lane
one. Now, with that I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, would you go back to the concept map? And probably a question for
both you and the applicant, if that's the illustration they are going to use to talk about
concept this evening, the polygon representation of the concept here is much different
than the version that we were provided that stated February 23rd. So, if somebody can
help me understand what it is we are looking at, that would be helpful.
De Weerd: While Anna looks at that, we may need to ask the applicant -- Council, staff
has recommended an additional five minutes to dedicate to the discussion on Basco
Lane. What are your feelings on that?
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 81 of 120
Bird: Fine with me.
Rountree: That's fine with me, Madam Mayor, given the bulk of the discussion that was
held during the P&Z seemed to be focused on that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, this should be the -- I pulled this from the applicant's binder
that they have presented to Council. I apologize for the other one_ It's, apparently, a
little out of date.
Rountree: All right. Then we are consistent then.
Canning: I think they are --
De Weerd: That's the one we are looking at.
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: Okay. Very good.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further questions, is the applicant here? So, as you
heard, we will extend that to 15 minutes.
Carnahan: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Doug
Carnahan and I live at 4410 West Chinden Boulevard in Meridian. My partners and I
are here today to discuss this annexation application that we are making for about 358
acres on the bench north of Chinden. I think from past meetings that I have held with
you all, you're already aware that I, as the landowner, have worked diligently with
yourselves, City of Eagle, City of Star and the Ada County Commissioners on the
question of the appropriate jurisdiction in which to place my property and the property of
the adjoining landowners on the bench. My purpose has been in all those meetings to
insure that everybody understands our preference is to be in Meridian. The rationale is
that Meridian can do the best job of providing services to allow for the highest and best
use of this land. You're also very well aware that with all the outstanding area of impact
disputes in this vicinity, that it's not been an easy task. However, we are now at a point
where the other cities in the area are willing to accept our property being in the City of
Meridian, provided that we so choose and that you support it. This has taken incredible
effort and support from you all and many on the staff from the city and we appreciate
that effort and resolve. So, based on those -- these discussions, the City of Meridian
has recommended to us the procedural path of annexation now. And so based on that
recommendation, back in December 2005 we went ahead and submitted our request.
So, before I turn the discussion over to my partners, I'd like to give you a brief overview
of the progress we have made since I think we last talked in 2005. Our comments are
going to be brief. I'm not going to talk specifically about Basco, although that will be
covered. We want to make sure we have got adequate time to answer questions. So,
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 82 of 120
first, one of the things that we have done is we chosen to work with an experienced
development partner, O'Neal Enterprises. The O'Neals have been building highly
visible, award winning communities in Idaho for over 25 years. They are well known for
their dedicated attention to quality land planning and the long-term livability of the
communities that they build. Second, we have arranged to expand our original 220 acre
project to incorporate the 140 acres of the property of our good next door neighbors the
Eggers and we have also acquired some other small parcels as well. The resulting size
of this project, 360 acres, allows us to create a desirable, highly livable, multiple use
community on the north side of Chinden Boulevard. The project is called The Tree
Farm, in order to recognize the historical use of the property, as well as to set the tone
for this landscape rich community we envision. Third, we have invested a lot in
significant site analysis, land planning, and preliminary design with a nationally
recognized firm, Downing, Thorpe and James, out of Boulder, Colorado. We believe
our plan will bring to the City of Meridian a forward looking development of a very high
standard that includes the following elements: Extensive landscape and open space
well above that of the minimum requirement for the City of Meridian. A community in
every sense of the word, with mixed use residential and commercial integrated
appropriately for maximum livability. A diversity of housing types, styles, and price
points that range from large estate lots on the one hand to attached village housing on
the other end of the spectrum. A multi-million dollar community center with a range of
recreational facilities. And a broad spectrum of amenities, such as walking trails, bike
paths, water amenities and arboretums. As a resident of Treasure Valley for nearly 30
years, I feel this project would be a landmark project for the city. As such, while you're
deliberating the specific procedural issues that require resolution tonight, I urge you to
keep in mind the overall value of the project to Meridian. Now, I'd like to turn the
podium over to Derrick O'Neal, who is the president of O'Neal Enterprises, and the
project manager for the Tree Farm.
De Weerd: Thank you.
O'Neal: Thank you, Doug. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Derrick O'Neal,
2242 East Riverwalk Drive, Boise, Idaho. We have been working on this project for
about eight months, so to condense that into about six minutes is going to be real tough.
So, when you feel the urge, just tell me to stop, otherwise, I get excited and I will keep
going. So, I'm going to try to hit the highlights and, then, address the issues. I want to
apologize in advance for barraging you in the last week or two with information, but I did
that with the intent to try to help you understand the project. Community overview. Can
you go to the next slide, Anna? Regional context map. As you guys know, this is kind
of right in the heart of north Meridian, Star, and Eagle, and we are -- all those whites -- I
haven't had a chance to update in the last 60 days, all those white as plats or projects
that are in process and we are just to the north, so right here. So, things are happening
out there, as you guys are well aware. It's a key parcel for north Meridian. Not too often
do you guys have the chance or do we have the chance to put 358 or 360 acres
together and put a concept plan on it. It's more often 20 acres, 40 acres, 80 acres, and
I think putting a concept plan on 360 acres is a great opportunity. In addition, it's on the
rim and it overlooks the Boise River and the front and the mountains. There is about a
Meridian City Council
June 6. 2006
Page 83 of 120
70 foot on block the Phyllis Canal and the property that's below the rim. So, it's a real
unique -- it is flat cornfield, but it also has a rim and we are going to do some fun things
with it. There was -- there is an outparcel here. The Rabehl parcel. I'll talk about that in
a second. And, then, there is an outparcel here, which is the TECO One parcel and our
functional boundary is kind of where the white line goes. Next slide, please.
Development team quickly. Doug mentioned it, but we are working with a team that has
worked with us in many cases for over 20 years and what they do is focus on planned
unit developments and communities and mixing uses together. We feel we have a top
rate team that's very vested in the project from the very beginning. So, that's the team.
The community vision and plan -- I'm going to go through the next slide and
Commissioner -- or Councilmember Rountree was correct, this is February 23rd, which,
really, only changes a little bit over in this area. The rest of the circulation plan is still
the same and it made just a very few minor modifications. It added some water and
some trails and paths just to give a little bit more detail. We think is going to be a true
signature community for Meridian. Our company mission and value is what we do will
be around and enjoyed -- seen and enjoyed for a long time and we take that to heart.
We like our projects to look better over time. And I think if you go to any of our projects
they really do. The first thing we want to do is create an authentic sense of place.
Having a nursery on a piece of property to develop is wonderful. I mean we get to use
those trees, we get to incorporate it into the project, and we really are going to do some
fun things with that. We are going to be able to landscape in the form of nursery as if
the project was carved out of a nursery, which will be fun. We also are going to leave
the landmark barn and incorporate that heavily into the community, which we think will
be fun. And give a true sense of place with the community. The next is greater housing
diversity and Doug mentioned that, but I think that's really important, not only in product,
but in price point as well. We think there is a couple things missing in this north
Meridian area and we want to hit below and above. Right now there seems to be just a
slug of product that is on a certain size of home site and a certain price and we want to
hit below that and we want to hit above it. And so when we say diversity of product and
pricing, that's what we mean, a full spectrum of that. And that will start with some high
density housing close to Chinden and it's surrounded by a village center and
commercial area, so that there is good pedestrian walkability and, then, as we go back
and get towards the rim it will get a little bit denser. Everyday convenience and social
interaction, we really believe in mixing uses. A lot of people don't believe in that, but we
have had a lot of success doing that and so we are taking our commercial uses and not
just putting a big fence around them or paving around them, we are going to incorporate
them into the project with pathway, trails, community centers, open spaces, so people
are able to walk and use those commercial services within the project, but we also need
to design them so that people coming from outside of our project are able to get to
them, so the accesses here, Black Cat, and throughout the project or community.
Connection to nature. That's what we are all about. That's our thing. We like to create
open spaces and not only improve, but enhance open space and the natural area. And
we are doing that. There is a lot of open space in the project, much more than would be
required, and the open space really connects through links both east and west and
north and south, and, then, we will have pathways and trail systems throughout. And
also incorporate water. And when we talk about incorporating water, we are not going
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 84 of 120
to do that in the form of streams and creeks, we are going to use ponds and, then, we
are going to have delivery mechanisms that you would see in farms or in tree farms that
will be the delivery of water, which is a little bit different twist for us, but it will be more
natural to the farm and the area out there. Health and well-being is important and when
we survey our people who live in our communities, the number one thing they like is
connectivity and pathways, and so we create enormous number of pathways, both on
the main streets, but both within the areas as well. So, we will have a lot of pathways
and, then, we will have a centralized community facility that will have a significant pool
and very different components to it. so, we are excited about that. And, then, we also
believe in sustainable development and everyone has a different definition of that.
What we mean by that is really trying to take it to a higher level responsible use of
water, storm runoff, recycling, energy conservation, and we are going to incorporate
several of those things into the project. We are currently in discussions with the school
district and we definitely see they see a need for an elementary site. They have got a
lot of other priorities and this isn't high on their priority list, but they do want to identify a
site and we are working with them on that. We want to take that one step further and I
know it's hard for them to do, but we want to incorporate that into some park space and
open space that we have as well, so it's more than just a fenced off school site, but it's
incorporated into some open space. So, we are working with Wendell and those folks
and hope to see something there. Transportation. Transportation is a big big issue, as
you guys are aware, not only Chinden -- and that seems to be a moving target, but we
have been working hard with the Department of Transportation and, then, the internal
street system, this is what they define now as a backage road, which I'm not really sure
exactly what that is, but we believe that that's an important element to take some traffic
off of Chinden and it will connect and stub out into here. Then, we have major north-
south connection where, which is Black Cat intersection here and, then, the Basco Lane
Connection down into here. So, transportation is important. We always incorporate that
into our projects. We want to help solve that project, so we are vested in making every
effort we can to be in partnership with the Department of Transportation or the city to
help on those issues. Next slide. Anna, next slide. So, timing -- where we are is we
are heavy into the planning and titlements. Obviously, we would like to continue that
through this year. We hope to start some infrastructure development in 2007. We hope
to be open at least starting with some construction of houses in 2008. The sewer will
dictate that a little bit, but right now it seems to be on plan for late 2007, early 2008, and
we are going to monitor that and watch that and we are not going to get ahead of that,
we know that. Then, in terms of build out, it's a big project. We see it being a ten plus
or minus year build out. It could be even longer than that, depending on market. So,
that's a very very quick overview of the project and I would love to spend more time on
it, but I will move into a couple of the outstanding issues that were raised. The first
issue was the Rabehl outparcel, which you saw it better, but is this parcel here. When
we started the project they wanted to be part of the annexation, 50 they were part of the
annexation. They got a little nervous and said, oh, my God, what are we doing, we
have got a five acre piece of property and what are we going to do. So, they said
maybe we better not do that. We spent an enormous amount of time working with them
and we have an agreement to purchase their property. They are not comfortable, they
have found another place or working on finding another place and so we will be
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 85 of 120
submitting an application. Unfortunately, it will be a small application for five acres, plus
or minus, but we will be submitting an application to annex that as part of this overall
project very soon. Access to the north. We believe the solution is in your packet under
tab four. We did a white paper and an addendum to the development agreement that's
very expensive. We believe that the first item of business should preserve the ability to
get over the rim down to the property below the rim and that's making sure that there is
the ability to take care of right of way, but we believe we have cleaned up the ownership
issue and we will continue to do that with parcel four, the addendum to the -- the
agreement we think is very specific and I'm going to let it stand at that I would be
happy to answer questions, as opposed to give you more information than you want.
As it relates to the construction, which I believe is very different than preserving the right
of way to get over the rim, we have some specific feelings in that we actually do agree
with TECO One and the Ewings, at least above the rim, that we don't feel we should be
responsible for an off-site improvement to further the ability down below the rim. We
have a hard time with it, because without a plan for the property down below the rim or
even on the TECO One property, you can't design it, you can't price it, and, therefore,
it's very difficult to build. And without a schedule, without knowing when they need it or
what's going to happen before the rim, it becomes very difficult as well. So, we view
that as an off-site improvement, neither benefiting TECO One or ourselves. We feel
very comfortable in making sure that we are not in anybody's way to give them access
there and we believe we have done that. So, that's where I am with those issues and
can spend more time on it if you want. The staff report, we -- if -- I have just a couple of
quick clarifications on that and if you -- if you choose to agree with or take our
addendum to the development agreement, I think there is a couple of additions and -- a
couple of conditions in this staff report that could be modified, namely, conditions 11,
12, and 16 and I can get into those more in detail, but the addendum to the
development agreement covers those specifically and I think they could be modified.
We have submitted revised legal descriptions, which I think take away any issue of their
being a strip of land that's owned by MBC or someone other than the Tree Haven folks.
We have submitted an annexation application, so everything up to the canal would be
included in this application, which was a concern. One of the other comments was -- if
you can go back to the site plan, Anna -- was a zone here and a transition between this
property and our property and the staff said that they'd like us to modify our legal
descriptions to modify this to an R-8 designation, as opposed to the R-15. We did
modify that when we submitted that per their request. So, I believe those were the
items on the staff report to clean that up a little bit. I know you're going to hear some
other testimony. I'll let you get to that or ask questions. I do have other slides and can
give you a lot more information, but, hopefully, that gets you started. Thanks.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None right now.
Meridian City Council
June 6. 2006
Page 86 of 120
De Weerd: Thank you. I do have several people who have signed up. Gary Hinkle.
Signed up neutral. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Hinkle: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Gary Hinkle. 9109 West Burnett Drive,
Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Hinkle: As was mentioned, there is basically my brother Steve Hinkle and my sister
Linda Lazarus, currently own that property that's to the southeast of this proposed
development and I'll just --
De Weerd: Can you use the pointer?
Hinkle: Oh. I don't know how this thing works.
De Weerd: Just don't do it in your face.
Hinkle: That piece of property right here.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Hinkle: Which is the open space in West Wing Estates. I just want to place to record
that access to be considered to continue our current status of that property. That's all.
Very brief. I just wanted to make sure that it's placed on the record.
De Weerd: Thank you. Questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Steve Hinkle.
S. Hinkle: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, Steve Hinkle. My address is 11320 Chapin
Avenue, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
S. Hinkle: As discussed with my brother there, yes, that is our property. I have
diligently in the last eight months over an access issue. The property -- the Eggers
property, which was approximately right in here, there was an access through this drive
at that time for our renter to farm the crops on that property. When they sold that
property that access has been cut off. So, I have worked with ACHD -- or, excuse me,
with ITD, with the federal highway there -- or the state highway and also with the
homeowners association on the other side and we are currently trying to establish some
sort of access, since that has been terminated. And right now we are -- we are waiting
to see how that's all going to turn out. My concern is that while that all bodes well for
Meridian City CounCil
June 6, 2006
Page 87 of 120
The Tree Farm and access issue there, this one mile and half mile access is really
causing a lot of problems, I'm sure not only for our properties, but other ones on down
the road. So, I think that it's wrong that the -- that the Council -- between the county,
between the state, and between the cities, you know, we are forcing a possible litigation
issue that I think could be resolved much more easier. That's my concerns. Is there
any questions, Council members?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: It doesn't look like it.
S. Hinkle: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Tuck Ewing. I don't know if you're for or against or neutral, so -- we
will say you're open.
Ewing: We will see.
Rountree: We will find out.
Ewing: Madam Mayor, Council, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado. I represent TECO One,
LLC. We are the property owners of the two outparcels, approximately nine acres, six
to the west side of Basco Lane and three to the east side of Basco Lane. I'd like to start
off by saying that we are in support of the development. We think it will be a very good
addition to the City of Meridian and I don't feel that we were opposed to it in the
Planning and Zoning by any means, we just have a few concerns that were kind of
indicated from Anna thus far as the access down Basco Lane and who is responsible
for that access. I would like to kind of go over and this map indicates the true property
lines -- there has been a lot of discussion as far as parcels one, two, three, four, and
five that are probably in your packets that were submitted by the applicant. These are
at least to date through the Ada County assessor's office, the true parcel lines the way
they sit today. And as you can see TECO One's part -- property sits in this area that is
wrapped by the Tree Farm, both here and down this way and through Basco Lane and
also along the western canal bank of the six acre parcel on that side. So, as you can
see, TECO One's totally surrounded by this development. And so they are our
neighbors, ultimately. If we could go to that next one, Anna. I'm sure that you guys
received ACHD's traffic impact study and staff comments. I believe in particular to call
out staff comments number three and four on the back page, they are taking a very
strong look at the access to the neighbors to the north, because it is a very big concern
due to the volume of land down there, regardless of which city it goes into. With that
being said, obviously, one that's going to happen or that is an obvious, is Black Cat. In
ACHD's report this is called out as a potential minor arterial or collector, with an
additional collector somewhere along the property and, then, the third access
somewhere in this property is a local road. TECO One would prefer to see the local
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 88 of 120
road go down the existing Basco Lane with the collector and everything else
somewhere in between and that doesn't really matter to us, but what that would
ultimately do is lessen the impact on TECO One's property due to the width of the local
versus the collector and it would also accommodate the neighbors to the north with at
least one access down there. I will try and hurry. I apologize. TECO One has met with
the developers and we have had good discussions. I mean we have just got this one
issue. Obviously, we have been willing and we have made the offer to dedicate the
necessary land to make the access down Basco Lane work and dedicate it directly to
ACHD, so that the width -- could you go to that last one, Anna, please? The lack in
width that they have in a few areas down Basco Lane that we control would be taken
care of, so they could put in the necessary access to their true neighbors to the north,
being in this location. There is a little bit here and, then, down in here. We would like to
see that access minimal -- as minimal impact on TECO One's property as possible.
Obviously, follow the existing land that they do own and this parcel here, which is the
parcel four they call it, that's under kind of the clouded title part, would need to be
resolved, so that that road could follow, you know, their property there. We have also
on top of that gedication made the offer to pay our pro-rated share.
De Weerd: Tuck, you will have to summarize.
Ewing: I am summarizing. Pay our pro-rated share of the road from here to here from
our north property to our south property line. We have not been able to resolve this
issue. So, in summary, as you know, Planning and Zoning declined this application due
to the access issues. TECO One would still be willing to donate the necessary ground
to make that work and still pay their pro-rated share of our nine acres to their 358 acres
to put that improvement down there to accommodate the neighbors to the north, at least
for one of the three accesses that we feel is needed. With that I will take any questions_
And I apologize I went too long.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I have got a question and since Planning and Zoning spent quite a bit of time
and felt fairly strongly about that, the applicant mentioned that there isn't a plan or a
timeline for that access. Do you have any comments as to the specifics?
Ewing: As far as our property as far as the property to the north?
Wardle: And maybe the applicant can help clarify what he meant by that, but I didn't get
the impression that we had a definitive timeline for the improvements that we are talking
about.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 89 of 120
Ewing: Well, I guess my opinion is is that I don't know what the property to the north's
timelines are. Obviously, our piece -- we don't have a plan as of now, but it is definitely
in the future going to be developed. So, that is not going to be a single home on nine
acres. I think that our attitude is, though, regardless of what happens below the rim, not
only with the Aldape property, but also with Doc Orem's property and the collective
properties all below that rim, the necessity of the maximum amount of access down that
rim is critical, just due to -- well, for a few reasons, but due to one major reason being
the limited ability of the east-west traffic. You have got Spur Wing to the east and you
have got the proposed new Highway 16 corridor with what has been stated as
absolutely -- or very very limited access to the west. Therefore, it's critical for all of that
traffic to be able to move north-south and ultimately south because of the river. So--
and I don't mean to speak for any of the property owners below the rim, but I do believe
that it needs to be maximized, because as Commissioner Borup stated, it's a moving
target, we never know what's going to happen, so we need to have the ability to do
whatever maximizes the site at the time. Does that answer your question? Kind of?
Not really?
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, I guess just to clarify. Again, I can ask the applicant. I
mean we are talking about these being made at the platting stage or -- I mean,
obviously, the issue, as I understand it -- and maybe I didn't read it correctly, but -- and I
heard it from Anna, that the right of way is available at some point, it's just the
improvement being made, and I'm assuming that we are talking about the grade and
probably I would assume you'd have to have some sort of a bridge.
Ewing: That's correct. Yes.
Wardle: Okay.
Ewing: Yeah. And I -- as far as TECO One is concerned, we feel like that should be
done as part of the development in whatever phase that affects. And, then, what the
property owners to the north do with it is their decision, but we are willing to put it down
there when they do it. Or pay a pro-rated share of putting it down there. Donate the
ground when they are ready to go down there, whatever the case may be. But we feel
like it needs to be in through their construction phase.
De Weerd: Anything further?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Tuck, quiz question for you.
Ewing: Oh, goodness, you know I'm not good at that.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 90 of 120
Rountree: I hear your passions and your desire for access, but would you cite me more
than one example of where that exists currently on that geographic from let's say HP to
Black Cat?
Ewing: HP to Black Cat where the access goes across that?
Rountree: Where there is more than access at the grid -- at the mile grid.
Ewing: Well, I don't know that I -- I guess I would have to think about that one. I'm
basing my comments solely off of ACHD's staff review comments and the necessity
they felt was necessary to accommodate the dirt below the rim. And like I did state
earlier, I think this is a little bit different situation due to the very limited access east-
west, which I don't believe occurs -- well, could occur in another place, but I'm not
aware of. I think that makes it even that much more critical, because the ability to move
east and west trafficwise, it's all got to go south or to Chinden. So, I don't know that I
can give you an example of where it occurs, but I think that it is warranted. So, I don't
know if that --
Rountree: Okay.
Ewing: -- I don't have to think about my quiz questions. I will get back at you.
De Weerd: Well, Tuck, I guess, you know, while you think of how to best answer your
quiz, why -- why is it warranted -- the city never likes to land lock a piece of property and
I do understand the north-south connection and I don't think the applicant is saying that
they don't recognize that as well. But in my knowledge we have never required more
than stubbing a road -- an appropriate road size to -- to that, but you're asking for more.
Ewing: I disagree, just for the fact that --
De Weerd: Well -- and that's what I'm asking.
Ewing: Yeah. All I'm really asking for is for them to stub the road to their legitimate
north owner and I feel like for them to do that -- obviously, their legitimate north owner is
Aldape properties or Dr. Orem's properties or whatever the case maybe down below
the rim and I guess I feel like TECO One has been more than considerate as far as the
willingness to dedicate the necessary ground for them to be able to get down there to
accommodate their true neighbors to the north and we have even went as far as saying
we would pay our pro-rated share, which I think is fair when you have got a 358 acre
development and we are sitting out here as a little nine acre piece that's going to -- if we
have to put that road completely in, we don't feel like that that's -- that's a fair deal. We
have got 358 acres that doesn't want to give their true neighbors to the north the
access, they want us to provide it for that area. So, what we felt was a good
compromise was to pay our pro-rated share of it and we made that offer and that offer
hasn't been accepted by the developers yet, but we would still be willing to do that.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 91 of 120
De Weerd: So, you're suggesting that they need access through your property?
Ewing: No. Actually, as far as TECO One is concerned, we really don't care where the
access goes to the property owners to the north. You know, if they so choose to move
their access point from Basco Lane somewhere west of that and they can
accommodate their neighbors to the north, that's totally fine with TECO One. We just
felt like that it was -- this was the most logical spot to put one of the access points and
we wanted to try and help get that access point not for the developer, but for the
property owners to the north and that's why we made that -- those --
De Weerd: But it isn't 300 plus acres versus nine, because they are not asking to serve
that little strip of land. I guess that's what I'm trying to understand is your comparison --
they are providing access to the south, which is where they intend to go with their
development. The piece that you're suggesting would really only accommodate the
properties to the north, so -- except for that strip. And I don't know how wide that strip
is.
Ewing: This here?
De Weerd: And I don't think they are probably going to develop a strip like that.
Ewing: We don't disagree with that at all.
De Weerd: So, I'm just trying to understand why an off-site -- or why a stub -- and think
they said that, as you have offered, they would offer land to accommodate a road, why
we would need to consider more?
Ewing: Okay. Anna, could we go back to the concept plan, please? Maybe that will
give us a bigger --
De Weerd: Or I guess them, because I don't have a vote.
Rountree: We need to understand, too.
Ewing: And that's probably -- I'm probably not doing very good of explaining this, but I
guess TECO One's position right now is this is the current Basco Lane here, splitting
our two pieces of property. Ultimately, TECO One does not care if a connection road to
the property owners to the north happens at that point. As far as TECO One is
concerned, they can come anywhere in this area. They can't come over here, because
that runs into Spur Wing golf course, but, as I said, you know, this map doesn't show the
actual annexation running down here, up here, and across here, but if it did in color, you
would clearly see that TECO One is an island and that, ultimately, the neighbors to the
north solely touch this -- or this development touches the neighbors across the canal.
We don't. I guess that's our -- and we don't feel like that -- that's why we have made the
offers we have. We don't feel like that it's unreasonable for the developer to have to
solely put this in, that's why we felt like to makes it fair we would pay our pro-rated share
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 92 of 120
of that road and dedicate the actual -- what's needed to get that improvement in. They
are willing to, basically, donate the dirt and, then, just give us a stub at this point and,
then, it's up to us to get it to the neighbors to the north, ultimately, and we don't think
that that's fair. That's why I make the comparison that our nine acres is ultimately going
to pay for this, and their 358 acres is just going to dedicate that section that they have.
De Weerd: I guess so aren't they putting a pretty -- pretty large road to accommodate
any connection to the north on their property and they are absorbing that cost?
Ewing: Being this road here?
De Weerd: Yeah. However it's going to connect and allow you to go down to Chinden.
Ewing: Yeah. Right. All the --
De Weerd: And that's at their expense.
Ewing: I totally agree. And I think that that's great, but -- so we -- we just don't feel like
that we should be responsible to put this collector road or access road where ever it
may be -- have no beneficial use and, actually, hurts TECO One's property. I mean
TECO One can be serviced off of local stub streets, which we don't expect them to put
on our property by any means, but we don't need a collector to service our nine acres.
This collector is for the sole benefit of the property to the north, along with this one and
potentially a third. And the bottom line is, really, it comes down to who is responsible for
paying for that portion of the road. We don't -- we feel like we have went over halfway
by at least committing to pay for a portion of that road and dedicate the land necessary
to do it and so far they have come as far as saying we will dedicate the road and, then,
when you guys want you can pay to put it in.
De Weerd: I just have one final question.
Ewing: Okay.
De Weerd: The piece, then, from that point to the north to Chinden, there is not a
difference in the size or type of roads that they would need to put in if they weren't
serving any properties to the north_ Are they -- are they absorbing extra costs to build a
bigger road, so that they can accommodate the traffic from the north?
Ewing: As far as this road here being a collector?
De Weerd: As far as that road needing to serve the properties to the north, whatever it
is.
Ewing: So, just so I understand, what you're basically asking me is that if they make
this a collector size road to accommodate the future traffic from the property owners to
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 93 of 120
the north, but if it was not there they wouldn't have to put a collector road in here, is that
De Weerd: That they could use a different type or--
Ewing: They could use a smaller road?
De Weerd: -- a different base or--
Ewing: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: And I'm not a traffic engineer, so I don't know what they need to do
different, but that's my question to you.
Ewing: And, you know, I'm not either. And to be completely honest with you, like I
stated, I only represent TECO One and what it affects as far as TECO One's parcel. I'm
sure that Aldape properties will have many of the same comments and voice their
concerns with their ability to get there and I don't know if those roads would be able to
change if they didn't have to accommodate their neighbors, but I do know that the City
of Meridian has always been very good at making their cross-accesses in their
approvals and have tried to make, you know, connectivity between neighboring
properties through this process. So, that -- at least in the past.
De Weerd: And we are committed to connectivity. Council, any questions for Mr.
Ewing?
Ewing: Thanks. Sorry I took so long.
De Weerd: No. Sherry Ewing.
S. Ewing: Madam Mayor--
De Weerd: You need to lower that, Sherry.
S. Ewing: He is a little taller than me.
De Weerd: Just slightly.
S. Ewing: Members of the City Council, I'm Sherry Ewing and I live at 2934 East Lake
Hazel Road and I'm representing the Aldape properties. I want to read part of a letter
that ACHD supervisor Lori Din Hartog sent to the city planners and I think you probably
have it, but it says the district staff anticipates there may be a need for three stub streets
to the north. There is approximately 1,000 acres of undeveloped property to the north
of this site below the rim. It will be critical that this site provides adequate connectivity
opportunities to the undeveloped properties. Unquote. And so the -- Anna, can you
show the slide that Tuck had? It was slide two. Tuck was actually showing three slides.
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 94 of 120
One of them is Basco Lane being a local road. Black Cat being an arterial road. And
the collector road being someplace in between those two roads. Which is a very viable
situation. Do you have the number -- Exhibit 4 that Tuck had? ACHD said that,
actually, you can have a road that goes down from the rim that went from the top of the
rim -- not through Basco Lane, not where the gulley is, but from the top down through to
the bottom land, the land to the north, anywhere you want to. And so what I'm saying is
if they could do it through the proposed land right there next to Basco Lane, they can do
it anywhere in between Basco Lane and Black Cat. Oh, dear, I see questions. I also
wanted to state that, yes, you're right, we do not know what we want to do with the
property north of the Phyllis Canal and we have -- there is a thousand acres down there.
We have 260 acres, but there is a thousand acres down there, so we do need as much
access as we can get. I also wanted to mention that Aldape properties is willing to pay
for half of the bridges which cross the Phyllis Canal that connect to the Aldape
properties. And that's everything I have. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. John Ewing.
J. Ewing: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
De Weerd: Now you can pull it up.
J. Ewing: -- I'm John Ewing. I live at 2934 East Lake Hazel, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
J. Ewing: Not to repeat anything, but to answer some questions. One, you asked the
question of would that have been a collector around that subdivision. I think the answer
was is we -- Tuck didn't know. I don't know. But I do know that if that is not going to be
a collector through there, it will be the only piece of ground that Meridian has annexed
and done that is that size that doesn't have collectors going through it. So, I guess my
answer is is I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty sure that they aren't building any
bigger road for TECO One or Aldape's property than they would have had to anyway.
I'm willing to go a little bit further than Tuck did as far as we do want to get along, we
think it's a good project, but he kept going to the fact that, you know, that seems to be
the right place. The fact of it is is that we are having a hard time conveying that we
aren't truly the neighbors to the -- our neighbors -- they wrap us. So, you know, we
don't feel we have touched the people to the north. To go a little bit further, though --
and I don't really want this to happen, but if TECO One decided that we aren't going to
develop it and we are going to keep our nine acres and we have that island, there would
be no reason that the city would even ask us to cross our property. I think where we are
getting a little confused, we are trying to be good guys and help get through our
property, give our property, even pay some money, which, you know, I think is fair, but I
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 95 of 120
don't know that I'm real happy about it, and it's -- for some reason it always gets turned
around that why should the developer that does touch them west of us -- and I really
think that that's where the collector should go is west of our six acres down to the
property below, but it seems like it gets turned around that why should -- why should
anybody put the road in when they are going through our property? Well, they are not
really going through our property, we are just giving them more ground where they can
get through. I'd like everybody to keep the thought that, really, if we didn't want to be
good neighbors, we didn't want to help, we didn't want to help the developer, we could
say we are not going to develop and don't go through our property. They own property
through the center of us just the same as all we are doing is making it big enough. Of
course, they are saying, well, we don't have enough property to do us, so we will give
you yours, and that's why we came up with the pro-rated share. So, I -- maybe that
makes it a little clearer that don't confuse our generosity by the -- and we are doing it
because we are their neighbors, it just seems like a natural place for the local road to go
through. And if we are going to be forced to do the whole road, I guess, then, we could
take the attitude that, you know, we aren't ever going to annex and we don't need to
develop. And that -- and, then, that doesn't follow the -- the trend that I have seen in all
the city council meetings that you so supply access to your neighbors through a project.
So, that's alii have got.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Council?
J. Ewing: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any additional
testimony on this application? Seeing none --
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I'd like to comment on the ACHD staff report, since that was brought up in
lengthy discussion, because I don't want you to think that staff just ignored that. The
quote that was read says that at the time of preliminary plat approval that ACHD would
consider three connections. It doesn't say collector streets. It just says connections,
stub streets to this area. And there is a larger area that -- this is the applicant's request
comes to about here. So, there is property both -- or in particular to the west of here,
that still touches on those thousand or so acres down below the rim. So, it could very
well be that the appropriate place is at their -- their western-most boundary. So, I just --
there was a line shown and I just wanted to make it clear that that was not a line drawn
by ACHD necessarily to our knowledge and that they have not specified that they need
three collector stub streets. So, I did want to make that a little clearer and maybe Gary
has further information.
De Weerd: Yes, we need to be enlightened.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 96 of 120
Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman with ACHD. I'd just
like to clarify that we are not saying there has to be three stubs across the canal, we are
saying that we will look at it when we get a preliminary plat. There may need to be one,
there may need to be five, we don't know. We are going to analyze it. My feeling is
there probably won't be and a great number of bridges crossing that canal. It seems to
be a pretty large feature. A lot of grade there that may make it physically impossible to
build a bridge across there in many locations. That analysis hasn't been done. The
developer's consultants are going to look at some of that for us and provide us some
information that we don't have right now as to where it's feasible. We are not saying
that they would all need to be collectors, arterials, or local roads until we get a
preliminary plat and look at it in more detail. There is a couple drawings shown for the
Basco Lane connection and it's showing it in it's more or less current alignment, where it
would meet our local street standards and, then, one where it showed it would be our
collector road standards. Obviously, if there is going to be a connection there and at
Black Cat only, odds are the Basco Lane probably should be a connector and we would
prefer it meet our design standards. But we haven't gone into that detail yet. We have
reviewed the traffic study and provided some very generic comments until we get a
preliminary plat and a more detailed plan. As far as the debate over two different
people willing to give us land -- always willing to accept right of way donations along
existing roads where we plan to widen them, but we do not accept unopened right of
way with a question mark as to who wants to build the road in the future. So, that's an
issue that we are very concerned about that it does need to be resolved. It's nice that
everybody wants to give the right of way, but we like to see the road get built to the end
of that right of way to complete the stub street and, then, the people needing that stub in
the future would connect to it and extend the road. So, I hope that helped a little bit.
De Weerd: Does Councilman Rountree want to ask the same quiz question to Gary?
Rountree: I think I know the answer, but, yeah, I do have a question for him.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: If you'd just let me ask it.
De Weerd: You bet. The floor is yours.
Rountree: We don't have really great information on -- let's call it the Eagle portion of
the land mass down there, but it looks to me from what we do have is there needs to be
significant infrastructure investment on the flood plain if, in fact, any or a portion of that
ever is going to develop. It seems to me the only access that I can see in that two mile
stretch that goes over the rim is either Basco Lane or the golf course. Everything else is
on the grid, as it is every place else as you go east or west, because of the cost of
having to go through large cuts and/or bridges across canals. I would be real surprised
if ACHD said we'd have to accommodate more than what we are accommodating now
on the existing grid, but I can see that you would say anybody who wants to develop a
parcel on the flood plain is going to have to provide a surface street network to connect
J
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 97 of 120
to a future extension to Black Cat and for Linder, because Ten Mile is probably not
going to go through the golf course. The lane is not under your jurisdiction. You
wouldn't claim it if it was given to you, because you don't really take on unimproved
facilities; is that correct?
Inselman: Correct. Normally we do not accept just a right of way for a future street
through a development. We ask that it be improved.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess, Gary, I just -- if you have limited connectivity between the bench
and the land below the bench, why -- however many property owners, if there is two or
three or however many are in this area, but why they would have the responsibility of
that bridge when you're saying this is going to be a major connection and it's going to be
a necessary one? I guess I see -- wouldn't that be impact fee eligible if -- if this is
something that's going to serve more than two properties?
Inselman: Madam Mayor, it would only become impact fee eligible if it got on the long
range map as a future arterial and, then, made it into our capital improvements plan and
without the development to the north the need would never show up. So, they are the
need. They would most likely be the responsible parties to build a bridge.
De Weerd: But even through this development on the Black Cat, you're requiring what
might be a minor arterial, so they are building that road to those specifications, I'm
assuming. Or being asked to.
Inselman: Madam Mayor, we aren't requiring anything yet, because we haven't
reviewed a preliminary plat, but --
De Weerd: Okay.
Inselman: -- we are --
De Weerd: But those are questions that --
Inselman: We are anticipating, because of the volumes, that they would need to build at
least a collector, possibly to minor arterial standard. When it's a three lane road that's a
very minimal difference. It's mainly terminology. But, you know, the physical road is
very similar.
De Weerd: Well, I think in this case it's more than terminology, because you have some
real concern on several sides of it.
Inselman: No, I agree, I'm just saying that naming it an arterial doesn't mean that
ACHD would, then, pay for it. If it's necessary to serve development, then. development
Meridian City Council
June 6.2006
Page 98 of 120
would build it, unless it was identified in the long range plan as a regional need and,
then, made it to our capital improvements plan and became impact fee eligible.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I know the answer to this, but I just want to get it on the record, that what is
your process as it relates to stub streets and when do you exercise your input?
Inselman: That would be at the preliminary plat level with our commission action on the
preliminary plat and we do look to stub to undeveloped parcels and provide reasonable
access without creating an undue burden on the parcel it's being stubbed to or the
parcel that's being asked to provide the stub, if it needs -- and particularly, there are
some areas in this case where just to grade a road down to the canal could mean, you
know, several hundred feet of excavation, which would be a little impractical if there is
other more practical routes.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And just -- I was going to ask that same question, but I heard you say earlier
that it would be nice to have the issue resolved this evening? No? This is, as I
understand it, ACHD can't review it without a plat to determine where the stubs need to
go, the need, or even who pays for it. Is that right?
Inselman: Mr. Wardle, that's correct. All I was saying is that the issue with the right of
way in Basco Lane need to be resolved at some point, because we don't want a road
that -- or a proposed road that -- you know, a question of who is going to own it or who
is going to build it or that. So, it's just an issue that's out there.
Wardle: And, Madam Mayor -- but you don't have a proposed road with this application
is what you're saying?
Inselman: No. Annexation requests we just provide very generic minimal comments
and they are only to try to assist you as best we can, but don't -- take no action until
there is a development application.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any additional testimony? Okay. Would the applicant
like to conclude with your remarks?
Meridian City Council
June 6.2006
Page gg of 120
O'Neal: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I want to respond to a few comments.
I'll start with the Hinkle brothers comments. And if you can go to the master plan on
that, I'd appreciate it. We have had neighborhood meetings. We met with the West
Wing Estates folks to our boundary here. We didn't have a chance to meet with the
Hinkles, but would be more than happy to do that. We are showing right here access to
their property and they are fully committed and the staff report says that we need to
provide access there. So, we believe we are satisfying that. I'm not sure we can help
them with Idaho Department of Transportation issue and access from Chinden, but we
certainly can help them with that access and are showing that. So, hopefully, that deals
with that issue and be happy to talk with them after it. As it relates to the other
comments, if you can go back to that earlier -- the first vicinity map, the bigger one.
That one right there. Maybe to put it in perspective -- and I have a handout to give you.
This is the -- I think Councilman Rountree asked do you have an idea how many
accesses down below the rim there are there between this point and I'm going to give
you a handout that shows you the spacing and what three accesses would do in our
short area. When we started this project and went through it, the first thing we always
do is try to deal with traffic and circulation issues, because that drives a master plan.
So, what we did is we got with the highway district, we got with the City of Meridian, and
we said if you guys were looking forward, how would you deal with access and they
said, well, we'd like to see a minor arterial at Black Cat, so we said we will show one of
those. And, then, they said we'd like to see a collector status road that would allow
access somewhere in the neighborhood of Basco. So, we did that as well. So, we
believe we have definitely met the intent of the accesses to over the rim. We have done
some preliminary studies and I don't want to get into too much detail, but there are
approximately 1,000 acres down there. Out of that thousand acres there is about 470
that's in the flood way or flood plain and the additional would be developable. We put --
we had a traffic engineer in the last day or two go through and say if you had a collector
status in the Basco vicinity and you had a minor arterial on Black Cat, what would that
do to the traffic and the fact is that if you develop that at three units to the acre, which is
extreme density down there, those two roads would pretty much handle the capacity of
that, without any access from Duck Alley or Joplin, which would be probably necessary
if you were going to go to that area down there. So, the three access points we feel we
are going -- we are going to where we should with the two access points and we think
we are ahead of the game, because we are saying right now we are dealing with that,
we are showing you and the highway district our master plan -- if you can go to the
master plan, Anna, that shows the circulation, we are showing that, we are showing one
here and we are showing one here. This isn't a preliminary plat, but we have committed
to do both of those stubs. The other question that was raised is are we upsizing this
road and maybe he didn't ask it that way, but the fact is we could have designed the
project -- this is a collector road. Mr. Ewing stated that a project this size would have a
collector road. It sure does. This is a backage collector road right here. We could have
easily designed this in a way that would have been a local road and not a collector road.
We chose to do the collector road, because we knew of this issue. So, I could go into
exhibits and details and all that, but I think you guys are tired. I'll stand for questions if
you want clarification on it. But we think we have a very good project. We think it's
exciting for the City of Meridian. We think we have dealt with the majority of the issues,
Meridian City Council
JUne 6, 2006
Page 100 of 120
if not all the issues, and we feel comfortable with the addendum to the development
agreement that we added in our packet, comments that were made on the staff report
and moving forward based on that and we are excited to come back to you immediately
with our preliminary plat for the first section of the project. I'll stand for questions.
De Weerd: I did ask Anna to put the -- what you were referencing so everyone could
see that.
O'Neal: This is just showing from Pollard, which is down by Joplin, there is an access
over the rim, and this is showing the distance that there is current access points. And
these three -- if someone said we did three access paints on our property, it's a quarter
mile, you would have two within a quarter mile of each other and if you look at the rest
of the distance, there is nothing even under a mile. So, I think that was a question
Councilman Rountree asked and I wanted to respond to that.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Rountree: And I know it's late I don't think I'm confused, but why don't you give us your
side of the story, because it's not otten that the Council gets presented the generosity of
multiple parties to not claim ownership of property. Because it -- because that tends not
to be in their economic favor. So, what's your side of that, Basco Lane, and what rights
and/or privileges do those properties to the north have, based on their historic access
on that lane, because lanes, quite honestly, have been a major pain in Meridian's side.
We have been to court, we have been with neighbors, we have been against neighbors,
we have been all around the circle with lanes. Quite frankly, I hate them. I wish they'd
all go away.
O'Neal: I do, too, now. I'm trying to make it go away.
Rountree: Well, it's not the only one out there. They all seem to have these kinds of
issues.
O'Neal: I'll try to answer that question and I believe I tried to do it in the white paper, but
right now Basco Lane is right here and Basco Lane provides access and it goes all the
way back to the early 1900s to the Aldape property, an existing use for the Aldape
property. And it goes through the TECO One property and the TEeD One property has
the historic rights for the historic use on the property, which is one house and the
agricultural use of that property. So, right now the rights that those folks have are for
their existing uses and that's it. So, if we weren't coming forth with a plan to put in this
collector road and stub to here, they wouldn't have the rights to further their -- to
develop their property any further than they are. So, in my view this is a win for
everybody. We are coming in and we are putting in an extensive system here, above
and beyond the other improvements, which allows them to have access to their
properties to develop their properties. So, that's my -- that's my quick view of the Basco
Lane issue. We are going to take it form a lane issue with restricted access, to a
collector public street to allow them access in the future if and when they develop the
Meridian City Council
June 6. 2006
Page 101 of 120
property down here. It may never happen. I mean it's -- and it's really hard to tell
without a plan and without future study what will happen down there. I mean we can
guess, but that's all we can do, so we believe we have done everything we can do to
take it to our functional boundary and make sure that if there is any land that we have
that could be used for future road, we make that available. And the TEeO One folks
have done that, too, so I think we are actually in agreement. If you guys were to say,
gee, if TECO One and Tree Haven have agreed to do that, then, you guys have got the
ability to -- in the future when the people down below the rim come in, it's not going to
be a fight if we can't get there, because you have got the commitment from us and the
TEeO One folks made a commitment tonight, so --
Bird: Madam Mayor, I got a--
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Derrick, you're going to phase this, I take it?
O'Neal: Yeah. There will be multiple phases.
Bird: Okay. You know, we have got ourselves in some hot water by annexing without
having preliminary plats before. When would you -- you said you quickly would get a
preliminary plat for phase one. Where is phase one? Because the stub streets -- I
mean you have got a couple now, but if your preliminary plats or something changes,
they could go away or they could move.
O'Neal: Right.
Bird: And, you know, I don't -- I don't want to -- I don't want to cause a problem by
annexing without a preliminary plat. And this Council has been pretty tough on that, if
not annexing -- you know, it's like having a preliminary plat without elevations.
O'Neal: That's a good question and I was afraid you were going to ask that. But I have
a good answer for it, I believe. When we sat down and talked with staff back in
December, they said, boy, this area of impact our Camp Plan is going through -- and we
would really like to see what you guys are going to do with that 360 acres. And we said,
well, we'd like to show you, but there is no way in a two month period of time we can
prepare a concept plan and a preliminary plat for 360 acres, because we are going to
be wrong with a preliminary plat no matter what we do. And they said, you know what,
Council does not like that. And we said, well, can you help us with that? And they said,
you know, it's an important enough piece of property that we believe if you give us a
concept plan, we can -- that outlines the circulation and the key elements, we believe
that we should let this go forth and the council can deliberate on it. So, that's what we
did at their request. Otherwise, in hindsight we could say we could plat it. But I also --
the way we do things is it would be nearly impossible for us to give you a preliminary
plat on 360 acres that's ten years of a project, because that's a long project and we
would have a hard time. So, that's a little background on why we got to where we got.
Meridian City Council
JUne 6, 2006
Page 102 of 120
As it relates to the first phase, our intention is to start here and come in and take this
section of the property and do that in our first offering and, then, we will work towards
Black Cat and this area as we move down the project. We anticipate our first phase
having this loop road be in that first phase. It may not include this parcel, but the loop
road will be part of that first phase, so we get that main infrastructure, which gives us
the flexibility to develop here, here, here and here and add a variety of products. So, I
anticipate our first phase would come in with at least the loop road that comes back out
to here, so you have a full system that loops into here and it would stub to there. And
we expect to do that -- if we get through tonight, I'm going to meet the engineer at 8:30
in the morning tomorrow and we are working on the preliminary plat. And we, actually,
have already been working on it and I expect to submit that as soon as we can. So, this
summer we would be submitting you a preliminary plat on that section. Does that
answer your question?
Bird: Yeah. And I just want to make sure there is -- we have always required stub
streets for all around developments, so that we don't land lock property and --
O'Neal: Yeah. And I think the -- you know what, your staff is -- staff is supersensitive to
that. So, if you read the conditions to the development agreement, they have got
language about stub streets everywhere and I argued with them about it and they said
no. And I said, all right, we don't have a problem, we already show a stub here, we
don't have a problem with a stub here, with a stub here. Spur Wing guys have a huge
problem with a stub here and, therefore, we are not showing a stub and staff didn't ask
for a stub there, but we understand that. And part of the positive with this is instead of
coming in with this as our first part of the project and, then, saying we will come to you
in two or three years with this, we are showing here, so this neighbor here can plan and
we can work with him, which we will, as to a stub right here. So, we are working
together on that, as opposed to holding it back two or three years and, then, saying here
we are. So, we are very sensitive to the stub issue, eouncilman.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions?
O'Neal: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council?
Rountree: Well, do we want to chat a little bit before we close the hearing or do we
want to close the hearing with the potential of having to open it up again or --
De Weerd: You might, just in case you need to ask any questions to anybody else. But
it's up to you.
Rountree: You're comfortable?
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 103 of 120
De Weerd: Are you still awake?
Bird: Let's go ahead. My question's answered. I have no problem with this.
Rountree: Okay. Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 20.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION eARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'll throw out the discussion. As I talked earlier with Derrick and he give me a
pretty decent answer I felt, I realize this is a large parcel of ground, which is -- which I
appreciate. It's a nice looking development. But that many acres it just means that
much more chance that we don't have a preliminary plat of getting in trouble, so I know
they are going to phase it and do it that way and they have looked at it. They have got -
- and future councils can make sure as the phases come in that we get the right stub
streets. I don't want to see any land land lock, regardless of whether it's Star, Eagle,
Meridian. or Timbuktu. And I think that the developers will work with that. I'm like
eharlie, I'm up to my eyeballs in lanes. It seems like you never can get the right
solution to it. So, that would be my take. I like the project, I think it's very very nice. I
wished they would have had a preliminary plat, but I understand what -- as Derrick
explained it. Very large to get a preliminary plat and I'm sure they will do the right thing
when they come through. So, I can buy into this one without a preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Council, I might say we did encourage them to come through with an
annexation request and said we would -- we would entertain that. It's never a
guarantee.
Bird: That don't always make it right.
De Weerd: No. That's true.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weer<j: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 104 of 120
Rountree: I think we have on the record how some of these issues will ultimately be
discussed, because there will be future hearings and applications associated with this,
particularly the issue of access and the surface street network that will ultimately be
platted. I like the concept. I think it certainly builds a case for Meridian's expansion. I
think it will be a great asset to our community and I think it will be a super asset to the
property owners adjacent. If we move forward with an approval on this, I want to make
sure that the development agreement is very clear that the applicant understands that
the issue of access will be debated and will be resolved at the preliminary plat stage
and it may not be resolved quite how they have it conceptually identified at this point in
time. They did indicate in their white paper that the proposed stub, at least for Basco
Lane, had a range of -- I can't remember, was it 400 feet or 200 feet, either side of
where it currently exists. So, they recognize that there is flexibility and potential change,
but if, in fact, as it gets looked at, then, who knows what might come between now and
the preliminary plat stage on the flood way -- flood plain, that somehow we get language
in there that we can say we told you and I believe they understand that anyway, but it's
nice to have it in writing. I agree with Councilman Bird about some degree of hesitancy
of not having a preliminary plat and the potential issues that can arise. Again, I think I
want the development agreement to talk about what I perceive as the quality that's been
presented this evening and some way to affix the quality to this annexation and, then, if
by some event -- and we have been stuck with these before, that somebody comes
along with the right amount of money and buys this annexed property from these
developers, that we have something that we can hold any future owner if, in fact, it
changes hands, to the quality in the development that we are seeing conceptually
presented this evening. So, those would be considerations that I would lend to a
favorable vote on this, otherwise, I probably would be hesitant and want to see more
specifics.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: The question posed to Planning and Zoning and some of the ones that I have
asked, I heard ACHD say that's a discussion for another time and another place and for
another application and that's fine with me. The only questions I have for Mr. Nary is we
have -- we talk about bubble drawings and we talk about concept plans, is there a
timeline restriction that we may place on this in the development that if we don't see a
plat in a certain period of time that the annexation becomes -- I mean can we do that in
an annexation?
Rountree: We have done it.
Bird: We have done it before.
Wardle: Is it --
Meridian City Council
June 6,2006
Page 105 of 120
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the eouncil, Councilmember Wardle, yeah, you can
certainly place conditions in the development agreement of when you're expectation or
what time limits are set for both the approval of the development agreement or when the
plat -- when at least the first preliminary plat needs to come back. It would be awfully
tough to put all phases into a development agreement and try to figure out timing, but,
certainly, if your concern is is that by the first preliminary plat request that comes in that
the issue is going to get discussed again and something else is going to occur in
regards to this property, we can certainly try to fashion some language in the DA to
bring that forward in front of you. It wouldn't necessarily make the action void, it simply
sets it up for another hearing. You can consider whether or not at that juncture to do
something else, whether to de-annex or do something else in regards to the future
phases.
Wardle: And, Madam Mayor, just, I guess, a follow up. We have had the discussion
about that there has been some case study on voluntary de-annexation and there hasn't
been any -- I don't think that we have discovered on the other side to this point, but I
would assume that if it's in the development agreement that it's entered into voluntarily,
that the property owners to the city, that that would make such a voluntary action.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, I mean we
could certainly tweak some of the language that we currently use in those and it is
voluntary, as you said. I mean if that's something we can't reach an agreement with in a
development agreement, although you have preliminarily approved the annexation until
that development agreement is signed, the annexation hasn't occurred.
Wardle: Okay. So, I guess, Madam Mayor, in follow-up, the only other question I
would have is what would be an appropriate time period for that. We have seen a
couple time lines and I think 2008 is an outside day.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird:
Bird: Shaun, what kind of -- what time are you talking about, getting the development
agreement or the preliminary plat?
Wardle: The plat. Preliminary Plat.
Bird: The first phase? Well, I think he said he was going to do that immediately. The
development agreement you would want -- you would want signed first I would think and
how fast is our staff going to have a development agreement drawn and for them to look
at it and between it I think it would be fair to get them, you know, there or four months to
get the development agreement. I mean that's a long -- but we are talking about a large
one and I agree with eouncilman Rountree, that some of these specifics should be in
there, that -- so, if this property is sold, we have still got the new buyer's feet to the fire.
in plane words.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 106 of 120
Wardle: Well, let me put this up for discussion. And we have used this -- this timeline
before, six months to have a signed development agreement and I would -- I guess my
preference would be 12 months for a maximum to see a plat after the signed
agreement.
Bird: That would be fair. As long as you put a date specific that's fine with me.
Rountree: So, you're young and have a nice --
Bird: Yeah. Getting right after it.
Rountree: -- memory and you have heard everything we have said, so if you would like
to make a motion, and --
Bird: I have senior moments, so you know I'm not--
Rountree: Because I'm -- it's way past my bedtime.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, it's past my bedtime, too, but I will attempt a motion here. I
move that we approval Item 20, AZ 06-004, annexation and zoning for The Tree Farm
and to include in the development agreement -- have the development agreement
signed within six months of date of approval and to require a preliminary plat within 12
months of the signing of the development agreement. And to include all of the
testimony from the applicant and the public and eouncil regarding quality of
development, open space requirements, elevations that were provided this evening for
a decision.
Rountree: Access.
Wardle: Access to the adjoining properties and internal circulation.
Rountree: I will second that.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve and a second. Anna, for discussion I
know the applicant had mentioned Items 11, 12. and 16 in the staff report.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, maybe this doesn't bode well for
accountability as far as our customer service accountability respect and excellence, but
the DA provisions I don't worry about as much, because they are not really part of the
findings, they are part of a negotiated agreement, so you can direct Mr. Nary as part of
that development agreement to incorporate those provisions that the applicant just
talked about and Mr. Rountree also suggested some language with regard to stub
streets that isn't exactly consistent with one of the development agreement provisions,
but I would assume would be modified to kind of fit all three of those to meet Council's
desires prior to signing.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 107 of 120
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: I'm good with that.
De Weerd: Well, I'm sorry we closed the Public Hearing. I did want to ask the applicant
what a slug of product was, but I missed my opportunity.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, it's the same as a group of products; right? A whole lot.
De Weerd: Any further discussion?
Bird: eall the question.
De Weerd: We have addressed the connectivity and so that's -- okay. Mr. Berg, will
you, please, call roll. .
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton. absent.
MOTION eARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for all sticking with us. I think we are already, although
we have more.
Rountree: There is more. I'm going to recuse myself for the next item, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: The next three?
Rountree: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Go ahead and-
Item 21:
Public Hearing: VAR 05M027 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3.H
requirements for access to State Highway 69 for Meridian Gateway by
White-Leasure Development eompany - 1601 South Meridian Road:
Wardle: All right. If I could get everyone's attention for Item No. 21. We will move
through our agenda. I will open Public Hearing Item 21, VAR 05-027, and I will begin
with staff comments.
Canning: eouncilmembers -- President Wardle, Councilmembers, this is the Meridian
Gateway project. This is a request for reconsideration as to the location requirement.
This was originally heard on March 7th. There was, then, a request for a
reconsideration hearing to clarify the approval on April 18th. So, this is your third full
hearing on this item. It's located on the southwest corner of Meridian and Overland.
The application is for a variance to access to Meridian Road, State Highway 69. The
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 108 of 120
original request was for two new approaches to Meridian Road and including one right-
in, right-out on full drive driveway. The request before you tonight for is one right-in,
right-out only at about 500 feet and just a moment, I will get that up. So, this is the
revised request, would be one access shown here. The outstanding issues before City
Council, since this Is a new hearing, as staff I feel obligated to say that staff is still
recommending denial of this various application. I think there was more than sufficient
notation made of the development agreement when this property was annexed that
there would not be curb cuts allowed to Meridian Road, State Highway 69. So, staff
would still advocate for denial of this application. Given that you have already approved
it twice, I will move on. With regard to the question of the 700 feet versus the 500 feet, I
suppose staff is more supportive of the 700 feet. One of the selling points that the
applicant used in the last hearing was to state that this would be a loop road and, then,
the neighbors testified about it being a backage street or about having cross-access to
serve all the commercial properties located between here and Overland, basically. And
that was really their selling point for why this access was necessary is that rather than
put people back onto Overland to have them come this way, that the folks using this
commercial property could use this street to have more expedient access to the state
highway. If that is the case, staff feels that the best location for that is the southern
property boundary at this location because it -- what it could do is similar to the last
project you saw where that -- where the applicant worked to front development and
incorporate the residential development. You have the opportunity to do here kind of in
reverse. Rather than just throwing the commercial properties back to all these adjoining
neighbors, you have the ability to have those -- that road or an access way serve as a
kind of divider between those two uses. I would even venture that it could serve to
have, you know, that landscape -- required landscape buffer and sound absorbing walls
like you have required of other commercial development. I do want to point out there is
another stub street here coming into the Prather property, so there is that opportunity to
create something similar to what we saw in the previous project where you have a
backage street, but not likely if it's located in the center of the property, as shown here.
Particularly if you have to meander through parking lots to get there. I really think what
was touted was this kind of a through connection and through cross-access, not a
circuitous cross-access as is shown here. If Council does decide to approve the 500
foot location, I would recommend that the applicant be required to extend the cross-
access immediately west -- so straight west. Again, if people are forced to meander
through this property, then, it's really not serving the cross-access connection that was
touted as serving this whole commercial area south of Overland. And, again, you may
want to even consider requiring the development agreement be amended to include a
private street or even a public road where ever that access location may be. I have
provided you excerpts from the minutes with regard to the discussions of the loop road,
of the cross-access, and, then, of the backage road from Huber, Storey, and Prather in
that order. I also provided the discussion after the Public Hearing was closed about --
from Mr. Borton as to why he supported the variance and, then, Mr. Bird on the question
of the access and, finally, with regard to the 700 feet and where that came from that
was an amendment to Mr. Borton's motion. So, I tried to provide you that -- the key
highlights from those minutes, so that you would have those. The specific distance was
Meridian City Council
June 6. 2006
Page 109 of 120
-- was talked about in the hearing, it wasn't just random, and it was a clear part of the
motion. With that I will answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Applicant?
Huber: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jeff Huber. My address is
416 South 8th Street, Suite 200, Boise. I represent the applicant. We really appreciate
the time you're spending tonight and we applaud your dedication.
De Weerd: Well, we apologize for the lateness of the hour. We usually don't go past
11 :00.
Huber: I'm going to keep this just very very brief, believe me, so we can move on.
Okay. This is our site. As you know -- and you're familiar with it. The subdivision to
the south is built out. The salvage yard to the west. Overland Road. Meridian Road.
At your April 18th hearing there was a right-in, right-out access approved at this
location. We are now asking your reconsideration to move it to -- could we see the
figure, Anna? Yeah. This is the one that was approved, the access going up to the
neighboring properties to the west. And we are still providing that access. Now we are
requesting, if you could, Anna, the access be moved no closer than 500 feet from the
center line of Overland Road to provide for this access at this point in the project. We
had Kittleson and Associates do a comparison of the two accesses and that letter that
he wrote after his analysis was in your packet and he's here to summarize that for you
and Mr. Lee is also here to answer any questions if you may have some after Mr.
Ringert from Kittleson gives his summary of that comparison. Any questions?
De Weerd: Questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Good morning.
Ringert: Hi. I'm John Ringert with Kittleson and Associates. I'm a traffic engineer.
Address 101 South eapital, Suite 301, Boise. 83702.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ringert: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when we started out the process, we
had -- like we mentioned, a full access down here and a right-in, right-out. We -- then,
working with -- between ITD and us, we -- you know, we started to limit this access for
left-out, but it still was the most logical location for the -- you know, for the access. Can
you put on the previous one that Jeff had with the approved access plan? Figure two I
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 110 of 120
think. Yeah. When we put this up -- when we looked at this, you know, it made the
most sense working with ITD, you know, the Mitchner property across the way has full
access. ITD didn't see that changing. There is a two-way left turn lane for left turns.
You know, it was the most logical location. With the approval of the Council for a right-
in, right-out, from a traffic perspective It becomes pretty difficult to really control -- you
know, if you have a four-legged intersection with turn lanes and everything, and just one
approach, we are going to do right-in, right-out, now all of a sudden you have places for
people to turn into, places for people to turn out -- it becomes a bit difficult. In addition,
in discussions with ITD, they'd really like to do a median project at some time down
here. Changes are they would first look at allowing left in still here, because it's going to
be hard enough to close down somebody's full access and left in still operate. Well,
what that means is there will always be a break here and, you know, if we look at it from
a long term aspect, we are always going to have that confusion for drivers. Anna, could
you go back to the ones you started with? Figure three. Yeah. Those.
De Weerd: Now, would that be the same with the little island -- that island controls the
moving --
Ringert: Yeah. Islands are great if people use them the way they are supposed to. To
design them so trucks and cars can all get in and out, I think most of you have probably
seen a situation where people are violating the islands. I mean I can think of -- there is
a line of people, for instance, at the Lowe's -- they put an island in the Lowe's driveway
on Eagle Road and there is always a line of five cars taking a left in and there is always
somebody with their blinker taking a left out. Well, if we can locate it anywhere at least
reasonably away from this intersection, so it isn't confused with the intersection, that will
work great, because in the long terms you could get it -- or even in the near term if they
wanted to add it to the construction along this intersection, you could put in a median
right in here -- this is blatantly obvious you're not -- you don't have a two-way left turn
lane to turn into and turn out of. The critical thing of ITD has always been we need to
be far enough away to get good deceleration of cars, so we don't have somebody
coming through the intersection at 40 miles an hour, suddenly having somebody put
their brakes on and decelerate. So, we have more than enough distance to
accommodate ITD's concerns. In fact, you know, we were able to even get them -- get
that in here -- up here earlier. So, you know, we really considered that being the
primary benefit. Anna had mentioned a little bit about the circulation. We are not as
concerned about the circulation. The only issue is we have a very high number of right
turns going up to these northern pads. As you come down here, due to the way the
site's laid out, we have got a pretty long straightaway there and we have a lot and since
you're compressing all the traffic into one location down here and you have a future
access here, you really have some pretty long -- you know, you'd have some pretty long
straightaways that sometimes in a parking lot environment creates a problem. But I
think the main thing that we were -- that we really wanted to focus on is from a Meridian
Road standpoint and the right-in, right-out. So, that was the look from a traffic
perspective.
Meridian City Council
JUne 6, 2006
Page 111 of 120
De Weerd: I'm going to -- because it's so late, get on my soap box on parking lot
design. You know, you probably made light, but that doesn't matter. But what drives
me nuts if whoever designs these private parking lots, because they do a crappy job
and I'm sorry I'm not very political this time of night -- they don't do a very logical job in
that and it -- one of the selling points was, really, the connectivity, how this can help
connect a development and how it occurs there. That's not going to be very friendly to
anything but the few businesses there to utilize that access out.
Ringert: Okay. Maybe Larry can speak to that.
De Weerd: Especially through a private parking lot.
Ringert: Yeah. From a traffic perspective through a private parking lot, you know, I kind
of -- I know what you're talking about. It is -- it does -- it is difficult with a parking lot
situation. One thing we want to do is we don't want to mix a roadway type connection
that really isn't built like a roadway type connection with the parking lot, because, then,
you have this pseudo 30 mile per hour or 25 mile per hour feel, yet there is still cars
pulling out and I agree there is definitely issues with how people approach parking lot
design and, then, how you connect it in, you know, for future. But Larry can --
De Weerd: Yeah. And I guess I'll wait until Larry gets up.
Ringert: Well, if there are any other -- I guess traffic questions and -- you can always
grab me.
Leasure: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Larry Leasure, White-Leasure
Development Company, Boise, Idaho. Just one comment. this right-in. right-out access
point, as you can see, is not in the center of the site as was suggested. It is
approximately 200 plus feet from our property line here. Number one is that we -- we
are in presently for a eonditional Use Permit at the present time, which is on hold until
something happens here this evening. We have no problem and would consider
designing, because we did indicate before, providing an access to the adjacent property
owners, that was the intent and that was agreed previously. So, this is -- obviously, this
retail tenant is committed to the plan as proposed and this is what has been submitted
to the city for the conditional use with the drive-thru. But what I am indicating is that we
certainly, through that process, will come back for the internal circulation within the site
plan for the right-in, right-out and we have no problem going direct -- directly through
this and redesigning out retail shops that we have in this area. We did not spend all the
time in the total redesign of this, because if you will go back to the original ones, we
have not changed, you know, the building elevations or locations as they were, we have
just changed the right-in, right-out from here to this location.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess, Larry, my concern is you have a lot of movement right in
that area. You have a drive-thru with a bank or whatever that pad is, but -- I mean you
have traffic coming to that access from three different directions and a turn lane into a
drive-thru and -- I have seen -- we have nightmares all over the city. I would hope that
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 112 of 120
we start learning from some of those experiences and setting us up for a lot of different
turn movements in that private driveway. You have someone coming, you want
someone going out, you want someone coming into a drive-thru -- it's a motorist's
nightmare. And maybe it's even our police department's nightmare, although it's private
property, so we shouldn't care, but we are also motorists as well.
Leasure: Absolutely. And we care as well as our tenants do, certainly, as well for that
access. Also, the access going here versus down along the back of the property line --
the other issue here, too, is that if you would have gone back here and this property was
master planned, chances are you would not be bringing back a solution running this
back against the property line, chances are buildings would be in here and this would be
back to the back for truck loading and so forth, which wouldn't be the most conducive for
access coming out at this point. I don't believe that that is what you would probably do if
you were designing the balance of this 30 acres of real estate. I think we probably
would have come back in here as well. So, that's all I'm suggesting is that the redesign
of this, as far as access from the pads into this, certainly we can look at that as well in
our conditional use approval for inside the shopping center. But our hope is that you will
give consideration to this location. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. eouncil, any questions for Mr. Leasure?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there additional testimony on this application?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
eanning: I just wanted to point out the applicant talked about this location, if you extend
that through the other properties, it does tend to encourage people to put the
commercial properties and the loading areas right adjacent to the residences and I
guess that's what I was trying to convey with maybe the road or a private street as a
better separation than having loading areas right up against those back yards for those
residential properties to the north of here. Just a moment. So, rather than putting the
back side of buildings with loading docks against those residences, some sort of private
drive or a roadway may be more appropriate and that was the point I was originally
trying to make.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is no additional testimony, I would like -- does
the applicant have any final remarks? Okay. Okay. eouncil?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 113 of 120
Borton: Seeing no further comment, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 21,
V AR 05-027.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve the request for reconsideration on Item 21, VAR 05-027 to
include the applicant's concession to provide and extend the access immediately to the
west on this newly approved right-in, right-out access, which is no closer than 500 feet
from the intersection.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 21. Is there any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-eall: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23
commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gatewav Marketplace
Subdivision by Landmark Development - southeast corner of Ustick
Road and Eagle Road:
Item 23:
Public Hearing: VAR 06-002 Request for a Variance for two access
points to Eagle Road SH / 55 for Gatewav MarketDlace by Landmark
Development - southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 22 and 23 are public hearings on PP 06-002 and VAR 06-002.
I would open these public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just since it's late -- the amount of
confusion over Gateway Marketplace and Meridian Gateway has really been enormous.
I think that these project files are so intertwined at this point it's kind of silly. I notice that
you did have some of the Gateway Marketplace material in your Meridian Gateway
packet for tonight, so if you are missing something, that's probably where it's located.
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 114 of 120
Gateway Marketplace. Here I am. Okay. This is another reconsideration from the
applicant -- at the applicant's request. The original hearing was also on April 18th of this
year. This property is located on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle. It is another
variance request to the access to state highway standards. The original proposal had
two access points -- the original proposal had two access points to Eagle Road --
De Weerd: Hey, Anna?
eanning: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Before you continue, the applicant has written a letter requesting a
workshop forum on this and I don't know where we are at in that process.
Canning: Maybe Mr. Nary can --
De Weerd: So, maybe we want to cover that first and if they want a workshop, it would
save us some time.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have never had a workshop
forum before it came to Council. I'm not sure once it's in the hearing process if that's an
appropriate format and I believe that's what Mr. Nary's comments were.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: It is true the applicant has requested a workshop. The concern that was raised
by the applicant was the difficulty staff has in trying to work through the particular issue
here about the access and the variance that's necessary. What I advised both our
planning staff, as well as the applicant, was that because we had already noticed the
Public Hearing, that at the hearing that decision would have to be made by the eouncil.
If the Council wished to continue this matter and direct that a workshop be done, the
only -- the only thing I had recommended to the applicant and staff was that the eouncil
or yourself, Madam Mayor, not be a participant in that, since you are decision makers in
the ultimate resolution. But if the applicant feels they have got a good project or a good
proposal in front of you and you want to take action on it, you certainly can. If they want
to ask that we sit down with staff and the applicant a little further and try to work through
whatever issues that might exist, we can certainly do that at your direction. I think the
workshop as they had originally asked for was including either some or all of the Council
or the Mayor as well and I don't think that would be appropriate to make a final decision.
But, again, I did communicate that to the applicant and she did respond in saying that
we would take this up later. So, she may have a different -- different view for tonight,
especially at 1 :00 o'clock.
De Weerd: Would you like to comment?
MeriClian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 115 of 120
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the eouncil, Tamara Thompson, Landmark
Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way, Boise, Idaho. 83712. My initial frustration was
just that there wasn't a lot of discussion between council members on the denial of the
variance and that I wanted to try to get a better understanding of what the issues were
with Council and getting Mr. Nary's reply that that would not be appropriate, I did sit
down with Anna last week and had what I would call a workshop with staff. So, if that is
-- basically, I mean, if I have to only work with staff and we can't work with eouncil, then,
I think we have had that and we are ready to go forward.
De Weerd: Okay. eouncil, I guess my -- and I know we have made them wait all night.
It is 1 :00 o'clock in the morning. Is everyone even lucid to consider -- and is this a five
minute discussion or a one hour discussion?
eanning: There are unresolved issues, so I don't think it's a five minute discussion.
De Weerd: So, eouncil, I don't know if maybe you might consider continuing this for a
workshop and giving staff and the applicant some more specific direction. I don't know
what we can do at this stage, but I know I'm fading. I was fading during The Tree Farm,
so --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I was going to say it appears that we are going to have a Public Hearing on the
issue. I think the question is whether we do that tonight. I would be willing to continue
that. I don't think an additional workshop with staff is what the applicant's asking for.
They want a hearing, but I agree it's 1 :00 o'clock in the evening, I would be willing to
continue this to a date certain.
De Weerd: eouncil, I guess if you could give at least the applicant a little bit of
feedback. You know, maybe, Tamara, it would help to ask specific questions that you
can come back with. I feel -- I feel that I have errored by letting you stay all night and
it's 1 :00 o'clock and we are going to continue you without any additional information.
So, is there -- if this is something that eouncil wants to do, consider continuing this, is
there some direction that -- that the applicant or questions the applicant can ask to know
when we get back together again what you're looking for?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I had a question for Anna. She said there is quite a bit of difference or something.
I take it that the biggest difference is the right-in, right-out. What's the other ones,
Anna?
M~ridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 116 of 120
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the eouncil --
Bird: Without getting into a Public Hearing.
Canning: I won't. When Tamara first came to talk to me I felt she had addressed the
issues. In looking back over the previous discussions I realize there was AeHD issues
with -- related to construction of Allys Way that were not addressed by this proposal.
So, there is -. that's the biggest concern. And, then, the temporary nature of an access
and, really, how temporary is commercial access once people get accustomed to that
access is it really going to be temporary. So, I think that those are the two outstanding
issues.
De Weerd: So, perhaps that's enough direction to come back with -- so you at least
know what those issues are?
eanning: I think the three of us need to meet with ACHD.
Bird: Okay. Now, if we continue it are we just going to be -- does she realize it will be
the 20th? Because we don't meet next week, I guess. We are not going to have a
quorum next week.
De Weerd: The 20th. Go ahead.
Thomas: I just said I have until July 5th and, then, this baby is coming. So, the 20th
would be fine.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Tamara, I guess in light of Anna's questions, there was a remark on how it's
paid for, the access that would be temporary, how changes in future access that's ten
years down the road on how that's paid for. So, that was -- I guess you need some
direction of what the questions might be, but while you have us here if there is
something else on your list -- we can't do a workshop together, so that question's out.
Thompson: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, my main frustration, basically,
was just what the -- what the main issues were and -- and what the eouncil would like to
see as far as some happy medium we could come to, which I think we have presented
something that is potentially a win-win for both sides and I hope you guys all got -- got
copies of -- of what we have -- or what our proposal was going to be, without actually
going into it. So, I think -- I think the issues that Anna's bringing up right now as far as
Allys Way, that was a condition in our preliminary plat that we had to pay for half of that
road. So, I guess I just don't understand what the issue is there. But I do see that there
are some things that we need to look at closer with however far down the road that
these accesses -- the permanent status of it changes, you know, if ownership changes,
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 117 of 120
that kind of stuff, how that gets paid for, if that's bonded for up front or that type of stuff.
So, we can work on that. Specifically I just was hoping for -- you know, there is not a
whole -- sometimes there is not a lot of discussion amongst you guys to give us
somewhere to go, so --
De Weerd: Usually there is lots of discussion.
Thompson: I just didn't feel like on this that I had a good understanding of what the hot
points were. but if staff understands those -- which I think they do and I think after
talking with Anna this last week I had a better understanding of where that is, so I don't
think I have any specific questions, unless you all have something that you know is your
hot button, whether it's speed limits or -- I'm sure safety is at the top of all of our lists,
but --
De Weerd: It certainly is and that's why we adopted restricted access, so -- Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we continue Items 22 and Items 23 to June 27th,
which would be the only meeting where we will have three --
De Weerd: Shaun won't be here on the -- I mean Councilman Wardle won't be here on
the 20th.
Bird: Yeah. Good idea.
De Weerd: And the 20th is packed full of all kinds of fun items, too.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue the Public Hearing to June 27th, 2006.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 24:
Ordinance No. 06-1233 : AZ 05-051 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensbura
Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLe - northwest corner of
North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue:
Item 25:
Ordinance No. 06-1234 : AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates
Subdivision by The Gables, LLe - 2445 North Wingate Lane:
Item 26:
Ordinance No. 06-1235 : AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by
Dyver Development, LLe - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and
ehinden Boulevard:
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 118 of 120
Item 27:
Ordinance No. 06-1236 AZ. 06-011 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek
Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust
G rove Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 24 through 27, Ordinance 06-1233,06-1234,06-1235 and 06-
1236. I will ask the clerk to, please, read these ordinances by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1233, an
ordinance for annexation of property located in the southeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 3 West, Boise Meridian, Ada eounty,
Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated
in Ada eounty 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-15 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 eommission, 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 06-1234, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the
southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1
East, Boise Meridian, Ada eounty, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing
certain lands and territories 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. Which was Charlie's favorite ordinance.
Berg: Ordinance 06-1235, an ordinance for annexation of property located on the west
one half of the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise
Meridian, Ada eounty, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands
and territories situated in Ada eounty, 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 eity eode, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed
with the Ada County assessor, the Ada eounty recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
eommission, 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 06-1236, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the
northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories
Meridian City Council
June 6, 2006
Page 119 of 120
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of
the City of Meridian, as requested by the eity of Meridian, establishing and determining
the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-4 in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax eommission, 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. I'm finished.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: Since we have heard those all by title only --
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in their entirety? Seeing
none, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move we approve Items 24, 25, 26, and 27 with suspension of
rules, please.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor -- oh, sorry. Will.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 28:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (c) - (to conduct
deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real
property, which is not owned by a public agency):
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we go into Executive Session as per 67-2345(1) (c), quick
and out.
Rountree: I'll second that so we can get it over with.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-eall: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
JUne 6, 2006
Page 120 of 120
EXEeUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I will entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
ALL AYES. MOTION eARRIED.
Bird: Madame Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we adjourn.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
ALL AYES. MOTION eARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:15 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
~ U4"/b/~~
MAYOR~EWEERD
ATTESTED.
WILLIAM G. BERG JR.,