HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 07-25
Meridian City Council Meeting
Julv 25,2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M.,
Tuesday, July 25,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Joe Borton and
Charlie Rountree.
/''-
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Gene Trakel, Ron Anderson, Len
Grady, Doug S1rol1g-;-L-e!!~na Thomas, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you for coming and joining us tonight. It is Tuesday, July 25th. It's a
few minutes after 7:00. We will start tonight's agenda with roll call attendance_
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2 is our pledge of allegiance. If you will all rise and jOin us.
Jennifer Bokenkamp will be leading us.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Gordon Slyter, with Treasure Valley
Worship Center:
De Weerd: Thank you, Jennifer. Item No.3 is our community invocation. Tonight we
will be led by Pastor Gordon Slyter with the Treasure Valley Worship Center. If you will
all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of
silence. Pastor. You can be either place.
Slyter: Let's pray. Our Father and our God, we come before you tonight humbly and
thankfully. In these troubled times we thank you for the privilege of living in here in
Meridian where there is the security and peace and prosperity and we thank you for
that. We do pray, Lord, that in our city and amongst our people wisdom would triumph
over expediency, charity over selfishness, compassion over hardheartedness, and that
your grace would triumph over all. We pray, Lord, that you would give wisdom and
guidance to everyone who speaks tonight, those who will be making decisions, those
who will be presenting evidence and facts and opinions and we pray, Lord, that when
the evening is over we will be able to look back and say that we have been guided by
Meridian City Coundl
July 25, 2006
Page 2 of 77
your providence and your grace. We thank you for this and we pray through Christ our
Lord, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you for your words tonight. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On our agenda, on the Consent, which we will go through this again, Items H, I,
and J need to be pulled to make 7-H, I, and J at the request of the Council. And with
that little modification I move we approve the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second_
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda before you. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of June 22, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of July 5, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06-
003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R-4 (Low-Density
Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) zone, including modifications to
the existing Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Subdivision
for Hastinas by Monterey, LLC - 2300 West Everest Lane:
D. Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06-
004 Request for a Rezone of 5_49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17
acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC
Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2
common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for
Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West
Pine Avenue:
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 3 of 77
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi-family
dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision
by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to
R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway
District - 1120 S. Locust Grove Road:
K. Sanitary Sewer Easement Aareement for Bellinaham Place:
L. Professional Services Contract for Scope of Services for
Cooperative Tasks with Sanitary Services. Inc.:
M. Permanent and Temporary Easement contract for the 2006
Trunk Sewer Proiect with Dyver Development, LLC:
N. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Aareements for
Properties at 2820 South EaQle Road:
De Weerd: Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda are Items 7-- or H, I, and J will be moved to 7-H, I, and J,
and the rest of the Consent Agenda I move we approve 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 with the removal of
Items H, I, and J. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
D. Mayor's Office
1. Scholarship Presentations:
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 4 of 77
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6. We have a number of department reports before my
office and we do have some guests here with us tonight. Council. would you mind if I
moved Item 0 ahead of the legal department?
Bird: No problem with me.
De Weerd: I know our legal department is very short and brief.
Nary: No problem from me either, Mayor.
Bird: I don't know who is the longest, the Mayor or the legal.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Did all of you -- are you okay with that? Okay.
Tonight we have two of our committee -- or our community members that have served
our community in various ways that we get to recognize this evening with a scholarship.
Both were seniors. One at Meridian High School and the second one at Mountain View.
And they have worked hard, in addition to their school work. They have been great
students, but they have been great community members. And so it is with great
pleasure that I get to recognize these two young ladies tonight. If Council doesn't mind,
I will leave my seat here. This last year Council has really stepped up our commitment
to recognizing the youth and the value they have in our community and funded two
scholarships that were applied for. We had a committee of our Meridian's Promise
board members evaluate the applicants and they made a selection and so right now I'll
call -- now is it Gina -- Gina Holder -- or Holler, as well as Jennifer Bokenkamp. If you
will come forward. They will both be moving onto higher education and we have a
scholarship to present to them that the money will go directly to the education institution
of your choice, but we just wanted to have the opportunity to ceremonially recognize
you and thank you for what you have done in our community and I always get
emotional, so -- Jennifer, thank you so much for what you do and I'm sure you will
continue on to make a difference in everything you do as you move into this next step or
next phase. And, Gina, thank you. Both these young ladies have done tremendous
things and have shown compassion and leadership. So, welcome -- or congratulations
and good luck in this next endeavor. Would you like to say anything?
Bokenkamp: I would just like to thank you guys for giving us this opportunity and for
furthering my education.
Holler: I'm truly honored to be accepting this award and I will use it towards my
bachelor's degree in nursing at BSU and I just want to congratulate Jennifer, too.
A. Legal Department
1. Update of Impact Fee Committee
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 5 of 77
De Weerd: Congratulations go to the parents as well. We know that behind every
successful student are caring and giving families. So, thank you. Okay. Mr. Nary,
you're up.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I have one -- one item. The
second item we aren't prepared to discuss tonight. But I have an update on the impact
fees. The impact fee committee has met, has made a recommendation to be brought
forward. We are in the process now of some of the paperwork that's necessary, a
recommendation letter. A draft has been prepared. Mr. Strong, as chair of the
committee, has had an opportunity to review that. We need the committee to review
that as well. Tonight was originally to be a scheduled Public Hearing. Because of some
delays in getting this process completed, we have had to put that off a little bit, but I did
want to advise you there is a couple of steps that are still in the process that need to be
done. One of them is that it's been a recommendation by our consultants that we have
used in this process that we also have the Planning and Zoning Commission review the
recommendation as a Comp Plan text amendment, so we have worked with the clerk's
office to schedule that for a Planning and Zoning hearing on the 17th of August. It
doesn't have to be a lengthy Public Hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission,
but it was the recommendation from the consultants that we follow that part of the
process under the local Land Use Planning Act and so we have scheduled with notices
to be published in Monday's edition of the Valley Times for a Public Hearing to be held
on the 17th of August. The statute does not allow us to publish a hearing before the
City Council prior to the Planning and Zoning hearing, so we will -- if all goes well at the
Planning and Zoning hearing and no significant changes are made, then, we will be
publishing a notice in August for a City Council Public Hearing for the final hearing to set
the fees, hopefully, on the 5th of September, is the target date that we are looking for
now, if no further Significant changes are to be made. Again, the committee's done a
very good job in trying to flush out what the consultants have brought to them. They
have had some very good discussions at their meetings and trying to formulate a good
poliCY and rationale that they could, then, bring forward in a recommendation to you for
your final consideration as to what those fees should be set. As you well know or recall
in the discussion on these that we are looking at not only an impact fee for park
development, but also an impact fee for public safety for both police and fire. At the last
impact fee committee meeting both the builders groups that have participated, the
Building Contractors Association, as well as the Ada County Association of Realtors, we
are in agreement we will want to present testimony at the Public Hearing about their
position on these impact fees and the like, but they were supportive of what the
committee's recommendation was and so I believe at the public hearing stage you will
hear both that -- both their concerns and issues, as well as their support. So, I think it's
been a very good process to this point and I just wanted to make you aware of kind of
what the next steps were in the Public Hearing process, so we can bring that back in
front of you. Do you have any other questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 6 of 77
Bird: I have none.
2. Contract I Agreement with Petra, Inc. for Construction
Manager:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that update. Item NO.2.
Nary: We are not ready to discuss that in the meeting tonight, Madam Mayor.
B. Public Works Department
1. Purchase of Permanent Flowmeters for the Sewer
System with the 2005 Sewer Master Plan Project with
JUS Engineers:
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. 6-B. Public Works Department. Len.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have about 30,000 dollars
remaining in our sewer master plan study. We would like to take some of that
remaining money and purchase flow meters for next year's sewer master plan. So, it's
a little bit of a change of contract, but JUS would still be purchasing the meters and we
would not exceed our contract amount with JUB. So, I'm just looking for approval, if
that's acceptable.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for Len?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we authorize the Public Works Department to
purchase flow meters for the sewer system utilizing the remaining 30,000 dollars in the
sewer master plan project.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request in front of you. Is there any
discussion? If not, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
c. Parks Department
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 7 of 77
1. Reauest to Reiect Bid for Adventure Island Splash Pad:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item C. Our parks director has the next two items.
Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We are requesting that
we refuse the one bid that we received to do the install for the Adventure Island water
splash pad. The one bid we received was for 241,000 dollars. This does not include
the equipment, which has been purchased separately, that you have already approved
to purchase that equipment for 134,000 earlier. We are recommending that we refuse
this bid because we feel it's higher than it should be and what certainly our budget can
allow. So, we would like to refuse the bid and put it out for rebid.
De Weerd: Okay.
Strong: To give you some idea of just the costs involved, we have remaining in that line
item 236,000 dollars. 134,000 of that will be spent for the equipment that will be a part
of the total install, which leaves 102,000 dollars remaining in that budget item for the
install portion. So, we need to get it closer to that amount to fully bring it back.
De Weerd: So, Doug, is that what the estimate for that project would be is closer to
100,000?
Strong: The initial estimate was somewhere around 90 to 100 thousand dollars. So,
this came in considerably higher than what we were expecting. We know that costs
keep going up, so we may, even in the next go around, not get down to that 100,000
dollar amount. We certainly want to get closer before we propose accepting a bid.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor. Doug, rebidding, unless you change the specs and stuff, how do
you expect to get it done cheaper? I mean our engineer -- or whoever designed it, the
estimate was 100,000 and it comes in at 241,0007 I mean how are we going to change
it? Every time -- every time we have had something rebid, if we don't change it, it
comes in higher. And I realize we only had one bid on this one. Maybe next time you
will have two or three, but I don't think you will. You would have had two or three now.
Unless you want to put it off six months when everybody slows down and see what the
deal is. Where are we getting -- where are we getting our professional estimates at?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, part of I think the
reason that the bid was as high as it is is because of the time frame we have attached
to it in the first bid, because everybody is so busy. The reason we got one bid, I think,
was because of -- we wanted to construct it before the end of the summer season. I
think at this point we are facing -- and our bid is going to be rewritten for a longer install
time frame to go clear through the fall months, so that we can get more bids and,
hopefully, a lower bid, because people won't have to reroute through the different work
like that. There were some items in the bid that will be clarified in addendums, that type
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 8 of 77
of thing that will bring the cost down. So, we have been working with the architect and
with our new purchasing agent and this is where we have ended up, the
recommendation. That's a lot of separation between what we have in the budget
currently and what we thought the cost was going to be, recognizing that costs have
been continually going up and up. That's about 139,000 dollars separation. so -- what
we have and what it would take to accept this bid.
Bird: Yeah, but .- follow up, Madam Mayor? If we put it out and your professional -- I
don't know whether it's architect. engineer, whoever drew your drawings and they are
doing all these different things, they are going to charge you for it, unless they are
donating their work, and that would be a first.
Strong: We have been working with the Land Group on that and we have already paid
them for the redraw the first time around, we don't have to pay for the --
Bird: You have to pay for them to change all these bids and specs and stuff.
Strong: They are very minor changes in the documents at this point.
Bird: If they are minor changes and we are going to take out 141,000 dollars or hope
to?
Strong: We hope to, yeah.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I -- well, that's not what the estimate Is and what we are finding
and you had to do the same thing to one of our sewer projects to add a great deal more
to that as well, but people don't need the work right now and so they are padding their
bids not necessarily thinking they are going to get it, but -- and I have heard this from a
number of contractors, so -- and I can't tell you in this case if that's the situation here. I
guess when you put this out and find the same thing, then, they need to start looking at
it a lot closer in the design and that sort of thing. And it probably did have something to
do with the time schedule. Is there any other questions? Comments?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Doug, in your professional judgment do you think that rebidding it and changing
the time frame for performance will reduce some if not all of that gap, by allowing them
to complete the installation later, the mid summer, the mid fall?
Strong: That's our best thinking at this point, is that that's -- that's an opportunity that
we want to -- before we ask for money to cover this bid, we want to go down that road
first. Because at this point in the season we are not going to get the splash pad built so
that it will have any utility for use in the summer season. So, to push it and hurry it at
that much difference in cost doesn't seem practical or good use of public money. So,
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 9 of 77
we want to at least go down this road and see if an extended time frame when people's
schedules free up, that we can get a lower bid. And we know there is several other
contractors that would -- would have bid on this project, because we talked to them, if
they had had a longer time frame. They said they couldn't do anything until in the fall,
that their schedule was so full that they didn't even want to bid on it, because they knew
they couldn't get the work done, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? I do need a motion to approve the request
to reject the bid, if you so desire. If not, I guess I would need a motion to put more
money towards this project. So, the ball is in your court.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: It sounds from what Mr. Strong is telling us and his judgment as to what he
thinks would be available, should the bid be rejected and an opportunity, should it be
rebid and the time frame extended for performance, could provide and should provide
some significant savings to the city, would clearly outweigh additional expense incurred
to rebid it. It seems like it's a net savings to the city to rebid it. A lot more than we ever
anticipated. So, all things considered, it makes sense to me to reject the bid and to
rebid it, so that would be indicated to save the city a little money to get this thing done
right. So, those are my thoughts.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor, I would move that we -- that we reject the bid from Hillside
Landscape and Construction on Adventure Island splash pad and direct Director Strong
to rebid it as he has indicated.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request to reject the
bid for Adventure Island splash pad. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
2. ReQuest for Additional Fundina for Recreation Proarams
and Back Up Documentation:
Strong: Thank you. Madam Mayor, on item two I have asked Leanna Thomas, our
recreational superintendent, to address you regarding that item.
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 10 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Thomas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity to be
here this evening. The park's staff is requesting approval of a budget amendment for
our recreation programs and classes and the adult sports programs in the amount of
31,786 dollars and these -- this request is specifically related to our expansion of our
programs this summer, which have been -- I'm not going to say a surprise, but it's not a
pleasant experience. We have added four additional weeks of our day camp for youth
or play camp, five weeks of sports camp, four weeks of outdoor adventure camp, and
six weeks of our camps which have all filled and we have also had an increase in our
adult sports programs and our softball leagues specifically and due to the expansion of
the programs we have had to add additional staff for the camps, as well as increase the
amount of supplies that are needed to run the programs and the equipment, as well as
transportation costs for field trips and other related items specific to the day camp
program.
De Weerd: Congratulations.
Thomas: Thank you.
De Weerd: It is offset also by the additional revenue you have been bringing in.
Thomas: That is correct. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.
De Weerd: You're right. Council, any questions for Leanna?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Leanna, I think it's fantastic that you have the increased participation. My only
question is is this something that is eligible or could have been done as part of the
budget for next year versus amending the current budget?
Thomas: Well, our costs are occurring during this budget year and so when we looked
at the budget submission for next year, we did take this into account. So, the budget
that we submitted for next year was reflective of the growth that we have had this year
and for the anticipated growth that we would have next year as well. Does that answer
your question?
Borton: It does.
Thomas: Okay.
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 11 of 77
De Weerd: And, traditionally, our programs haven't been at this scale, but because of
some of the modifications that Leanna did in her tenure so far with the city, it has seen
great and vast improvement and involvement participation. This is exactly what we
have been hoping for, but haven't quite got there yet. So, thank you, Leanna, we
appreciate your work. Council, I would need a motion to approve this request.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve the request for a budget amendment for additional funding
for the recreational program in the amount of 31 ,786.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve this request for additional
funding. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT
to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America
West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten
Mile Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50
4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77
acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons
Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine
Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-
family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-
plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres
in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision
by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and
east of Ten Mile Road:
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 12 of 77
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Leanna. Okay. Removed from the Consent
Agenda, Item No. 7 is H, I, and J, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for AZ
06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I asked these items to be taken off the Consent Agenda for
some discussion and possible reconsideration. A couple areas that -- reflecting on the
testimony. One was that there wasn't any dialogue or discussion as to what's going to
happen in the Ten Mile specific area plan in which this particular subdivision will reside
and there has been some questions and some issues related to private roads and the
narrowness of private roads in this particular subdivision. It utilizes those rather
extensively. So, with that as background, I throw that out for some discussion and if
there is no further discussion or if there are some concerns, I'm ready to make a motion
on these three items for reconsideration.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any comments to add to what Councilman Rountree has
stated?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Additional concerns, agreements, or I guess we could always try a motion
and --
Bird: See where it goes.
De Weerd: And see--
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Question for Bill. Is there -- if I recall, one of the requests that I voted in the
negative. Does that impact my ability to vote on reconsideration?
Nary: No, it does not. The only impact it would have is that the prevailing side of the
motion are the only ones that could move to reconsider it. But you can second it if you
wish and you certainly can vote on the motion.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we reconsider and move back to Public Hearing
Items H -- 7-H, 7-/' 7-J, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, AZ 06-013, PP 06-
011, and CUP 06-006. And I have a question for the clerk and/or Council. Do we need
a date certain for re-calendaring that?
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 13 of 77
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you don't need to pick a specific date.
You can -- they will have to check the hearing schedule and we will have to notice it up.
And, technically, what you're doing is moving to reconsider the decisions on the AZ, the
PP, and the CUP applications and tabling the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law.
Rountree: And knowing that we don't have to have a date certain, the motion also
includes that these items be tabled until we have reconsideration.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: For the motion -- or -- now that includes any cost we will pick up; right? like re-
noticing, redoing that, we will do that? It will not be up to the applicant in your motion?
Rountree: That was the intent of my motion and what I heard previously.
De Weerd: Okay. And, Mr. Nary, I guess my question to you would be as this is
reopened, is it reopened specifically for the items noted and the concern to be
addressed or .-
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, once you have made a decision to
reconsider an earlier decision, it can be only for those specific items or for a rehearing
over the entire project. Since it is an annexation application, my recommendation would
be is that although you may want the specific questions answered, you're going to
rehear this entire project, because it would be as if no decision had been made yet.
De Weerd; Okay. Okay. Council, any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Reauest for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning
and Preliminary Plat for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 8 is a request for reconsideration of denial
for annexation and zoning for -. yeah. Thank you. I don't know who names these
subdivisions, but -- and who is -- who is up on this one?
Item 8:
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 14 of 77
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think Mrs. Canning -- if Mrs. Canning
has any input, but I think the applicant, Mr. Schultz, appears to be walking to the
microphone, has filed the request. I think the request in front of you is, essentially, a
delay of this decision for denial until some of the Ten Mile study process has begun, as
it appears to be maybe not as long as anticipated. It doesn't mean you can't deny it in
the future. I think all he's asking you is to delay that final decision. Maybe Mr. Schultz
has a different perspective.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Schultz.
Schultz: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. My name is Matt Schultz at 2127
Alaska in Meridian with RMR Consulting, representing this application that was denied
last week -- last Tuesday night. There is two -- two things that have changed since the
denial that I'd like to present as a basis for reconsideration. One it seemed to be the
biggest issue was the sewer easement, which I know has been granted. And, secondly,
the Ten Mile specific plan, which staff had indicated previously might take 18 months,
we are anxious to work with -- work with the other members of that planning effort,
including staff and other stake holders and zeroing in on some certain areas first that
staff believes we might be able to work through that in 90 days, 100 days, something
like that. So, therefore, we are asking for reconsideration and a continuance of the
Public Hearing to re-hear it -- I'm asking for a date certain October 17th, but that could
be modified if we need more time, if these progressed, to come to a consensus, if you
will, on that particular area of the Ten Mile plan, which is four square miles. We are 80
acres -- 90 acres of four square miles and we would humbly ask for that reconsideration
for roughly 90 days until October 17th. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, any discussion or questions needed of
staff? Procedurally, Mr. Nary-.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on a request for reconsideration, if no
one makes such a motion, then, the motion would, then, die. You have -- the Findings
haven't been completed yet I believe for this, so we don't have it in front of you, so there
may be another opportunity if you wanted to do that. You have a couple of choices
here. You can table the Findings and the denial until October and see where this --
where this process is at that juncture. Or you can reconsider it, set it for another
hearing, but the problem you have is you're going to send out notices, there is not
necessarily any new information today, but you would send out notices -- notice of the
hearing, you may end up continuing it if the Ten Mile study hasn't evolved to that point
yet. So, I mean you have a couple of choices, one of them being you don't have to do
anything. But my recommendation would be is if you want to choose to do that, that you
table this decision until later and, then, see where your study is and, then, you can
always either implement the Findings and denial that you have already done or if you
believe it is. then, appropriate to have a new hearing, you can, then, reconsider the
matter and set it for hearing. So, you can put this decision off until October 17th, if
that's a viable date. I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different thought as to that
timing.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 15 of 77
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the charrette will wrap up prior to --
prior to October, the last days of September, whether it's the 30th or the 29th, I'm not
quite sure. So, we should have a really good idea of what we will be presenting to
Council for the Comprehensive Plan amendment or the Ten Mile specific area plan
come October 1 st. Most of the issues should be resolved by then on what we are
presenting. So, I do believe that -- that the October date at least gives us time to find
out what -- how this property will be moving or what we will likely see there.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Speaking for one negative vote last week on this, the sewer easement, whether
we got it or not, was not within my decision to deny it. I don't know how -- I can't speak
for the other negative votes. but the sewer easement had nothing to do with it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: And if there is no other discussion, I will make a motion that we table the
decisions on AZ 06-025, PP 06-024, to October 17th, 2006.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Rountree: I will second.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I heard what Mr. Nary said. I just need to have that square
with my understanding. I know we have to make decisions one way or another within a
prescribed period of time. By tabling this item do we still fit within that window or are we
going to exceed it?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, your ordinance requires you hear it
within a certain period of time.
Rountree: Okay.
Nary: So, you're fine.
Rountree: All right.
Nary: And so, no, tabling this matter, especially since it's at the request of the applicant,
I don't think you have any problem.
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 16 of 77
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Point of clarification. Mr. Nary, they table it? There is not an item on the
agenda, there is just a reconsideration. Don't they need to wait until the Findings get on
the agenda before they can table them?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess to make it easier, Mrs. Canning
is technically right. I mean you don't have the Findings in front of you, but if your motion
is based on their request for reconsideration you want to table that decision, the
Findings will be prepared for October 17th.
Canning: Okay.
Nary: If that's the intent of your motion, which is I think -- but Mrs. Canning is right, you
technically don't have them in front of you to table them, but rather than not taking
action tonight, waiting two weeks, preparing Findings of Facts and, then, setting them
over for two months -- if that's your intent that's what we will do.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, abstain.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN.
Berg: Motion carries. Just as clarification, we will put the Findings on the October 17th
meeting for decision of the Council. Thank you.
Item 9:
Tabled from July 11, 2006: FP 06-030 Request for Final Plat approval
for 88 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 29.7
acres in an R-4 zone for Madelynn Estates (f.k.a. Basin Creek) by
Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 9 is tabled from July 11th on FP 06-030.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, staff is recommending approval of
this, but since we discussed it last week, I wanted to give you a brief update. The issue
last week was that in the preliminary plat you will recall that there were some landscape
islands at the two major intersections that the applicant was struggling with keeping
those islands and they couldn't -- they weren't to ACHD standards, so they had to
modify them. What they have done -- if I can find the right -- oh, here they are. They
are substantially smaller. However, they have compensated by making the -- by
providing landscape islands in the cul-de-sacs where they weren't previously. We also
discussed the fact that this lot around the existing home had changed shape. There
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 17 of 77
used to be about a 20 foot strip up above and, then, it came straight down. It's now
close to 40 feet, I think, and they have chamfered this corner, so they have made up
some of the missing open space in this lot and, then, they have increased the size of -. I
think I'm missing a sheet, unfortunately. They increased the size of the other open
space lots. So, they have about a thousand square feet more in the final plat than they
did in the preliminary plat and it shifted around, it's not quite the same. The landscape
islands aren't the same size, but given the options that ACHD was giving them, I felt it
was in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comments to add? If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Morgan: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ryan Morgan. WRG Design.
Our address is 453 South Fitness Place, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We would just like to
thank the Council and the Mayor, along with the planning department to work with us in
this matter and understand that we did have some circumstances with ACHD and we do
appreciate the fact that they are recommending approval, even though we have
reduced the size of the landscaping and we look forward to working with you in the
future.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Having resolved the -- what seems to be all the issues from our last meeting, I
would move that we approve Item No.9, FP 06-030.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 9. If there is no discussion, Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: CPA 05-001 Request to
Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for
Approximately 50 acres from Medium and Low Density Residential to
Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 18 of 77
Item 11:
Owner's Alliance - Land at or near the northeast and southeast corners of
South Eagle Road and Victory Road:
Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C-C and L-O
zones for South Eaale and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance
Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners
Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south
sides of Victory Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 10 is continued Public Hearing from July 11th on CPA 05-
001. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the South Eagle and Victory
Road Property Alliance project and the properties involved are highlighted in blue and
they do extend south of Victory. So, here on the east side of Eagle Road, north and
south of Victory Road. It shows up a little better on this one. This is the Camp Plan for
the area. The colors are kind of washed out. They are shown as medium density
residential north of Victory currently and low density residential south of Victory. And
this is the proposed concept plan. The applications before you tonight are a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and an annexation and zoning of the property. The
request for the amendment to the future land use map for the Comprehensive Plan is
for approximately 50 acres. So, it includes some of the properties to the north of this
site up to Easy Jet Way, which is right here closer to --
De Weerd: Anna, I didn't open both. Do I need to do that?
Canning: Oh, I'm sorry.
De Weerd: I only opened the Comprehensive Plan one.
Canning: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Planning Commission
has asked that you consider these in conjunction with one another.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, then, I will go ahead and open Item No. 11, continued Public
Hearing AZ 06-008 as well.
Canning: Thank you, ma'am. So, the boundaries I described before were primarily --
these are for the rezone as shown on the -- on the overhead. The Comprehensive Plan
amendment does go up to Easy Jet Way, which is about two more properties to the
north. So, the Comprehensive Plan amendment is for approximately 50 acres. It's
currently designated medium and low density residential and they are -- their original
proposal was for mixed use regional. As we go through this presentation you will hear
that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended mixed use community for
that designation. They did apply for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2005 and
this application has been held for sometime waiting for the rezone application, because
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 19 of 77
the Planning Commission recommended it with -- for approval only with an
accompanying annexation application. So, we have received that now and are bringing
it forward to you. For the annexation and zoning, they are proposing -- that's only for
23.39 acres. They are proposing 19.41 acres of -- to C-C and that's what's shown in
this brown or tan color, 1.43 acres of the site to L-O, and that's this kind of purple color
down in the southeast area. And 2.55 acres to R-4. And this would be the area that
abuts the existing residential development. The proposed square footage for the
commercial isn't known at this time. They have presented this concept plan, which
currently shows about 25 structures, all fairly small in area. This project is a little bit
more difficult to talk about, because there is not a lot of development plan
accompanying it, so I'm going to kind of try and go through what the Planning
Commission saw as benefits and what they saw as concerns and, then, I will go through
the development agreement and some of staff's outstanding concerns. The Planning
and Zoning Commission was very encouraged by the fact that these property owners all
came together and wanted to develop their property as a unit, rather than having these
individual ownerships and as you saw, they are rather odd Shaped and would probably
be difficult to develop individually, so they saw it as a real benefit that this alliance had
formed, that they were willing to cooperate with one another and to develop the property
as a whole and that was one of the very positive aspects mentioned by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. They felt that this would help to facilitate future driveway
locations and access points to Eagle Road and Victory Roads and to prevent
fragmented development. So, in order to achieve what they saw as that benefit, they
did look at a number of development agreement provisions to accomplish this concept
plan and I will go through those. A lot of these came from the kind of -- the points that
the alliance was making as part of their application that -- their commitment to the city.
That the Alliance believes there are advantages to selling the subject properties to a
single development entity. The Alliance property owners have joined together for a
unified development and they are willing that no building permits would be issued until
there is a recorded plat for the property. That because the development approach is to
lessen land use intensities approaching the existing neighborhoods, that they would
place the following restrictions on the development of property. The first one being they
would have a 40 foot wide landscape buffer between the L-O zoned property and the
Sutherland Farms Subdivision. That's this landscape buffer. That there would be a 25
foot landscape buffer between the L-O zoned property and the R-4 zoned property to
the north. So, that's located here. And that the L-O zone will be limited to single level
structures up to 5,500 square feet. All buildings with frontage on Eagle Road and
Victory Road north of Eagle -- Victory Road will be limited to a 12,500 square foot
building footprint. That all buildings will have a variety of building materials and colors.
That there will be variations in building setbacks from the road, e.g., not a strip mall.
And that buildings will be oriented toward the adjacent arterial streets, so they would
have at least two-sided architecture, and a blank facade facing the street. That the area
directly west of the proposed north-south street, located here towards the eastern
portion of the property, would be limited to a single level up to 7,500 square feet in size.
That they would have two-side construction, so that there are windows facing the R-4
homes to the east and internally to the west. That the commercial buildings will look
similar to the homes constructed in Sutherland Farms and that no retail stores, fuel
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 20 of 77
sales, or wireless communications facilities will be allowed in the area. That the internal
commercial buildings north of Victory Road shall not exceed 20,000 square feet. That
at least one centrally located plaza gathering areas with some covered seating shall be
provided within the commercial area north of Victory Road. That the building south of
Victory Road shall not exceed 20,000 square feet. That all buildings will have a variety
of building materials and colors. That there will be variations in setbacks, again, not a
strip mall. And that buildings will be oriented toward the adjacent arterial street and not
have a blank facade facing the street. That the future R-4 lots located next to
Sutherland Farms shall contain at least 8,000 square feet -- the lots, that's the lots, and
have dwellings of at least 1 ,400 square feet. That unless specified otherwise in this
development agreement, all landscaping along the perimeter of this property internally
shall comply with all provisions of the Unified Development Code. That Publisher Street
will be extended into the site and circuitously connect to Eagle Road. This is Publisher
Street here on the east side, the stub street coming out of Sutherland Farms. That a
publiC stub street will be provided to the property to the north to eventually tie into Easy
Jet Drive. And that's this property, again, on the easterly portion of the site. That Eagle
Road access points be restricted to a maximum of one full access between Easy Jet
Drive and Victory Road and one right-in, right-out driveway north of Victory Road if
approved by ACHD. And that only one right-in, right-out driveway to Eagle Road be
allowed south of Victory Road. That's down here in this location. And that's, again, if
approved by ACHD. That access to Victory Road shall be restricted to a maximum of
one full access and one right-in, right-out driveway on the north side of Victory Road
and that only one access on the south side of Victory Road be allowed. And all of those
were, of course, contingent on ACHD approval. And that the Alliance agrees to
facilitate a well-planned neighborhood compatible development. That the Alliance
agrees to submit legal descriptions for each approved zone. They have done that
already. And that the submitted concept plan is not approved as there are too many
access points to Eagle Road as shown. So, the access provisions I have talked about
are not consistent with this Comprehensive -- or this conceptual site plan, so they
wanted to make sure that was clear in the development agreement. The Commission
did recommend approval at their May 18th, 2006, hearing. Marty Thomason, Dennis
McKibben, John Sharp, and Bob Carpenter all spoke in favor of the application. Mark
Olsen, Darrell Hines, Scott Romella, Tanya Merical, and Brent Ernesto spoke in
opposition. And no one was just commenting. The key issues of discussion by the
Commission were access points to Eagle Road, proposed zoning designations, and the
concept plan. The key changes to staff's recommendation -- the big one was staff had
recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, so that was a major
change on that -- on that one. But the Planning and Zoning Commission did decide to
recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment with three provisions.
One was that it be mixed use community, not mixed used regional. That the recorded
development agreement with those provisions , just read to you and that they wait on
the final action of the Comprehensive Plan amendment until an annexation application
had been submitted and that they hold a neighborhood meeting. And so they have
done all those things. The outstanding issues for City Council -- one is always whether
the Comprehensive Plan amendment is appropriate at this time. Staff does -- has
consistently expressed a number of concerns and I feel it's important to reiterate those.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 21 of 77
There may be a potential oversupply of commercially zoned land in this area. We have
fielded several phone calls from neighbors in Sutherland Farms, Tuscany Subdivision,
and Thousand Springs about this proposed amendment and rezone. One of my
greatest concerns is that this concept plan as proposed I don't think is based on a
market reality and I have always been concerned about this, that if this went forward I
think we will have to spend several hearings trying to get it to reflect market reality. I
think that with a C-C zoning that the size of the buildings that are conceptually depicted
here just aren't realistic, nor the designated parking areas, or the number of structures.
So, I think that although I support the owners in trying to come together with a unified
division -- or vision for this, I think that it's lacking some reality checks with the market.
Staff is concerned about the cross-access agreements and the access restrictions in the
DA. Those are very important. And finally -- and I don't think that this got enough
attention, perhaps, in the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings, but I'm very
concerned about this property to the south of Victory. This is in an area -- here is
Dartmoor Subdivision and Kingsbridge is down here. I'm sorry. This isn't Dartmoor.
That's Eagle View Estates or -- I think that's the name of that subdivision. But Dartmoor
is right down here. You have Kingsbridge coming in here. This was that project that
was denied. We have seen folks gathering up these five acre parcels to resubmit them
for more dense development, but this commercial corner will have a huge impact on
how these other five acre lots develop around there. It's a very odd-shaped lot. It's got
a lot of frontage on Eagle that is, quite frankly, probably not usable for commercial
development, it's just a long, narrow strip that most of that would go to your landscape
buffer. It's an awkward site in a very -- what Council has told me at the last hearing is a
very sensitive area that you want to preserve for low density residential. So, I'm very
concerned about, in particular, this property. The argument made for having this
commercial is that we have gradually approved a number of nonresidential uses in this
area through the planned development process, some of them are existing
nonconforming uses in the county, and that an extension of those nonresidential uses
along Eagle Road is appropriate, but it needs to stop at some point and, clearly, Victory
Road would seem to be that stopping point. With that very talkative -- because I don't
have any pictures to show you -- presentation, I will answer any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: Council, questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. For the record, Shawn Nickel, with
SLN Planning, address 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle. And I was asked by the South
Eagle Victory Neighbor Alliance to speak on their behalf. Sorry for the last minute
packet. Most of them are pretty pictures and it's just kind of to help you follow in my
presentation and if staff will get the projector going I will begin.
De Weerd: We appreciate the extra packets.
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 22 of 77
Nickel: I know. You always do. I did give one to the clerk at this time, so -- I know you
like that.
De Weerd: I know. I only have to tell you once.
Nickel: Yeah. If you could put page two on, Anna, that would be great. And thanks to
staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, they did a great job at reviewing this
before it came to you. The reasons for the request by the Alliance -- as you know, this
area, it is an area of rapid urban development. There is an evident lack of service-
related commercial plans south of 1-84 and I'll elaborate on that in just a moment. The
Alliance wants to guide the future growth by planning now at the same time that the
major improvements are underway with the transportation system in this area. And I will
elaborate on that as well in a moment. The current Comprehensive Plan land use
chapter states that mixed use designation is an area situated in highly visible or
transient parts of the city where innovative and flexible design opportunities are
encouraged. Again, to point out, this is a major corridor north-south on Eagle Road.
Lower density residential on these properties is less desirable due to the increased
noise associated with Eagle Road now and when it is improved in the future.
Anticipated uses would be higher density development, such as what you recently have
seen coming in the past over the past year south of -- south of this property and also
immediately to the west with some higher density four-plexes and assisted living. It's
more appropriate to transition uses from Eagle Road and Victory Road back to the
existing single family residential. Again, your Planning and Zoning Commission did
recommend a change from the original request for regional commercial or regional
mixed use to a community mixed use. What I did for the Alliance is I did an analysis of
this area and what I did is I took an area bordered by Overland Road to the north,
Columbia Road to the south, Meridian Road to the west, and Five Mile Road to the east.
And what I did is I just did an analysis of your Comprehensive Plan and also Boise
City's comprehensive plan. I put those two together and I will show you real fast. They
actually fit together very nice. I was happy that they were both to the same scale.
De Weerd: Is that something we can put up on the overhead?
Nickel: I can show the crowd. And what I looked at with both comprehensive plans is
what's the current comprehensive plan designation for residential in that area and if you
follow with me on my page one, there is 10,240 acres, which is about a 16 square mile
area on those boundaries that I spoke of. This does not include your referral area,
which is this area right here, it's just your impact area and, then, that portion of Boise
City's impact area. Of that -- of that area at a build out of three to four dwelling units per
acre, which is the low and medium density residential, it is anticipated that you will see
23,120 units, if all development occurred with those designations as approved in the
Comprehensive Plan. Of that area, again, that 16 square miles, 460 acres are
designated as mixed use regional, approximately 120 acres is designated as mixed use
neighborhood, 17 acres is designated as commercial and office. And there is no mixed
use community designated within that 16 square miles. Now, I went further in my
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 23 of 77
analysis and I looked at what's a reasonable distance from the intersection of Eagle
Road and Victory and I came up with a mile to a two and a half mile distance and that's
that pink line that you see that's drawn right here. I also took into consideration the
existing mixed use developments at Overland and Five Mile and also the existing and
up and coming development at the intersection of Five Mile and Lake Hazel, both in
Boise City impact area. I took those under consideration and that was the basis for my
-- for my area. Of that distance, there is three, four hundred acres. Taking into account
mixed -- let's see. Sorry. The current Meridian-Boise comp plan build out would be
approximately 11,680 units. Again, that's at a three to four unit per acre build out.
Within this new area there is 120 acres of mixed use neighborhood designated. Now, I
want to point out that the two areas that you have south of the freeway that are
designated as neighborhood centers, I just recently found out that one of them is
proposed for redevelopment that would include only approximately four acres of
commercial, which leaves you with this one remaining neighborhood commercial node
on the south side of Victory between Locust Grove and Eagle Road. Your
Comprehensive Plan states in the mixed use regional definition that these areas
regional, which includes the Silverstone and the EI Dorado development, in addition to
this area at Meridian and Amity, it defines those as employment designation centers
and major employment centers. Your Comprehensive Plan also defines neighborhood
centers as a mix of high density residential, commercial, entertainment, office, to serve
all residents within a one to two mile area. And, then, finally, the Comprehensive Plan
statement for the mixed use community, which is what we are proposing here, includes
all mixed uses allowed in the neighborhood use designation, including clothing stores,
garden centers, hardware, restaurants, banks, drive-thrus, service stations, and
department stores. I finally want to point out that on the entire south boundary of your
city from Overland Road south you have one area that is designated as mixed use
commercial and that's at the -- at the intersections of Ten Mile and Overland Road. So,
in this whole southern section you have one and -- let's just say one and a quarter
neighborhood center nodes, you have all this regional mixed use, and you have one
mixed use community, which his over at Ten Mile and Overland. So, I believe that you
have a significant lack of future planned service commercial on the south side of your
city and that's one reason why I believe that this recommended or requested comp plan
amendment is an appropriate one. The Silverado and the EI Dorado developments are
both excellent developments that have shown to be very desirable. However, they are
more a business campus with larger employers, offices, future hotels, and the definition
of regional mixed use, multi-family, again, has been approved and you are seeing multi-
family come in at the intersection of Eagle and Victory. The other main concern, in
addition to the viability of having commercial in this area is the traffic issue and as we all
know, traffic's a major concern in this whole valley. But we do have a unique
opportunity in this location to see road improvements occur as they are needed or in the
case of this Comprehensive Plan, before development occurs. If you look at page three
and four of the handouts that I gave you, I have included the ACHD staff report. ACHD
does have this intersection slated for the 2007 fiscal year. It is budgeted and their
intentions are to build this intersection five lanes with a traffic signal. They are going to
widen -- ultimately widen Eagle Road north to Copperpoint Drive. They are also going
to widen to the east and to the west Victory Road and they are also going to widen a
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 24 of 77
little bit to the south. And so this entire intersection is going to be built out -- or going to
be built and widened long before you see any development on this intersection of
commercial -- or potential commercial. And this results in an increase in the capacity of
the transportation system. Comparison with the residential with the commercial, we
have been working with a traffic engineer and there is going to be an increase in overall
traffic. However, it will be spread out over the entire day and not so much in the peak
hours, like you would see with higher density residential. If it is a service commercial
related business, it's going to capture trips, it's going to be a convenient -- more
convenient location, rather than going up Eagle Road passed the intersection -- passed
the interchange at some point just to get certain services. And, again, that regional
commercial that's at the intersection of Overland and Eagle, is -- you know, it's building
out. Sure, there is some service -- there is some pizza and some things like that, but
most of the services are related to those campuses that are building out and if you're
getting future hotels that, again, is going to increase the need for service commercial in
this area. As far as the use of the compatibility, the Alliance has worked with your staff
and your Commission and with the neighbors to draft that concept plan that Anna
showed you. And I do have that in my packet as well. And that plan right there is the
result of all of the issues that were brought up to this point. The accesses onto Eagle
Road and Victory Road. The future stubs north to the existing Publisher Road to the
east, the buffer zones, the transition to residential to the east, those are all part of
bringing this into a compatible type of project. The detail is lacking and it's lacking for a
reason. The Alliance originally submitted this as only a Comprehensive Plan
amendment, again, looking towards the future, what is needed in the area, and what
can be marketed to a resident -- or to a commercial developer that knows exactly what
they are doing when they are laying out a design. So, I do agree with staff that there is
a lack in detail, this concept plan, with good reason. The details are not -- they are
premature. They will come when there is a preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit,
and in the case of your Planning and Zoning Commission asking for the annexation and
the rezone, that's why it's kind of vague at this point. One thing I tried to do is -- at the
request of staff is -- if you look in the back of your packet, I did provide some elevations
of some concept office and residential that we would be more than happy to put as part
of the development agreement that kind of gives a better idea of the intent or the -- the
intent of the alliance on what you could see in the future.
De Weerd: Anna, could you kind of put those up briefly one at a time?
Nickel: Thank you, Mayor. The Alliance did -- again, within the -- within the concept
and within the development agreement or the access point issue, the transition to
residential, the buffers, the landscaping, the limits of square footage, those are all
agreeable to the Alliance and they are in favor of putting that as conditions within the
annexation and development agreement. There is also In your packet some supportive
and supporting letters from surrounding property owners in favor of this use and the
recognition that commercial is and will be needed in the future in this area. Real briefly,
because I know my light's buzzing or beeping there. The benefits of this proposal -- it's
a different type of traffic related to this type of mixed use commercial than you would
find with residential, which is mostly peak hour traffic patterns, compared to commercial,
Meridi::m City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 25 of 77
which is more spread out through the day. There is, obviously, no impact to schools,
because it's a commercial development, as opposed to a residential, as they go in
there, it's higher densities, increase in the highway district impact fees, and I guess to
leave off, it's a responsible way to plan when you have a group of property owners
come in together, rather than piecemealing development. They are going to get up and
they are going to speak and they have lived out in this area for 20 years or so, they
have seen this area change. As I stated at the very beginning, this is an area in
transition. You have seen me in front of you many times in the last couple years with
developments south of Victory between Eagle Road and Locust Grove and those
properties are about gone. It's all preliminary platted or soon to be. And so you're really
seeing that area change. I hope I have demonstrated briefly with my map that there is a
need for commercial definitely south of Overland Road in that area. Perfect timing. I'll
stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none right now.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nickel: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. I do have a number of people that have signed up to testify or
signed up to indicate their support or opposition to this application. When I read your
name, if you would like to provide testimony, I would invite you to come up at that time.
Marty Thomason. For. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Thomason: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. Marty Thomason. I live at 2960
South Eagle Road, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thomason: I moved to this area in 1986. Twenty years ago north of me was a turf
farm. There is -- Silverstone and EI Dorado are there now. West of me was a dairy.
That's a fire station and a subdivision, Thousand Springs. To the other side, east of me,
was a 130 acre horse farm. That's now Sutherland Farms Subdivision. I took my
daughter to first grade in 1994 at Mary McPhearson up on the hill. We stood at the
back of the playground and we looked towards the freeway and we saw farmland and
we could see our roof top from there, two and a half miles away. Now today if I stand
there I see an ocean of roof tops, residential roof tops. I see one of the fastest
developing business parks in the valley in Silverstone and EI Dorado. I see light office
almost to my northern border of my property. I border Kibbey's Kennels directly to my
north, which is a commercial dog kennel. And. then. if I stand at my front door, I see
tens of thousands of cars going by my house every day. About the Alliance. In 2004
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 26 of 77
and 2005 ACHD made the decision that they were going to widen South Eagle Road.
They approached the property owners along this area in the attempt to purchase the
right of way and the easement. During this process we got together as property owners
and talked about what we were going to do here. We all purchased our land, because
we wanted to live in a rural setting, a country setting. And, of course, the city's come to
us. I have fought that most of the way tooth and nail. And so, you know, I have made
the point that I'm going to live in a rural setting at some point again. My point there is
that we are all going to sell our land. We all want to live in a rural setting and what has
occurred out here isn't where we want to live. In our discussions we asked ourselves
what was the best and highest use of our land. We hired a consultant to help us make
that determination. That consultant helped us. In the process we found out and
became convinced that our land wouldn't develop under its current zoning as a whole.
It would probably develop -- some of it light office. All these parcels are under three
acres. Some of it would develop with higher density residential, with the bump up
option to an R-15. Most of us are currently designated as R-8. And during this we
realized that it might be better for us if we joined together and tried to offer our
properties up as a whole and in doing that it would be better for us if we offered -- or we
attempted to get a rezone in that process. So, the Alliance formed and we believe what
we are proposing is in the best interest of the area and the best interest of all parties.
For us we get to sell our land based on its highest and best use in having it zoned that
way for a developer when they come in. For Sutherland Farms directly to -- directly on
our border to the east, they get a residential buffer, rather than a hodgepodge of
development that might occur over these three acre parcels over a several year period
with multiple developers. They get a coordinated development next to them and they
have this residential R-4 buffer.
De Weerd: Sir, can you, please, summarize.
Thomason: Yes, I'm wrapping up. Sorry. I will hurry really fast. For the rest of the
subdivisions, they get -- with commercial it's less impact on overcrowding for the
schools. We believe that it's a better -- it's an improvement on what would happen
versus high density residential dumping onto Eagle Road and Victory Road and for you
we believe that we offer you the opportunity to plan one block of land at one time at the
time when the infrastructure is developing in this area. Thank you. I'll stand for
questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. That was an amazing wrap up. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Dan Bauman. For. Thank you, sir. Dolly
Batt. Thank you. John Sharp also signed up for.
Sharp: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is John Sharp. I reside at 3020
South Eagle Road, Meridian.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 27 of 77
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sharp: I'm a member of the Alliance and I also have been there since 1986 and have
seen all these changes and I think because of the -- the rapid development that we are
seeing around us and the commercial areas to our north, that it's a definite transition
area that we can plan one whole unit to fit within the community as a commercial area
that supports the community and in doing that we have less impact on the schools and I
think that the traffic will be -- it may be a little bit higher at times, but during the peak
hours in the morning and evening it should be a little bit lower. That is my opinion and
I'm sure there will be other people that disagree with that, but I certainly feel that that's
the way it should be and we have lived there for many years and really want to see the
area develop at a more rational way than piecemeal. All of us have been offered at
different times offers for the properties individually and when we asked the developers
what they have in mind, almost all of them indicate that they want to put in higher
density condominium or apartment buildings or something like that and that's not what
we would want to live next to and we wouldn't want the other neighbors to have that
burden either, so I definitely feel that this commercial area is an asset.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Sharp: That's alii have.
De Weerd: Bob Aldridge signed up for.
Aldridge: Madam Mayor, Members of the Commission, I am Bob Aldridge, I live at -- if I
can get this on. Right there. 3300 Falcon. I have been there for 21 years and when I
moved in, as indicated, there was no interchange, there were no stop signs, except
occasional. There was no traffic. Eagle Road now has changed and it has already had
a major effect on my life. This road, when you attempt to come during normal traffic
hours, Falcon comes out right here and if it were not for the grace of God and some
friendly neighborhood people that let me in, I would not be able to get in for at least an
hour, because that road -- that traffic stretches at rush hour down passed Tuscany and
goes out of sight sometimes. We have major problems out there in terms of the rush
hour traffic. In addition to that, something that staff may not have seen, but in
discussion -- you may not have seen, Sutherland Farms is now extending. Trevor
Roberts has had his neighborhood meeting and all of these properties here on around
and on the south side of Falcon are going to be an extension of Sutherland Farms, will
be a relatively high density subdivision paralleling that. The road for that will come
approximately through here, come out and come into the corner of my property and to
Falcon Road. In addition to that, across the street you have already approved planned
and assisted living units that are being constructed. So, that leap across Victory has
already been made. My concern is very simple. Number one, I wish the world would go
away and I could live there without all of this happening. It isn't going to happen and I
understand that. And so what I want to see is organization. My major frustration has
been that the planning has been reactive, not proactive. There have been thousands
and thousands of living units put in to the south that are all channeling into Eagle Road
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 28 of 77
and are coming passed Falcon Drive. We worked very well together with staff and with
the developer on the -- immediately across Eagle Road development,. moving where
that road came in. It was planned to come in right at Falcon Road, which would have
been a disaster. That took innovation. It took planning. And that's what we are asking
for here. I want to be able to live there and see that traffic spread out, see the view
spread out. I would like to be able to walk to places and bicycle to places and not have
to go miles to get the types of things that can begin in this sort of thing. It's difficult to
lock in the future. Reality will drive it. And in this case economic reality will drive it.
What will go into that neighborhood usage will be what developers think will actually
work there. And that's what's going to happen. And if we attempt to change that reality,
all we end up with is a mess and we have seen too much of that in Ada County already.
We need to look to the future and see what is an innovative use of this and will help the
surrounding areas, help the surrounding neighborhood, especially help the massive
traffic problems that we have in that area. I'd be glad to answer any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Jim Henderson signed up against. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Henderson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Henderson, 3000 Taluca
Drive in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Henderson: And as eloquently stated by the folks that are for this, we understand that
Eagle Road has changed and we know that it's not changed for the better. What we
don't want to see is we don't want to see more commercial development -- excuse me --
heading further south on Eagle Road, so that it will just lead to more congestion and
more traffic. We see additional traffic congestion heading that way as the development
is planned and the commercial site is allowed in that area. We are satisfied with the
amount of commercial and retail access that we have on the south side of Eagle Road,
excuse me, on the south side of the interstate. That's the reason why we moved to the
south side of the interstate is so that we don't have to get in the gridlock of Eagle Road
and all the commercial development on that side. So, we are perfectly satisfied with the
commercial and retail access there. We know that there is extremely heavy traffic
already at the Eagle and Victory interchange -- or the intersection there. While we
appreciate the upgrade that ACHD is going to do, this will only increase the traffic as
more people are able to get through that intersection with stop lights and such. There
will be more people coming through that intersection and I believe that this development
will not be of benefit to that area. And there is no definite plans that the applicants are
not the developers and so see that as a benefit and it's just a crap shoot to allow this
and not have a development plan in place when the property is rezoned. That's all I
have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Cheryl Henderson is also signed up against. Okay. Thank
you. Andy Aparicio.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 29 of 77
Aparicio: I hope to live here for 21 years. I moved two years --
De Weerd: If you will, please, first state your name and address.
Aparicio: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Andy Aparicio. I lived at 3031 East Collabria Drive
in Tuscany.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Aparicio: As I said, I hope to live there for the next 20 years and I can appreciate the
position that the Alliance has found themselves in. I concur with Jim that -- I am
concerned about the amount of traffic that we are talking about at that particular
intersection. I look at what happened on the north of the freeway on Eagle Road and I
don't want to see such a high concentration of traffic so close to the freeway. If, in fact,
we do need commercial, which I personally do not feel we do, would it not make more
sense to have the commercial maybe extend further south into other areas of Meridian,
instead of taking all this traffic and driving it up to that particular intersection? The
neighborhood that I live in has a proposed school. When that's going to be built I'm not
sure, but I understand that the Meridian School District actually owns that. I worry about
school buses kind of coming back and, you know, taking kids to school, obviously. I
worry about school buses trying to make it across that intersection. I worry about
response time from the fire department to areas that have to drive kind of through that
intersection and so I have a lot of questions. I also worry that this Comprehensive Plan
really is not even a work in progress. It is simply a concept or an idea that was
designed to kind of sell this rezoning. I don't know how it works here. I don't know if a
developer is going to come in and say, you know what, that little concept plan doesn't
really work for me. Here is my idea, here is what I'm going to do instead. So, how
enforceable is that, I guess, is a question that I would have to leave to you. I have
heard the concerns from Anna Canning. I think they are legitimate. We share the same
concerns that the staff did and the Planning and Zoning. We have been going through
this for a very long time and really just haven't seen the benefits. I will stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. I don't see any. Thank you. Howard Hill. There is not a box
marked. Would you like to provide testimony? Thank you. You're here to listen. Okay.
Mark Hartenstein. Sorry.
Hartenstein: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mark Hartenstein, 3210 South
Eagle. I came to the Alliance late. I moved -- or attempted to move to 3210 South
Eagle, the odd-looking property south of Victory, about six years ago. 2001. I thought
that would be a great place to have some acreage and be able to open my law practice
out in Meridian and be able to live in more of a county setting. But almost as quickly as
I moved there the setting changed and I went through, in microcosm what my fellow
Alliance members experienced. So, I began rethinking my plan to move out there and
as the noise and traffic increased I decided that I really did like Boise and I liked the
convenience of being able to get to stores and services easily. As Cheryl Brown told
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 30 of 77
me when I met with her briefly a few weeks ago, she said everyone knows there is a
need for community retail and community services south of 84. She knew it, so I
suspect the members of the City Council perhaps are aware of it as well. And, of
course, our presentation by Shawn demonstrated how little commercial property there is
available down south of Victory. When I realized the property didn't work as a residence
I approached my neighbor Bob Carpenter, who pulled together the Alliance before you
tonight. At that time and even more strongly now I feel by putting services and retail, we
-- where people can eliminate or shorten their trips, will reduce the burden throughout
the rest of the city north of Eagle Road and on the freeway exchanges. The other point
I'd like to make is that the corner -- the southwest corner is now going to be four-plexes,
hardly low density. Hardly makes the corner more attractive for low density residential
south of me, as Bob Aldridge pointed out, we have got R-15, elder housing, senior
assisted living going in. So, consequently, with thousands of homes planned to the
south, why not put community shopping services south of the freeway, so people can
get into -- going to and from work. And our project, of course, will not swell the schools
and given the emphasis around S1. Luke's for the medical services and medical offices,
it makes a lot of sense to me to put the services that we can provide in our corridor to
serve the people in Silverstone, EI Dorado, and coming from the St. Luke's area, as well
as south of Victory. I just wonder why they want to drive all the additional miles to
accommodate daily shopping and service needs when they are driving by it right now.
We can save gas, we can save time, we can save frustration. I think we have tried very
hard to come up with a proposal that works for what's happening along the South Eagle
Road corridor. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Robert Carpenter signed up for.
Carpenter: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, Robert Carpenter, 3250 East Victory Road,
Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Carpenter: I live on the northeast corner of Victory and Eagle Road. Moved out there
16 years ago with my wife and we own four parcels within this area. The -- next year
when that -- when the road is going to be -- fiscal year 2007, so the road and
intersection will be widened fall and next spring and when that's done we will have six
total access curb cuts to our properties. Four on Eagle Road and two on Victory. We
have been approached by several developers in the last couple of years wanting to buy
one or several of the parcels owned to develop and they are basically -- we are looking
at high density, because of the way it -- the Camp Plan was. High density housing.
And while appealing even a couple years ago monetarily to us, we didn't really feel like
the proposals would be appropriate for that corner if it was going to be widened to five
lanes. I have looked at Eagle Road for the last 15, 16 years, that corridor between
Victory and Eagle, that eight mile stretch, remember the land pattern that used to be
there. Ten years ago every corner was either residential or agriculture and now there is
none of that left It's all gone either retail or commercial. There was one light at the
time, one full stop light on -- at Fairview Avenue. Today when I drive back from Eagle I
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 31 of 77
counted 18 lights, full lights. Not one of those corners exist anymore as residential.
And with the expansion of Eagle Road to five lanes -- it will have five lanes, a bike path,
and a nice seven foot wide sidewalk, my understanding is. That intersection really,
logically, is no longer going to be residential. I really don't even think it would be good
to have high density residential. That would put more cars onto that road versus the
community commercial during the peak hours, morning and evening, would provide
hundreds of children, which would probably go to the Tuscany Elementary School. The
commercial would provide none of that. So, in conclusion, while housing and residential
developments for Eagle and Victory intersection may have seemed logical at the time
the last Camp Plan change was done, it was started in 2000, completed in 2002, it's
changed, it's just not logical to me to plan a housing development in that area. So, we
got together and are providing this opportunity to provide a consistent use for that area,
rather than sell the parcels off individually. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Nedra Carpenter signed up for. Thank you. Betty
Flemming signed up for. Okay. Thank you. John Johnston signed up against.
Johnston: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. my name is John Johnston and I
live at 2632 East Mercucio Way in Tuscany Subdivision. I fail to see the need for
commercial building there, just based off of what I see further up the road up towards
the interstate. There is a gas station there. There is restaurants there. There is a
movie theater up near that direction. I fail to see anything that could be provided here
that wouldn't necessarily be both an eye sore and without really being able to say what
goes in there, there is a potential that just about anything could end up in there and to
say that the residents in that area have a use for X building right now is -- especially
when you don't have any idea what the developer is going to put in there, I find that hard
to -- hard to believe that anybody would have any kind of idea of what that would entail
in the future. So, with young kids my concern, along with the others, is the school that
will be going in there, having the commercial area in there, and there is -- there is easy
access to most the other commercial areas in that part of the region. I like Tuscany. I
love the Meridian area. And I definitely -- I definitely am against this proposal.
De Weerd: Thank you. Scott Romella. Signed up against.
Romella: Hello. My name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capulet Way. And I
don't know if this is appropriate -- I don't know if I get the ten minutes, because,
basically, I'm speaking for the Tuscany Subdivision, rather than the three minutes for
individual. I guess that's up to you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Romello: Okay. I'm going to try to make this brief. I gave a much longer speech at
Planning and Zoning. Tuscany right now has 600 residential lots, 425 homeowners and
approximately 1,200 residents right now. The one thing we want to agree on is that we
are very supportive of the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance
decision to come together to have the property zoned and developed as one large
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 32 of 77
parcel. We believe this is good for the city, good for Eagle Road, and good for the
neighborhood. What we disagree with is that it should be commercial instead of
residential. The preference for the vast majority of the residents of Tuscany is for there
to be no change to the Camp Plan and for the residential zoning that was initially
planned for these corners to take effect. We all bought property here just in the last few
years with the understanding that the immediate area would remain residential in
nature. An important thing for us is that we do not want South Eagle Road to resemble
North Eagle Road and we feel that this will kind of open up a Pandora's box to push
Eagle farther -- commercial farther south on Eagle from the interstate. I did have slides.
I'm going to skip those. There is several major points that I wanted to address this
evening. Number one, commercial development will make a bad traffic situation only
worse on Eagle Road. Number two, there are both compatibility and design issues with
the existing neighborhoods that are surrounding this proposal. Number three, there is
no pressing need for any further commercial development in this part of Meridian.
Number four, we want to know what the impact on the future Tuscany Elementary is
going to be, is planned in our neighborhood within the next two years. Number five, this
project seems to flaunt many of the goals and objectives of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. I'm going to go into each one a little bit more in depth. I also --
several times in here I was paraphrasing from the original staff report of October 2005,
which was very relevant, refuting most of the reasons for having this development, but
I'm going to skip that, because it's all a matter of public record. Number one, this is
going to make a bad traffic situation only worse for us. We believe turning this corner
into commercial would negatively impact the traffic flow on an already very busy road.
During rush hour traffic backs up to Eagle Road clear on the interstate. Cars are
illegally pulled off onto the shoulder just waiting to exit onto Eagle. Eagle is already
overburdened from the existing traffic it gets today. This is not projected traffic, this is
traffic as of this afternoon. Eagle Road and 1-84 is the most congested road in the state
of Idaho. According to the Idaho Transportation Department as of 2004 the 1-84
interchange at Eagle was handling more than 50,000 vehicles on a week day. This
interchange was designed for only 30,000 vehicles a day, which means it's more than
40 percent over its designed capacity. This is two years ago. And anyone else who
lives around in the area and fortunate to be driving south on Eagle Road in the
afternoon already knows that the wait time is going to be ten minutes just to get south of
the intersection. Mr. Thomason in one of his presentations to Planning and Zoning told
us that there could be as many as 24,000 people living in this area in the next couple of
years and we see this as an excellent reason why not to put commercial at this corner.
Many of these residents are going to want to reach 1-84 for work and they are going to
be driving passed this intersection on a daily basis. Retail will mean higher traffic,
slower speeds, additional traffic lights, and more curb cuts than will be required in a
residential use. There are already three existing traffic lights between 1-84 and Victory
in a span of less than a mile and this commercial development would require more. We
do believe that prudent city planning would be to place community shopping hubs away
from the interstate as is allowed for in the 2002 Meridian Comprehensive Plan and not
next to it in order to reduce the traffic demands in these arterial collectors. Number two,
design compatibility issues. Those are, basically, covered in the staff report. Number
three. There is no need for additional commercial in this part of Meridian. The
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 33 of 77
Silverstone and EI Dorado business campuses alone within sight of this corner offer a
potential of two million square feet of commercial space on South Eagle. We'd also like
to comment for a moment on the commercial developments that have already popped
up south of the canal, both in Southstone and Sutherland Farms. These were done
without ever having to go through the formal rezoning process. They are both -- they
are all sitting on residentially zoned land. Some were done in an exception, others were
done in a variance. Homeowners basically woke up to see commercial office buildings
springing up next to the residential properties. If we had been noticed these were going
to be built, we would have certainly shown up to oppose them. Now their presence on
Eagle Road outside of their assigned zone is being used as justification by the Alliance
to force commercial further down Eagle Road, outside the guidelines of the current
Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Alliance has stated that several real estate
appraisers have told them their land is -- that residential is not the highest and best use.
We would like to make the point that Just because an appraiser believes a parcel is not
currently zoned for its best use, this does not automatically make it so. We would
hazard a guess that the land and the buildings that S1. Luke's occupies might be worth
more commercially as a multi-story corporate headquarters than a hospital, but that's
not what it's zoned for, so it doesn't matter if that would be its best use. By their way of
thinking, any property at any major intersection will automatically be worth more
commercially than residentially. Our fourth point. We want to know how this change in
zoning is going to affect the future Tuscany elementary school, which is currently
projected by the Meridian School District to open in the 2008-2009 school year. Within
a few years there will be an elementary school less than a quarter mile from this
intersection. The school board already owns the land. It's not a matter of if it's going to
open, but only when. We'd like to make the point this is not a high school, not a junior
high, but an elementary. That means that you have got young children in Thousand
Springs, Sutherland Farms, and Tuscany will in many cases be traveling to the school,
perhaps walking. Turning these two corners into commercial does not help in our mind
create a safer environment for them to get back and forth to school on a daily basis. My
fifth point. This development contradicts the Comprehensive Plan guidelines. Some of
these points were addressed in the October staff report. I'm not going to paraphrase
those for you. I'm going to summarize. We believe that the whole way this project has
been moving forward is problematic. In order to have it amended to the camp plan, the
local municipality is providing essentially services and the nearby neighborhoods are
supposed to be consulted to give their input. Since the Alliance is not going to end up
being the final developer of this property, they are primarily seeking a zoning change.
The original application didn't even include a development plan. Without a formal
development plan the municipality serving this area cannot give proper guidance to the
city and we don't believe this is how the zoning process has been designed to work. It
is our opinion that the Alliance is seeking a zoning change first and foremost for
financial reasons. They are applying for annexation and submitting a development plan
in order to achieve this zoning change, which has basically been their own admission at
some of the planning and zoning meetings. We do not doubt a desire to work with their
neighbors and piecing together a larger parcel. We think that that's a good idea. But
they also have strong financial reasons to do so. These parcels are worth more joined
than they are individually and they are also worth conSiderably more commercial than
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 34 of 77
they are residential. They basically want commercial land prices for what is residentially
zoned parcels. They are going to, basically, cash out these properties, selling their rural
residential land at commercial prices, and they are going to leave the neighbors in the
immediate area to deal with the aftermath of whatever commercial development crops
up after they are long gone. And to summarize our objections, we believe, one, it will
worsen an existing traffic problem. Two, this is a strip type development. Three, it is a
commercial development surrounded by existing low density residential neighborhoods
on all sides. Four, it is a one-side-of-the-street-only commercial development. The
west side of the street is all going to remain residential. Five. In our minds it has not
been proven that there is a compelling need for additional commercial in this part of
Meridian. Six. There has been overwhelming opposition to this plan from both the
adjoining and nearby property owners. We are not asking for commercial, we are not
clamoring for added convenience for us to, you know, get the businesses. We think it's
fine how it is right now. We don't want commercial next to us. Number seven. There is
an elementary school being planned down the road that we don't believe has been
taken into proper consideration. Another thing that I would like to talk about is from the
beginning of this process -- this has been at least a year -- there have been repeated
statements by the Alliance members that we should just end this opposition to the
zoning change, because, if not, they are just going to put up multi-story apartment
complexes instead and there is going to be all these curb cuts on Eagle. So, basically,
it's like a carrot and a stick. You know, let us put in this commercial and we won't put up
apartments. Even the -- the concessions they made to Sutherland Farms, they put in a
strip of residential on the side of the property. I don't know who is going to want to buy
homes that are directly across the street from offices, but that's, basically, the
compromise they made with them. We believe that these 23 acres should be
developed residentially and we ask you to reject the commercial development plans for
this corner. I am confident in saying that most opposition to this development would
cease if they decided to, instead, develop this residentially, instead of commercially. I
want to thank you for your time and I'm open to any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Sir, I reviewed your submittal that you summarized today. You mentioned that
you speak for Tuscany Subdivision.
Romella: Right.
Borton: The vast majority.
Romello: Uh-huh.
Meridian City CounCil
July 25, 2006
Page 35 of 77
Borton: You had indicated that there is 600 homes. Can you tell us what percentage or
what number of homeowners or individuals in Tuscany that you're speaking for and -- if
you know or how many refused to join your cause?
Romella: I would say of the people I have spoken to, more than 95 percent have said
they don't want commercial. There are a couple of people who said that we do want
commercial, but the large majority -- I have spoken to dozens, because I have gone
basically house to house on several occasions trying to get people to come to the
meetings and the vast majority have been against it. At one of the Planning and Zoning
meetings I turned in about 35 signed petitions against this project, but I didn't repeat that
process this time.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: And those are part of the public record.
Romello: Okay.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Mr. Bird?
Bird: No.
De Weerd: No? Okay. Thank you, sir.
Romella: Thanks.
De Weerd: Steven McDonna. I'm sorry.
McDonna: Mayor, Councilmen, my name is Steve McDonna. I live at 3854 Tuscany.
I'm sorry. In Naples in Tuscany. And to clarity just a little bit, he does -- the gentleman
before me does represent the vast majority in Tuscany. I'm on the homeowners
association and I'm on neighborhood watch. In all of the meetings that we have been
it's been a vast majority of the people that have voiced their concerns and their
unapproval with commercial on that property. I do want to commend the property
owners on Eagle Road for going together to try to find the best use that they can -- that
they consider, but I do want to point out it's their consideration, and it is a money issue
and that's what -- that's what real estate is. As far as the gentleman that started this,
the engineer that was talking about the size of the businesses in Silverstone and EI
Dorado, almost all of the businesses that line Eagle Road and Overland are in the same
square footage size of businesses that are proposed in this particular commercial
request. And in those I think Mrs. Canning noted that she felt that it was unrealistic and
that's, really, what my point is. It's not really whether it should be commercial or high
density, it's the realistic planning of commercial in that area in an overbuilding
commercial area of EI Dorado and Silverstone and all the way down Overland Road.
There is too much of it and just further pushing it south does nothing more than spread
that area of commercial and overtax the transportation, the roads in that area. And by
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 36 of 77
improving the intersection of Victory and Eagle Road, is not going to fix the traffic that is
growing in that area. I travel that every day and it is backed up well passed the canal
every day from 4:00 o'clock until 6:30 whether you're going east or west or north or
south. And that commercial that this is supposed to bring in, is not going to be 24 hour
commercial that is going to bring in a steady stream of business, it's going to be more
along the lines of your doctors and your dentists, your smaller type of commercial,
which is going to be more in your 8:00 to 5:00 type workers, which is going to tax that
particular intersection and the traffic in the area. Don't rezone this plan and, again, it's
just not realistic. It needs to stop at Easy Jet and, unfortunately, all of us weren't
involved when that went through, but we would like -- we would have liked that not to
be there either, because we can see the increased traffic on Easy Jet, whether it be
from the building of the subdivision or the commercial traffic that goes in there, it's
dangerous right now and it's only going to get worse, you know, and the real question
out there is controlling the traffic and controlling the growth. Those people -- there is
over 2,000 roof tops -- all come -- I'll bring this one very quickly. There is over 2,000
roof tops in that area that people moved out there and they didn't move out there
because there was a lack or that there was -- they moved out there because it wasn't
congested. They didn't move out there with the promise of future commercial. Okay?
So, please, take that into consideration when you're voting for rezoning this, because
2,000 homeowners that are expected to support this commercial, did not move out there
in hoping that commercial would come to them. Thank you.
De Weent Thank you. Warren McDaniel signed up against. Thank you, sir. And
Marvin Neusbaum. Signed up against. I'm sorry.
Neusbaum: Against, yes. Madam Mayor and Council, Marvin Nuesbaum. I live at
3674 South Leonardo Way in Tuscany. I'm rather new to the area. Been in the area for
a long time, but just recently moved out there in a newer section and, you know, I
concur a lot with what the folks have said against tonight, because it's -- we are bringing
much more business out into the -- what really should be residential housing areas and,
you know, the increase in traffic in areas that really don't need it, I think it's horrible to
develop an area that should be residential on a corner. You know, you're only going to
have a major amount of congestion there and so I would ask that you would vote no on
the rezoning, because business is going to bring much more traffic and it's going to be
all day long, whereas a residential -- obviously, you're going to have traffic throughout
the day and the redesign of Eagle Road and even I'm sure Victory Road eventually will
be redone, that will take care of the additional traffic that a residential would cause in
that area. So, I would, again, ask that you would vote no. Thanks for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Those are the names that signed up. Is there anyone else who
would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Yes, sir. Please state your
name and address.
Krasinski: Madam Mayor, Council, I'm Harold Krasinski, at 3475 East Falcon. Well, I'm
down at the end of East Falcon Drive, which is just below that L-shaped property there.
And Mr. Aldrich spoke earlier about his being in favor of the development in this area.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 37 of 77
We are the property down at the end and, as he pointed out, the developer of
Sutherland Farms has purchased all these other properties on our road, leaving us as
the last five acre parcel here, with Dartmoor and Kingsbridge here. My concern -- I
guess I'm somewhat neutral on this, although I would prefer to see the development
work out much like the Alliance has asked for, as opposed to some of the alternatives
that could bring even higher density. We do already have some four-plexes here and I
would much rather see an attractive low density business park of some sort in this area,
as opposed to having them all fill in with some of the higher density that could come into
play with the zoning as it is now. We certainly are going to be one of the last large
acreages in here and I'm also afraid of other high density going in there and that might
influence the Sutherland Farms South, which I don't believe has been submitted to
anybody yet, but that is going to be coming in the next few months. So, I would
probable prefer to see it much like they have envisioned now, as opposed to even
higher density, because we are going to be putting more burden on the schools and I
think the traffic, if you look at the amount of people that could live on that corner, I have
got to believe that that would turn out to be more trips per day than the community
commercial that might be proposed now. So, I'm -- we are hoping to stay there and
preserve our little patch as long as we can and, actually, if and when this all starts to
develop here, we would certainly urge you all to take into consideration the nature of the
area now and the fact that Kingsbridge has agreed to put in somewhat larger lots here
and what I have seen proposed, anyway, is what might happen through here, a little bit
larger lots, so I would certainly urge you all to take into consideration in the future that if
we could make this transition go slowly from high density to low density, I would
certainly like to stay here as long as I can in that area. So, thank you all --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Krasinski: -- for your consideration.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony before we
invite the applicant to have closing remarks? Okay.
Nickel: Madam Mayor, Council, thanks again. For the record, Shawn Nickel. First of
all, I do appreciate the concerns of the neighbors. However, some of their testimony
brings up the whole reason why the commercial is needed in this area. One of the
comments was 2,000 roof tops, in Tuscany 560 lots. By requiring those people to travel
on the roadway system further out to get to their services, it's only going to increase the
traffic for everybody. Again, we are not -- we are not asking for the regional
commercial. We have got plenty of regional commercial up at Silverado, EI Dorado,
460 acres that I spoke of earlier. Those are destination type of commercial uses. There
are services within those, as has been stated, as you know from driving out there, but
the majority of those issues, again, are destination uses, large engineering companies
and offices and Idaho Athletic Clubs and the -- to point out -- and I think I was very
liberal in my map in my estimate of the residential down in that area, but, again, 3,400
acres, 11,600 possible homes based on the current Comprehensive Plan, both cities.
And I'm not even going to say 120 acres designated for neighborhood commercial
Meridian City Coundl
July 25, 2006
Page 38 of 77
anymore, because as I found out today, half of that might be going to R-8 residential,
which further increases the need for service oriented commercial on the south side of
Overland Road. As I stated, Eagle Road is planned in the 2007 budget for
improvements, five lanes that will connect Eagle Road five lanes from Victory all the
way up to the interstate. Yes, that's going to increase the travel time and the traffic
lights and stops, but that's one reason why this area is not viable for residential, is
because you are turning this into a North Eagle Road with five lanes and increased
noise and the compatibility issues of anyone wanting or desiring to have lower density
residential there. So, you are probably going to see some higher density residential.
And I don't think that's a threat on the Alliance's part when they state that, I think it's
reality based on what they have seen and those people have been out there for 20
years and they have seen this increase out there. I do agree with staff and a majority of
the neighbors when they say that the concept plan that we have in front of you is not
viable. It concerns them. I agree a hundred percent. If you look in your packet on page
seven that I have listed, that's an alternative plan -- concept plan that we would like to
have adopted, if you approve this this evening, and all that shows is that shows those
access points and those buffers and the stub streets and the compatibility issues that I
think are so important to this type of request, where the Alliance is really just asking for
a Comprehensive Plan designation. They are not commercial developers, there is not --
there is probably not a need right now today for commercial development out there for
services, just like there is not a need today for that elementary school in Tuscany. But
they have planned for it and I guarantee that that school will open and it will be at
capacity immediately and at some point the need will be there, just like at some point
the need for this commercial will be here. We need to designate it now and the market
will determine when and whether that develops as commercial. No one is going to go
out there today and pop up a bunch of service commercial if they are not sure that they
are going to have the roof tops, but, I'll tell you what. 11,000 or 23,000 or whatever I
anticipated is going to be out there, you're really lacking service-oriented commercial in
the area. Again, we have provided a lot of information for you here, if you want to soak
it up, we would be more than happy to let you think about it and table this. We did
provide some elevations just to get some ideas. But, again, the Alliance is wanting to
plan for the future. Of course they are looking at the highest and best use. The best
use for the property is commercial, in their belief. So, with that I thank you very much
for your time and I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I have a question for Shawn and, then, kind of a procedural question for staff.
Shawn, I heard you say that the -- and I understand procedurally Planning and Zoning
Commission heard the Comprehensive Plan amendment, recommended that the City
Council hear that with an application for rezone. We have heard some comments from
both from Planning and Zoning staff and I think you stated the same thing, that the
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 39 of 77
rezone is not -- that this is a conceptual idea of what could happen and I know that the
Council has had some different experiences with conceptual sorts of designs. So, what
short of things do you feel would need to be agreed upon before the Council could
consider fully what that commercial development would look like in a rezone
perspective?
Nickel: Madam Mayor and Councilmember Wardle -- and as stated in the past, the
original application or intent from the Alliance was to have just a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Your Planning and Zoning staff -- or your Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended the annexation and zoning. If the Alliance had their way,
they would just consider just a Comprehensive Plan. I think it's important to have the
annexation and zoning, because we can incorporate a development agreement that will
lock in those specifics that will make this project whenever it comes before you from a
real commercial developer, compatible -- and I think that's some of the concerns that
you have had in the past with approving concept plans and not knowing, really, what
you're going to see. So, if we had our way we would just want to do the Comprehensive
Plan, designate the area, and see what happens. But you really need those conditions
as part of the annexation development agreement to kind of lock in what this Alliance
has really -- all along has agreed to every time staff has added a new concern, I believe
that they have addressed that. And as far as anticipating what can happen -- what's
going to go on in the future, that's why I came up with that alternative concept plan.
Staff's right, this is very unrealistic and it is just to demonstration the right-in, right-out,
the full access, the stubs, the access to the existing streets, the buffers, the residential
buffer, and compatibility. It wasn't to show roadways going in and out and the
commercial or a building here, buildings right there, it, really, to give -- was to give staff
an idea of what you would see. So, it's really hard to come up with a concept plan when
you're not really trying to develop it right now. I don't know if that answered your
question, but --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: It did answer my initial question. For staff procedurally, understanding the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that we consider these together, is
that I assume it's procedurally -- before the Council can act on any type of rezone we
have to act on the Comprehensive Plan amendment; is that correct?
Canning: Yes, in the sense that the rezone would not be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Wardle: Got you. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 40 of 77
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you all very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no questions for staff, I would entertain a motion
to close the Public Hearing, unless you would like to continue.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 10 and 11.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 10 and 11. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm not sure where to begin, so I'm probably going to ramble. First off, I
appreciate the applicants for coming together and doing something that we have been
asking folks to do in these kinds of areas where you have multiple parcels that are very
difficult to do anything with on an individual basis, yet we see them time and time and
time again. I also want to compliment the citizens for coming together and expressing
their opinions. And, again, the applicant for at least working with one neighborhood,
apparently, and getting them involved in taking care of their concerns with yet another
adjacent development in the area that have issues as well. I'm not sure how this is
going to go this evening. Please keep in mind we hear lots of information. We hear
about traffic. We hear about schools. We hear about we don't want this in our
neighborhood or we want this in our neighborhood. If we always went with the for's, we
would have lots of things -- more things that people don't like. If we always went for the
againers, most of you folks out here, except those that have expressed an opinion that
have been in Ada County for some 15, 20 years, wouldn't have a place to live. Having
said that, I'm always concerned when we open up the Comprehensive Plan for
amendment. And the only thing I have, really, to judge at this point is experience. And,
occasionally, that's okay to have as an elected official and a City Council person. And
though I have been a City Council person concurrently for as many years as I have
experience, I can go back a few years and my gray hair will attest to that. This is not
Meridii:lll Cily Council
July 25. 2006
Page 41 of 77
dissimilar to an action that -- I'm trying to think when we did it, but it's in excess of ten
years ago, so it predates all of the Council Members and the Mayor here -- where, in
fact, the Council did take affirmative action on a request such as this. That property sat
until about a year ago or two years ago as a commercial property and struggled once it
started to be developed through the Public Hearing process, conditional use process. I
have just learned now that we take away from that is that I feel, looking back on it, that
the Council erred in the speculative aspect of that particular decision. So, not going to
my I'm-not-in-any-big-hurry drum, but my experience with another similar project, I'm
inclined not to be in favor of a Comprehensive Plan amendment at this point in time and
the rezone.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comment -- other comments by Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Before I make my comments, not having the years of experience of
Councilman Rountree --
Rountree: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Rub it in.
Wardle: I won't elaborate on that at this time.
Bird: You don't have gray hair yet.
Wardle: While I was in the City of Meridian -- I'm not sure which project you're talking
about.
Rountree: I was teaching you how to play baseball.
Wardle: Exactly right. Which project were you referring to?
Rountree: Eagle Road and Overland. I don't know the name of the development at this
point in time.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: I guess I'll make my comments. I certainly would like to thank the applicant
and all the citizens who came here as well. My bar for opening up the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is certainly very high. One of the things that I look for is some type of
a -- something that the city could gain from this proposal that the city would not, in any
other circumstance, gain. One of the things that I do like about this proposal is the
ability of the neighbors and the property owners to bring this together. I didn't hear an
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 42 of 77
unwillingness to do that in any other form of application, but, certainly, it was a well
thought out presentation, that these people came together, did some research, hired
some professionals and sought public input, even from their neighbors, through this
public process, to arrive at a conclusion of what should this property be. I have heard
arguments, obviously, on both sides. I can say that I don't find it unreasonable that
these properties should or could be commercial. On the rezone application I don't think
I have enough specific evidence to approve a specific project. We have heard both the
applicant, neighbors, and planning staff say that this proposal at this time is not as
thought out as it could be. but I have heard arguments that lead me to consider that --
the ability for this to be a successful commercial development. The one thing that I can
say that planning staff had -- that we have struggled with in this area of town and that is
the large lot subdivisions and the lower density, lower than R-4, the R-2 density, the five
acre parcels, I heard those neighbors that are directly affected by this development say
that they would prefer it over a residential zone and that, in my mind -- certainly
everyone is going to be directly affected, but those people are neighboring directly and
have worked with the applicant and have a comfortable level for what could happen
adjacent to their property.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments? I guess since I never share my opinion,
I -- I thought I'd better comment. Well, I guess I would share some of the indecisiveness
on whether this is where it belongs or not. My office gets a lot of calls from the
residents from the south end that there is a grocery store needed, that -- and, in fact, I
have heard that for the last six years, and EI Dorado and Silverstone are not the -- not
the business parks -- I mean those are business parks. This is something that would
not go into one of those. I also have heard from enough developers that residential and
business or commercial, they are valued the same. In fact, residential is almost going
higher in some areas than business. So, I don't know if that's -- the price of their land is
motivated by whether it's commercial or residential. I guess we also get concerned
when there is an elementary school in the area -- developed as residential, those kids
will be crossing a very busy street and so those are also concerns. You know, we have
to look at this as a big picture and seeing community safety, services, and there is a lot
of things that dictate the decisions that this Council makes. With that said, I don't know
I'm necessarily opposed to the Comprehensive Plan change, because the
Comprehensive Plan is a living document and when we set that document, we try and
anticipate how things are going to be develop on the ground and sometimes it dictates,
as development occurs, that things need to be looked at a little different. And I agree
that trips can be captured by having services closer to the homes. Is this the right
place? I'm not sure. But as far as the Comprehensive Plan, I think this is a reasonable
look at a mixed use at a lower density than -- or a lower impact than the regional mixed
use. But I think that this Council has seen several incidences where we have rezoned
or annexed without a plan where we had the opportunity for the public to comment and
that is what concerns me. It's that I appreciate that the applicants have come together -
- actually, we have been asking that in other parts of our community, what -- and that
you have brought examples of the type of quality that the buildings would be, the
materials -- I think that Shawn has been in front of us long enough to know that those
are all things that we are going to ask and expect answers to. So, we have seen a
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 43 of 77
mixture of residential with the office and commercial in one other instance that I know of
and that's over on Linder and Cherry Lane. There is a mix there that they have done
the same thing. What impresses me is I haven't seen anyone from Sutherland Farms or
Thousand Springs, which this is on both sides of, so the development, the applicant, the
property owners, have been doing their research. Again, the Comprehensive Plan, it
seems to make sense. We deal with a lot of the traffic from the south and it's not
necessarily Meridian, it's a lot of Kuna and southeast Boise, because they don't have
access to 1-84, so we see a lot of traffic that crosses through us. Will that help capture
some trips? Maybe. I just am concerned to the annex or -- and rezone without a
specific plan, because we have seen how some of those result -- or at least to limit the
accesses even on the conceptual to be in line more with what we are doing on the north
side and we are trying to limit those accesses. The advantage is we are going from
about 16 accesses on these roads to, hopefully, just two or one. Okay. Council, if I
have stirred the pot enough, if there is no further questions or information needed, are
you at a point where you want to make a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Question for staff. Anna, do you think it's appropriate to take a look at the
south Meridian region as a whole and review and possibly amend the Comprehensive
Plan for the larger portion? Has that been discussed?
Canning: Yes. It's actually underway. And we are -- we are doing a market study of
everything south of 1-84 to determine the appropriate amount of commercial
development. We anticipate that we will see those closer to around some of the east-
west roads that ACHD is proposing. I think Lake Hazel is one and -- I know Lake Hazel
is one of them, but I can't think of -- the other one that goes into -- I don't think it's
Victory Road that goes all the way through Canyon county. I think it's -- Amity. Thank
you. So, we are anticipating that we will see commercial clusters at those major
intersections. We have, actually, done preappllcation conferences with a developer
that's bringing in a large proposal that has those planned out and integrated into the
neighborhood. So, we do anticipate that there will be additional commercial services
along those roads.
Borton: So, part of that -- part of that analysis encompasses this area?
Canning: Yes, sir, it does. And--
Borton: Would it be sort of counter-productive to those efforts to -- before that's
completed to hold portions within that region and make amendments without having that
completed?
Canning: I think the area we are looking at is large enough that it may not, but if the
concern to the Council is that there aren't sufficient services in the south, I think that
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 44 of 77
there is certainly other opportunities to make that available to folks, if this isn't viewed as
the appropriate place.
Borton: The reason I asked the question is a concern that I have got and it was told to
me by other Council members in a different context with regard to Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The benefit of a comprehensive plan is that it, in fact, focuses on the
forest and not the trees and I think the remarks that have been presented by the
applicant and by the public here are probably right on the money for this region and
what needs to be addressed in this location and, to my perspective, for the southern
Meridian portion as a whole, which invites the very analysis that Meridian is taking and
this might be -- could be at the conclusion of that analysis a viable and proper
Comprehensive Plan amendment. But to my perspective, I'm more comfortable making
that analysis with the forest picture, looking at the larger region and how it might tie into
other comp plan changes, which we would make in the southern portion. So, I'm not
necessarily opposed to the concept at this point. This region might change. To my
perspective I'm not willing to at this point perhaps undermine our efforts to analyze the
larger region. I also agree with Council and the Mayor with regard to annexing property,
we don't have real specific plans in knowing the city is going to be taking in and the
applicant candidly knows that those concerns are there and recognizes that we would
have those concerns. So, with regard to the annexation, have further comment that
Council Members and the Mayor have expressed some concern that with regard to the
Comprehensive Plan amendment those are reasons why at this point I would not be in
favor of it.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, could you give an overview of some of the options that -- it's
similar to the area by Ten Mile with a specific area plan we are doing, seeing the
Comprehensive Plan in south Meridian and the market analysis, is there an opportunity
to delay this application or do they need to take action and then -- if you can just layout
their options.
Nary: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, at this juncture, because you
have held a public hearing, you can certainly continue this matter. I don't know that you
have a date certain and that's probably the problem with -- I don't think -- I heard Mrs.
Canning say it was underway, but that there is a target date, like we dealt with the prior
action that the Council took where there was at least a specific date we set that to. You
certainly don't have to agree with the Comprehensive Plan amendment if you don't feel
that it is in the best interest of the city at this time. You don't have to approve it, if part of
your discussion or part of your reasoning, at least for the purposes of the Public
Hearing, is that there is an ongoing study and there is an analysis that's forthcoming
that still may impact this area and you're willing to wait for that circumstance to happen
that at least lets these folks know what the reasons are. You're not obligated to do that,
but if that's your rationale you can. but I would be cautious in trying to just set this over
for some open-ended time period, because you just don't have any real sense for these
folks to have some finality to this application to do that. You can set it over for 30 days,
but I don't -- again, maybe Mrs. Canning has more insight, but I think we would be
setting it over three or four times, which isn't very helpful for these folks that are trying to
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 45 of 77
make decisions on their property. Did you have any -- I didn't hear you say you had
some specific time window that you thought this might --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our contract with our consultant is --
is geared toward a Comprehensive Plan amendment submitted to -- or a complete
application within our office on December 15th. That December 15th cutoff would be for
a February Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Typically, it takes them a couple
of hearings to get through Comprehensive Plan amendments, so it probably wouldn't
get up to you until March or April. The fast wheels of government progress. Yeah.
Sorry.
Nary: I'm thinking you may have the opportunity to do that, but that was my only
concern, Madam Mayor, is trying to leave this one open ended for that length of time
probably leaves it a little too much in limbo for too long as to a decision on this
application. You have the ability to do that, I just think it would maybe not be the wisest
choice.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do want to compliment the Alliance and the people that live around it, Tuscany
and all that, the way you have come together and it's been very calm and collected
testimony and stuff. I do appreciate that a lot. I'm not too sure that this isn't a good plan
for that corner, you know, really, I don't know what the plan is. You didn't come forward
with any kind of a preliminary plat or any idea of what's going down there. I mean we
could wind up with some big -- all we are doing is giving a conceptual look. We could
wind up with some big box things or we could wind up with 30 or 40 dentists offices -- I
don't know. I just -- I have to agree with Councilman Rountree, I know which one he's
talking about that -- what happened and without some kind of a plan I just can't support
this. The amendment, I -- I don't have a problem with the Comprehensive Plan change,
but without some kind of an idea of what the zoning needs and stuff, why I can't support
it at this time.
De Weerd: Anna, we have three different mixed use designations, the regional, the
community, and the neighborhood?
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Can you maybe tell the difference between -- or explain the difference
between the commercial and the neighborhood?
Canning: Community and neighborhood? Give me just a moment.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 46 of 77
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just some additional info. I think part of your question that maybe I didn't answer
was -- is there other -- is there any legal reason you can't delay that decision and there
is not. The legal requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments are placed at the
Planning and Zoning level and, then, the recommendation has a time period in which
they can come to you for map amendments and that's all been satisfied. So, there isn't
a legal impediment to delay. The other issue is you have the ability -- the Council has
the ability to recommend different Comprehensive Plan changes than what has been
requested and you have the ability to do that. Depending on the significance of those,
you may want to have another Public Hearing to allow for further input. If you don't want
what's being requested, but they do -- a Comprehensive Plan amendment is felt to be
appropriate, then, the Council has the ability to do that. But depending on, again, the
significance of that, another Public Hearing may be necessary just to make sure that if
anyone has any other concerns about that change, that they have an opportunity to be
heard. You don't have to as well -- and you probably all know this, you don't have to
approve both of these. You certainly can approve the Comprehensive Plan
amendment. You don't have to approve the annexation request or you can certainly
deny them both or approve them both. The only reason you're hearing them together is
because the Planning and Zoning Commission had felt that they didn't feel comfortable
initially in making the Comprehensive Plan recommendation without some conceptual
idea of what was in front of them and I think that's part of the testimony you heard is
why it is a conceptual plan, is because that was really driven by the Commission's
desire to see what would fit and what would be appropriate with this type of change.
You can certainly approve a change without the requested concept plan that's being
brought in the application in Item 11. So, there is a couple of options there and I didn't
say that before and I didn't know if you would find that helpful, so --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'll read from the Comprehensive
Plan. For mixed use neighborhood it talks about up to ten acres may be nonresidential
uses. So, that's approximately half this site, I believe. Or a third of this -- that
conceptual plan as shown. I accidentally -- there we go. It talks about up to 100,000
square feet of nonresidential building area. Residential densities would be three to
eight units per acre, which would be consistent with Sutherland Farms. Sample uses
include grocery stores, drug stores, coffee, sandwich shops, dry cleaner, laundromat,
solons, day care, professional offices, medical, dental, clinic, retail gift shops, schools,
parks, churches, clubhouses, and public uses. For mixed use community it's up to 25
acres of nonresidential uses, up to 200,000 square feet of nonresidential building area.
Residential densities of three to 15 units per acre. Sample uses include all those that I
mentioned before for the neighborhood and further adding clothing stores, garden
centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service stations,
department stores.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 47 of 77
De Weerd: Thank you. In the discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission
have they had their log on the neighborhood on consideration of the neighborhood
center?
Canning: I'm sorry to be picky, but neighborhood center or mixed use neighborhood?
De Weerd: Mixed use.
Canning: Okay. I wasn't at all --
De Weerd: Tragically it--
Canning: Well, it actually is. I'm sorry. I was not at the hearings. I am not sure. I know
there was a lot of talk internally about it and I'm not sure what the Planning Commission
-- I can look through the minutes if you'd like me to. Quickly.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: If I can -- the application we have in front of us is for mixed use regional by the
applicant; correct?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Wardle: And the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with the
designation of mixed use community.
Canning: Correct.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would imagine that the applicant had -- was in agreement with the mixed use
community, since we did not hear otherwise. Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I can get a second on a motion, maybe have further discussion. I would
move that we approve Item 10, CPA 05-001, Comprehensive Plan amendment to mixed
use community as suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Bird: For discussion I'll second it.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 48 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request for the CPA.
Discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have no further comment.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: If there is no discussion I call the question.
De Weerd: Okay. Since you called the question before you got an answer if there was
any discussion, I guess procedurally I just have to ask for the question.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: So, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay.
Berg: Madam Mayor, tie breaker.
De Weerd: For many of the reasons I stayed before I would vote aye.
Berg: Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Procedurally, we have had some comments from the Council, as well as
applicant's and planning staff. Legal counselor planning staff, I didn't get the sense that
the Council was in a mind to act on this motion as it currently stands before us_ Would it
be appropriate to open the hearing and continue that or to deny the application, wait for
future application? I guess I'm looking for some direction on what procedurally would be
the --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I heard you expressing was --
was denial, to be frank, and I think that the applicant has only ever wanted the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so I'm not sure that the rezone is of high importance
to them. They probably wouldn't have minded, but I don't know what else to say.
Wardle: Okay. I can do that.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 49 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion on Item 11?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we deny Item 11, AZ 06-009, based on the testimony from
applicant and public and further an incomplete conceptual plan.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 11. Is there any discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-
4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by
John Homan - 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you for bearing with us all. Okay. Item No. 12 is Public Hearing RZ
06-005. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Meridian Professional
Office. It is located -- find a better highlight color. It's located at the -- 2835 and 2825
Meridian Road. It's the southwest corner of Meridian Road and Sedgewick Drive. So,
it's approximately a thousand feet south of Ustick Road. This is an application for a
rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O. This falls within our exemption for properties
that face arterials -- residential properties that may be suitable to redevelop just as
office uses. The applicant is proposing four buildings and as depicted here. there are
3,270 square feet each, and are limited to a single story. The applicant -- or this project
comes forward to you with a recommendation for a development agreement. Some of
the site specific conditions of that development agreement are that the only uses that
would be allowed on the property are those that are principally permitted uses within the
L-O zone. That hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. That any
new structures or remodel of existing structures shall be generally compatible in
appearance and bulk with the surrounding residential properties, as determined by the
planning director or otherwise approved through a Conditional Use Permit. That up to
four office-type buildings may be constructed on the site and that those buildings would
have a maximum size 3,270 square feet each and be limited to single story. And that
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 50 of 77
each building have some stucco and brick accents. And, finally, that the applicant
agrees to construct a masonry fence along the south and west property lines as
proposed. One of the neighbors had a question about the height of that fence. They
are proposing a six foot fence. Six foot. Yes. I do have some elevations. The
Commission did recommend approval at their July 6, 2006, hearing. Amber VanOcker
spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of discussion by
the Commission were the uses allowed in the L-O zone and, then, the proposed fencing
or screening of the residential properties to the west. There were no big changes to
staff's initial recommendation and I think we have still gotten some neighbor concerns.
As I said, they called regarding the height of the fence along that western property line.
That may be the only outstanding issue that we know before Council. With that I'll
answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
VanOcker: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. Amber VanOcker, LKV
Architects, 1735 Federal Way in Boise, representing the owner John Homan. Anna has
done a good job of outlining our project. The only thing that I think I would add to her
comments -- the property is going to be landscaped fairly heavily. We will be providing
a 25 foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road. A minimum of a 20 foot buffer that
actually extends where the property line starts to angle to the north, that that connection
actually increases to 40 feet as you get to Sedgewick and, then, John Homan, the
owner of the property, has agreed to provide the six foot solid masonry fence and we
are actually going to design that fence to have some additional detailing to it, so it's just
not a CMU fence on both the west property line and the south property line. So, that
would be an additional requirement that you probably wouldn't normally see In your
ordinance and I think I'll probably just stand for any questions and wait for any additional
comments of the residents. I think there is a handful of people here that have some
concerns and if I could approach you after to answer those questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. I do have some people signed up. They didn't check a box, so we
will find out if they are for or against. Douglas Gregory. If you will, please, state your
name and address.
Meridian City Cuum;;il
July 25, 2006
Page 51 of 77
Gregory: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Doug Gregory. I live at
62 West Claire. On that map it would be on the far left south corner. My two nearest
neighbors live directly south of that property. My concern is about 1,000 feet, if I
understood correctly, on the northeast corner of Ustick Road -- I'm sorry, Ustick Road
you already have a commercial planned area. This is residential. Approximately 3/1 Oth
of a mile to the south there is American Tile and I'm assuming it's a limited business
park there. I talked to the gentleman across the street. He is now the only residential
property there, the two homes to the west of him are now commercial. His property
value has gone up, but he hasn't got any offers yet. I guess my concern is from
Overland Road to approximately where that commercial light office is, we have
commercial everywhere. We have residential. We have a mess. I'm sorry. It's ugly.
I'm concerned about the fence. If -- can you go back to that other picture for me,
please? On the south -- on the left bottom corner of that, my property line only extends
into that fence about 18 feet. What will I do with the rest of my backyard fence? Also, I
haven't heard anything said about lights. I know there will be lights in that parking lot. I
don't know what kind of lighting there will be on the back side of the building, but there
will be some. My concerns are you have got commercial property all the way from --
like I said, from Overland Road clear up passed Albertson's north of where Loric
Construction is. Do we really need commercial there, even if it's light office, when less
than 3/10ths of a mile away you, again, have a commercial plot already set out, platted.
and in your development. I stand for any questions. But that's alii have to say.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Thank you, sir. Mary Gregory. Thank
you. Dennis Coffman. You can pull that mike up.
Coffman: Pull it up a little here?
De Weerd: Yes.
Coffman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Dennis Coffman. I live at 16
West Claire Street in the Landsbury Subdivision. Our property is -- I don't know how to
turn this thing on. Our property would be right -- we are on the corner of Meridian and
Claire. So, our property is right at the end of the parking lot. On the surface I'm not
opposed to this project, because I think it would be much preferable to what's there
now, which is kind of a junk heap. But I have some -- we have some concerns. I have
some questions that I think need to be nailed down and answered prior to approval of
this. As the gentleman before me talked about the fence, the fence has been
designated six feet high. We don't know what kind of lighting is going to be in that
parking lot. Is that lighting going to shine over the fence into our backyard and into our
bedroom and so forth? We would prefer to see an eight foot fence put there. The cars
will be coming In that end of the parking lot, aimed directly at our back fence, at the
back of our house, and those car lights are going to shine into our backyard and also
into our house and so we would like those things nailed down and addressed and in
such a way that our property is protected, because of the five houses that this impacts,
ours, I think, will be impacted the most, because of the parking lot right behind our
backyard. Three of the residents could not be here tonight because of work schedules.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 52 of 77
So, there is just the two of us here. But those are the concerns that I have. One more.
I guess we have a question as to why the hours of operation were changed from 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. It sounds a little late to have traffic driving
in and out of that parking lot on -- particularly on summer evenings. So, there is some
concerns that we would like to have as conditions of approval on this and we would
request an eight foot fence, rather than a six foot. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Coffman, we have a question for you.
Borton: I have got one question for you. Anna, if you could put up the satellite image?
I was just trying to get a picture -- which house is --
Coffman: Ours is right there.
Borton: You mentioned five property owners. There is not five on that southern border.
Coffman: No. Well, these three and, then, those two there. So, there is five of us that
that will impact.
Borton: So, the property owners that you spoke with all on that southern portion all
wanted an eight foot fence? Or is that your request?
Coffman: Yeah. My wife talked to them and she could answer that, but, yes, we'd
rather have a taller fence there, because of the lighting. And our concern with the
parking lot lighting, we don't know where it's going to shine and so that needs to be
clarified as a condition, in our opinion.
Borton: Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess I would have a follow-up question to what he's asked. They do
have shields and we have a number of residential and light office that we have found -- I
think we have perfected a better lighting system and shielding system to those, so it's
not intrusive to the neighbors nearby. I would ask have you seen an eight foot masonry
wall? They are pretty dominant and so that's -- that's my question, do you really prefer
an eight foot -- did I sayan eight inch? Okay. Eight foot, rather than a six foot, if you
had some reassurance as to the shielding of the lights and placement thereof.
Coffman: We just want the assurance that the car lights and street lights or parking lot
lighting is not going to impact our lifestyle and our backyard.
De Weerd: And I understand that.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 53 of 77
Coffman: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Since there has been a lot of discussion about an eight foot tall fence, I need
to point out that code only allows a six foot fence in this area.
De Weerd: I know. I still had to ask the question.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Jan Coffman also signed up. You can now pull that down.
J. Coffman: I'm Jan Coffman and I live at 16 West Claire with him and thank you,
Council and Mayor. The only thing I have to say is we have a six foot fence right there
now. My husband is six three. Anybody walking along that fence looks directly into our
backyard. Right now we have nobody there, but if we have businesses and people
coming and going, we will not have any privacy in our backyard from people, tall like
him, looking into our backyard. There is a safety issue also. You're going to have more
people coming into the area and we are not going to know them and they are not going
to be our neighbors anymore. They are going to be strangers. And just for our own
protection and for privacy -- yeah, all of the neighbors have requested an eight foot
barrier. Not a fence, but a wall, to protect their houses. The one on Sedgewick and on
Claire. We have all asked for that eight foot barrier, so that it gives the privacy and
protection that we need in a residential area. Thank you.
De Weerd: Now, ma'am, I guess can it be in terms of landscaping, like columnar
junipers or -- instead of an eight foot wall, which is against our ordinance?
J. Coffman: I know it is. I know it is. But also it -- it was told to me from planning that
the Council can do anything.
De Weerd: No, they can't.
Nary: Wow.
Rountree: Thank you.
J. Coffman: No. That would be fine. You know, they could build a berm and, then,
build a fence on top of that. That would be fine, too. That would work. And we have a
berm along our side with a fence on top of it and it makes it taller. So, that would work
also. But I'm just thinking of taking away what little bit of privacy we have in our little lot
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 54 of 77
there when we moved there 11 years ago. We are like these other people that had all
the traffic, we didn't have that traffic and now we are lambasted with a lot of traffic and
we just would like to keep our little place as private as we can. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony on this application? Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, would you mind if I asked the last speaker a question?
De Weerd: Yes. Mrs. Coffman, could you step up again. Our staff would like to ask
you something.
Canning: Ma'am, did you testify that you actually have a berm on your northern
property boundary or was that a different --
J. Coffman: On the east boundary.
Canning: Okay. And if --
J. Coffman: And this would be the north.
Canning: If the applicant wants to offer to build that berm, would you let it go partly on
your property, so that they could get the fence at the top of the berm?
J. Coffman: No.
Canning: Okay.
J. Coffman: We are already short four feet on our property. It's us and Slonikers next
door have been shorted four feet of our backyard and we would like that back. We
would like that property line put on the -- on the line as it should be, not the way it's
sitting right now. Our fence is four feet in off of our property line on the north side.
Canning: Okay. I'm confused. It's not my place to ask more questions, so I won't.
De Weerd: Why is your fence not on the property line? Are you suggesting that the
property line is not correct?
J. Coffman: It's -- it was -- this was designed so that the people that had a ditch that
now these people are gone and there has been Indian Rocks Subdivision now has
moved in in there, there was a ditch that they used for irrigation, so that ditch was
accessible to them through our yard, so Instead of making a fence and letting them walk
through our backyard when the developer developed it, he pulled it in four feet, so that
they could get back to their ditch and open up the headgate, which is no longer needed.
De Weerd: That explains it. Did that explain it for you, Anna?
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 55 of 77
Canning: Yes. So, if the applicant were to build a berm in that four feet and put a wall
at the top of it, you would be gaining four feet of backyard. I believe. This issue has
never come up, ma'am, and I apologize for asking all these questions. It's not my place
and I'll try and be quiet, but it would help if somebody had a drawing of it at this point.
De Weerd: I guess her question is if they use some of that four feet where your fence
isn't, to be able to berm to get additional height, would you been supportive of that?
They wouldn't take anything else from where your fence currently is, but in order to get
a higher berm, they need some on your side as well.
J. Coffman: I can't speak for my neighbor. My neighbor would be impacted exactly the
same as we are.
De Weerd: Are they impacted with the same four foot easement, basically?
J. Coffman: There are two of us that that was withdrawn and put in four feet. So, we
actually own four feet more than what we -- what our yards show.
De Weerd: So, you didn't have to give access for the ditch.
J. Coffman: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. I follow you. Thank you.
J. Coffman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing
none, would you like closing remarks?
VanOcker: Madam Mayor, Council, I'll hit the items that I know I have answers to
initially and, then, we can deal with the fencing. The hours of operation, the type of
office uses that we are targeting, we actually requested a less hours of operation and I
think that staff went with what was normally done for the hours of operation. So, that
could be adjusted if need be. The type of uses are going to be 8:00 to 5:00 and people
are going to be out of there. So, it's not going to be something that is going to extend
into -- you know, you will have occasional uses, but that's not the type of use that we
are targeting.
De Weerd: So, the original 7:00 to 7:00 is --
Vanacker: That actually came from us.
De Weerd: Okay.
VanOcker: And they adjusted that in the conditions of approval, because they have
some set hours that they -- at least that's my understanding -- that they'd like to
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 56 of 77
suggest. Lighting. The owner really didn't want to pursue with any parking lot lighting,
just because of a maintenance issue. It's a very small development as far as parking is
concerned and we are going to be putting lighting on the entrances to the buildings and
our electrical engineer feels as though we can probably get adequate lighting in the
parking lot that we would need. So, we really weren't looking at doing any extensive
lighting in the parking lot, because of Meridian Road I think that there is already going to
be enough light that's traveling up and down that road and because of the hours of use
we just didn't see it being a huge issue and we will light the buildings for safety reasons
and to prevent anyone from gathering around those spaces. But we really weren't
looking at any extensive parking lot lighting. Let's see. The fencing on the south
property line. We have proposed a six foot fence. We know that there is regulations
against the eight foot. If there is a way that we can work with these property owners
and develop that six foot fence on top of a berm, we are completely willing to do that.
As far as the location of their fence, this came up in our neighborhood meeting just
briefly. We are not trying to take any additional property that is not ours and if there has
been something that has been done and a ditch has now been vacated and we can do
that -- that berming, we can definitely work with them and do that. We are not looking to
-- I think it would be problematic to develop that berm right on our line if we do not have
their assistance and able to get that berm partially on theirs or we are going to have
drainage issues and it's just not going to be successful. But if we are able to do that
with them, we can definitely look at that. I think I have covered their concerns. The only
other thing I would add is just that it's -- we are just really not looking to develop this as
a real intense use and so I think a lot of the lighting issues and parking, headlights,
you're going to -- yeah, you're going to have occasional issue, but a six foot high
masonry fence and even it's on a -- you know, a foot berm or so, is definitely going to
take care of that. And I don't have any other comments.
De Weerd: Anna, with lighting can it be that they don't have to have any pole lighting or
-- I mean overhead? Do we have an ordinance that suggests that they can't do what
they are proposing?
Canning: Typically you -- on small ones like this where they are just trying to light the
two -- the single load back -- try it again, okay? Typically, in this type of configuration
with soffet lighting on those entrances. they are able to get enough light out to the
edges of the parking lot to make it a safe place to be.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. If you do not need further information from the
applicant or staff --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 57 of 77
Bird: Hearing nobody jumping up, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-005.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 12. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no further discussion, I move that we approve Item 12, RZ 06-005,
and to include specific comments on fencing type. The applicant's expressed interest to
work with the neighbors and the specific lighting on the buildings.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Would that include the hours of
operation?
Wardle: And would include hours of operation.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I guess the only concern I have with the motion is that -- what if there isn't
general agreement with the fencing? Do we see it again?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I could clarify my motion on the fencing. Specific comment from the
applicant was the ability to build a six foot masonry fence. I don't think this Council's in
the position to talk about property lines. So, the applicant has also expressed a
willingness, if supported by the neighbors, to do some type of berming. That would be,
really, the only portion of this that would be discretionary. Otherwise, I would expect a
six foot masonry fence -- wall. Does that make sense?
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 58 of 77
Rountree: I understand what you're saying.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Wardle: Does planning understand?
Canning: Yes, sir. But some minimum height of berm -- well, I just need to clarify. Are
you requiring a berm or -- no. If they do -- if they bring in a berm, that's fine. If they
don't -- okay.
Wardle: The minimum is a six foot masonry wall.
De Weerd: Did the second understand that?
Borton: The second did.
De Weerd: Okay. I was just asking.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just another clarification. Part of the reason the Planning and Zoning
Commission will generally stick with the ordinance hours of operations is to not have to
deal with deliveries, cleaners, those kinds of things. If that's -- if you want us to put in
the development agreement those different hours of operations, do you want us to
include that -- that it means operation of the business, but that would exclude deliveries,
exclude the cleaners and those types of things. It's just an issue that comes up for code
enforcement purposes. So, that's the reason they change it and stick with the
ordinance. But if you want to do it different, that's fine, I just -- you could specify what
your preference is for the DA.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, aren't hours of operation different than some of those service
issues?
Nary: It depends on which neighbor to whichever property is in question as to what they
think the operation of the business is, so --
Rountree: How they interpret it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If you're 7:00 to 7:00 and don't need further clarity, then
-- okay. That's the motion. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Canning: 7:00 to 7:00?
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 59 of 77
De Weerd: What's that? 7:00 to 7:00 was the motion.
Canning: So, to clarify it so that the code enforcement is clear, will that be 7:00 to 7:00
-- people are not in the office anytime after 7:00 p.m.
Bird: They are not open for business.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: To clarify the motion. Hours of operation. Posted hours of operation.
Canning: Okay.
Wardle: Second?
Borton: Yes.
De Weerd: Is that clear to you, Mr. Borton?
Borton: It is.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96
acres from RUT to R-B zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by
Paramount Development - northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W.
McMillan Road:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201
residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development
- northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 13 and 14 are Public Hearing AZ 06-026 and PP
06-025. I will open these two public hearings with staff comment.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Paramount South 60. It's
located north of McMillan Road and east of Linder Road. Here is the property.
Cedarcreek is immediately to the east, which you heard last week. This is an
application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The annexation and zoning
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 60 of 77
is for 60.96 acres and they are requesting R-8 zoning. There is one house on the site
and it will be removed. The applicant is also asking for preliminary plat approval of 200
single family residential lots on 59.81 acres. All of the homes within the development
are proposed to be single family detached. The average lot size in the development is
8,896 square feet. The gross density of the project is 3.34 dwelling units per acre and
approximately 7.4 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. The
Commission did recommend approval at their July 6th hearing. Jay Walker spoke in
favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issue of
discussion was the location of the eastern stub street and its alignment with
Cedarcreek. The key Commission changes to staff's recommendation, they did modify
site specific condition 1.1.5 to read that the fencing will not be provided or required on
the perimeter adjacent to the future high school site. That's this section of the property
in the northwest corner. And the school will provide their own fencing they have
indicated. So, to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council.
Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Wardle: Would the applicant, please, come forward. State your name and address for
the record.
Turnbull: Good evening. David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I don't
have a lot to add to the staff report. We have worked extensively with them through the
applicant process. Most of the revisions to our application were made before the
application got before Planning and Zoning Commission and so I think we have worked
hard to work out any details with staff and other agencies before this point. So, I'll stand
for any questions, if you have any for me.
Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Would you do it again, please.
Borton: The fencing next to the school district site, is that -- I don't know how that
normally operates, but is there -- is that a chain link done by the school --
Turnbull: Yes.
Borton: -- and the neighbors there would have chain link?
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 61 of 77
Turnbull: The school installs a chain link fence. Even if we installed a wood fence, they
would install a chain link fence and we really don't want to get into the double-sided
fences where weeds will grow between. So, I think that's why we asked for the waiver
on that requirement.
Borton: Can the property owners put up a fence themselves or they just -_
Turnbull: We have dealt with this on the elementary school site where we are actually __
on the elementary school site we have prohibited any kind of wood fencing and we have
worked with the school district to upgrade their regular galvanized chain link fencing to a
vinyl coated black chain link fencing, just for the esthetics of the overall project and,
then, any privacy would have to be provided by landscaping. Now, I haven't crossed
that issue on the high school site. You know, privacy is going to be a bigger issue on a
high school site, but we dO know that the school district is planning on putting up a chain
link fence and so we didn't think it was necessary to require that we put up another
perimeter fence in addition to that one.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Not that a high school student would ever think of walking to school, but is
that a pathway into the school site?
Turnbull: Yes, it is.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: No. They have to have a car.
Rountree: They have got to drive.
Turnbull: We have provided another one up here to the north, too, so --
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. If this is -- thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who
would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none. Council, any
further information needed?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 62 of 77
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to close.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearings for AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: If there is no discussion I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve AZ 06-026 with applicant and staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion, Mr.
Berg, will you call role.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 06-025, preliminary plat approval for Paramount South 60
Subdivision.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion to approve Item 14. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 63 of 77
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92
acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Rattis Tapestry, LLC -
635 and 675 South Linder Road:
Item 16:
Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20
residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South
Linder Road:
De Weerd: Okay. I will open the two public hearings on Items 15 and 16 on AZ 06-027
and PP 06-026 with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Tapestry project. It's
located at 635 and 675 South Linder Road. And that's between 1-84 and West Franklin
Road. There is a school just to the west of the property and some large lot residential
just to the north and Ada County acreages to the south. The applicant is requesting
annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. The annexation and zoning is for
3.92 acres to an R-8 zone. The preliminary plat is approval for 20 residential lots on
that 3.92 acres. Currently there are two single family homes on site. One is located
right about there and the other is located in this southeastern corner. The applicant is
proposing to remove the one to the north, but is trying to retain the one to the south.
And for that they are requesting -- to accommodate that request this also includes
alternative compliance request to the 25-foot landscape buffer required along Linder
Road. The applicant is providing additional landscape to the north at the entrance to
the property in exchange for a reduced buffer along the southern portion of their
entrance. All homes in the development are proposed to be single family detached.
The average lot size is 5,960 square feet and about 2.9 -- or .92 -- 2.9 -- sorry. .29
acres or 7.4 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. So, the gross
residential density is 5.1 dwelling units per acre. You may recall this site. There was a
previous application called Banff. I wanted to point that out just because at that one
staff was very much a proponent of haVing the two properties developed together. The
applicant has joined the two properties that we were seeking to have joined in the first
place, so wanted to point that out to you. The other topics of discussion during those
hearings were the future overpass and the need for emergency services access to the
area. That emergency -- I swear I can't talk after 10:00 o'clock. Those emergency
service access points are now available through Waltman Lane. The Commission
recommended approval at their July 6th hearing. Matt Schultz spoke in favor. John
Arizabal spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion were density and the
ComprehenSive Plan designation. There were no major changes to staff's initial
recommendation. There are a couple -- not really outstanding issues, but items of
clarification that that staff wanted to point out. I believe the applicant has been working
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 64 of 77
on a micropath to the Peregrine Elementary School at the west end of the property. He
just needs to give you an update on those proceedings. It wasn't done before the staff
report was made. And also ACHD has sent you a letter opposing the revised street
layout with this snoopy and staff advocated for the snoopy and still would do that, but I
do want to point out what the other discussion was. This was the applicant's initial
application and staff was very concerned, because there is no connection going to the
south just yet, they needed a turnaround. Police, fire, and planning staff were
concerned that you kind of had this -- this mass of asphalt at the end of this property or
what could be the middle of this -- as this area developed, that was really ill-defined as
to where the traffic movements should be and because it was a temporary situation -- it
also created the need for a number of flag lots up in this corner to accommodate that.
We just felt that this snoopy design provides a much cleaner lot layout. Although this is
not optimal for the highway, eventually, we do anticipate that this will extend to the
property to the south and that we will have connections within this area. So, we felt that
even though the highway district was somewhat opposed to the snoopy design, we do
feel that this will, eventually, be extended and it's an appropriate design for this project.
This also allowed for the -- a short very convenient access to the Peregrine Elementary
at the end of that -- top of Snoopy's head. So, those were the two kind of outstanding
concerns that I wanted to make you aware of and I will answer any questions you may
have.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Council? Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, tell me how that -- that's a better layout for emergency services. I mean I
realize they can back up and go around, but I think there is a lot of times you get trucks
and stuff out there, if there is people around, you don't particularly like backing up. I
don't know. Maybe the police and fire had no problems with that.
Canning: No. We sent it to them for further comment and to my knowledge they did not
have concerns with the layout.
Bird: Well, if they didn't, I don't.
De Weerd: How about SSC?
Canning: We didn't re-send it to them, but SSC doesn't mind backing up. They do it
more than the fire department does, so --
Bird: It makes more noise backing up.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 65 of 77
Canning: No. I did -- you know, one of the things that this struggled with the first time
was keeping this existing house and the driveway, getting the driveway off of Linder and
they have -- as you see, they have really gone to great extent to get that access off of
Linder Road, as we have asked, so --
De Weerd: And wasn't one of the issues the access onto Linder, that it could be
vacated after the connections to the south?
Canning: There was one member -- there was one elected official, yes, that that was a
concern. We did talk about it. We did ponder that. We are not sure that there is a
mechanism to make that kind of access go away over time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Schultz: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz at 2127 South Alaska
Way in Meridian. RMR Consulting representing the applicant Raftis Tapestry, LLC. I
just wanted to point out from the beginning and although we are aware of the pervious
application, we were not involved, so we are not related. After it got denied I
understand the property went back on the market and my client purchased it knowing
that if he was going to get anything done he had to get the other piece to the north,
which the previous piece lacked. It lacked -- I think it was about a 70 foot wide strip is
what that ends up being. A very long and narrow one acre lot, with the home in the
front in this area. And, then, the other home on the other three acre piece. Access onto
Linder was a concern. We feel that by -- where there used to be two, we now have one
and it's a controlled ACHD right of way and we feel that that is at least an improvement
to the existing condition. And we are just lucky that there was a detached garage that
allowed for that or we probably would have had to demolish the house and we wanted
to save it, because it's a nice brick house and thought it was worth trying to save if we
could. What that does for us, too, it gives us a nice vision coming in, a nice traffic
calming measure, if you will, as well. A little bit of curve. We do get pinched a little bit
on the front there with the existing house. ACHD asked for a 41-foot right of way with
the sidewalk outside of the easement -- or outside the right of way, excuse me, to allow
for a future Linder overpass and more of an arterial road section. We are pinched a
little bit, but we do widen out an additional 80 or 90 feet up here, and that was our -- that
was our concession for alternative compliance was to give the extra width up here. We
do -- I have an update on negotiations with Wendell on a pathway connection. There is
an existing pathway right -- just right here, just on the other side of the fence, that
sometimes Wendell is hesitant to provide rear access to his elementary school sites,
just for control of small children and people picking up and dropping off. I did submit a
letter. He did respond back saying it is okay, please, coordinate with us on when you
do decide to cut the fence. There is an existing chain link fence, but what will happen is
this lot will become Lot 14 and Lot 15. We will add a common lot in there, a 20-foot
common lot, if you will. Very short with a sidewalk and some landscape on our other
side -- on either side of it to connect into their pathway, which is just probably 20 feet
beyond the fence. Their elementary school site already takes rear access over here to
the north and so he was very workable with us on that, which is good. I know you get
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 66 of 77
spots out here in Linder where there is no sidewalk and this will allow the kids, instead
of having to go down to Waltman and over, they can just go through. So, that's an
improvement. And I'm glad Wendell was willing to work with us on that. We are not
asking for 20 lots, we are asking for 19. The revision to go to this -- you know, I have
heard snoopy or T-type turnaround, we did lose one lot to accommodate that. It does
require a three point turn. The rules say anything less than -- anything greater than 150
feet you need an actual bulb. This is a hundred feet. It's a public driveway, if you will,
for these four lots. Nice sidewalk access. We have dedicated right of way for a future
stub street, but we have rounded this off, which is kind of what ACHD is wanting these
days in case this project takes a few years to develop. It provides a finished look.
When it gets extended that curb gets cut out and it gets extended. It provides a nice
walk around there, instead of having an unfinished looking stub street. The benefit of
having the extra width is obvious. We are able to do a hundred foot deep lots here and
114 foot deep lots here. Previously, if you take out 70 feet, I think you ended up with, I
don't know, 75 each, or something, deep lots, really substandard depth. Now, we are to
at least normal depth at the hundred and, then, we go beyond that. We put all the extra
depth abutting. There is two R-4 city lots up here. They are -- I don't know if they are
acre or half acre or what size they are, but they are City of Meridian lots. They take
access here. We are going to put up a six foot vinyl fence here and all the way along
here and buffering this house and out on the frontage here and here. We are able to
get city sewer, city water, and we feel that it does meet the Comprehensive Plan for
medium density. I'm glad to hear that Waltman Lane is now a secondary emergency
access. I know that was a point Of issue previously. Although there are 700 lots out
here already -- you got to draw the line somewhere and we are asking for 19 more, but
I'm glad to hear we have that secondary connection, because there was only one
access to those 700 lots until, hopefully, Waltman gets pushed out to Ten Mile down
here when the Ten Mile interchange goes. So, with that we are asking for the R-8. We
have felt that we have worked with the existing house, the turnaround, the pathway, the
stub street, given the extra width and really tried to appease, hopefully -- hopefully,
knock on wood, everybody, that we can move forward with approval tonight. So, we'd
ask for your approval and I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Matt, are you going to have a sign at the stub street that this -- that this is a
through street?
Schultz: Yeah. It will say this street to be extended in the future, is what they want.
De Weerd: Okay.
Schultz: On a little blue sign is what we put up.
De Weerd: Good. Because when they finish it off like that--
Schultz: It looks like it might --
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Coundl
July 25, 2006
Page 67 of 77
Schultz: Because we have some that are finished off like that permanently that aren't
going to go anywhere in Meridian and so we want to make sure we put that up there, so
people understanding that is going through. Definitely. And ACHD's -- I think that's in
their conditions already that we do that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Questions, Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Matt, here is -- let me tell you my thoughts or concerns and I'm curious how you
respond. It's not the -- for what it's worth, the design I like to see and I have a concern
with keeping this particular house and foregoing a landscape buffer, which as long as
that would remain, precludes expansion of Linder and the future overpass or however
that's expanded, is a concern. It also is a concern that were this not to go forward and
this parcel develops later or maybe with the parcel to the south on Gander Drive, that
has an entrance to the east right over here, would provide for some more consistent
access --
Schultz: Down here?
Borton: Yeah. Right here. That you have more consistent access to develop this
parcel and you have got an adjacent access point to the east. Those are a couple of
my concerns, not the least of which is also how -- keeping this parcel and not
developing it. When the southern portion is developed, provide this snoopy road
design, which is kind of piecemeal, it's -- and I understand you're limited, constrained
with the land you have got, but it doesn't -- doesn't create the greatest picture of how
this whole area should end up, so that's my thoughts on --
Schultz: If I may try to --
Borton: I figured I'd bring it up while you're there.
Schultz: -- try to cover three or four things here. Let me talk about Gander or whatever
that's called there. I think right now for an arterial, which this is going to be called, that
when this was done they probably weren't looking at that, because if they were they
wouldn't have this offset only a hundred feet between here and Waltman and Waltman
being a -- probably a more higher density than just a normal residential street in the
future, I would hope. So, I really don't think that's a good spot to put a future
connection, just because it doesn't meet the offset requirements for an arterial.
Borton: And if I could -- the reason I brought it up is the application that you got --
Schultz: Right.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 68 of 77
Borton: -- doesn't show a correct map, because it shows Gander entering right there,
the southern portion of your --
Schultz: Right here?
Borton: -- project enters across the street from the entrance to Gander.
Schultz: Well, maybe that point goes away, because I think what we have across the
road -- and I don't see it on our plat, but there is a home and I think -- yeah, there is a
home right there and, then, there is a parcel -- a bigger parcel with a home. So, there is
no public road there. So, what if that issue -- there is still a couple others out there you
talked about and I'll keep going.
Borton: Okay.
Schultz: But I think our access works for what's out there and the separation is good
between Gander and us for an arterial. We have got good separation. If you could go
back to our -- the layout, please, Anna. Thanks. As far as a future T intersection, with a
h like I said, I look at this as a public driveway, if you will, for four lots, that allows a
good stub pedestrian access that's public back to the school, it allows standard square
lots, instead private driveway lots, which I don't like as much, and I know maybe it
doesn't look as elegant as some things, but it does meet code and it really cleans some
things up for the layout and for access and for some other things. I think any additional
access to Waltman as we go to this last five acre parcel, probably isn't -- is not
appropriate. I think between here, Gander, Waltman, we have got enough access and
Waltman provides them a great -- for their five acres a great access through us and out
to linder, so there will be dual access. I really think where we have this it works well for
him in the future and gets anymore accesses off of Linder, which I think is the main goal
as it goes to arterial, and we do give enough right of way. We are -- we are giving
enough right of way to provide for that arterial, we just have a tittle bit narrower
landscaping for approximately 75 feet in that area, we did come down, and, then, we
open up again and I think it's a very minor request that maybe isn't ideal but we are
hoping you can approve that. It's not really a variance. What was it called, Anna?
Canning: Alternative compliance.
Schultz: Alternative compliance. So, we hope you could approve that and -- did I miss
anything, Mr. Borton?
Borton: No.
Schultz: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 69 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. Council ~- yes, Anna.
Canning: To my knowledge the lot lines shown here are correct. We have an
application on this property that's currently zoned RUT that kind of does an odd hook
shape and, then, stubs to the property immediately to the west. If that one were to
develop they could line up an access with the proposed property. You can see that the
property just south of this one is about the same shape and configuration to this one. It
could conceivably develop in a similar pattern with just a single road with lots on either
side. So, I had not been concerned about the ability of the area to develop in a logical
manner. I thought that because of the parcel's shape and configuration we were
probably okay.
Borton: Okay. What started the concern was there is a -- one of the exhibits in the
application is inaccurate. It shows -- it shows this location at a spot where it's not,
where Gander was --
Schultz: Well, I'll get after my engineer tomorrow, tell him not to do that to me again.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Schultz: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing_ Is there anyone who would like to
provide testimony on this application? Okay. If the applicant has no further comments -
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I do have a question for the applicant related to your choice
of words about right of way on Linder. You indicated that you had given sufficient right
of way. Will that be deeded to ACHD or will it be available for them to purchase?
Schultz: How that typically works, Mayor and Councilman Rountree, if -- you know, they
change the rules on us all the time at ACHD, whether they are buying or not. I'm used
to granting it to them as a condition of my development. It's such a minor piece. If they
want it prior to you developing, say they have something in the five year work plan, they
want to go acquire it right now, you're not approved yet, they'll come to you and buy it
early. In this case I'm not so sure they are in that big of a hurry to where just to wait for
us to grant it with our application. You know, we are not looking to make any money off
of ACHD. It will be a few thousand dollars, maybe, and it's just not worth it. It's just
worth just giving it to them.
De Weerd: And granted means dedicated.
Meridian City Council
July 25. 2006
Page 70 of 77
Schultz: Dedicated. Give it. It's yours. Keep it. Do what you will.
Rountree: Just wanted to make sure I understood what it was you said.
Schultz: That's what I meant to say.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is nothing further, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't hear anybody talking, so I'll move that we close public hearings AZ 06-027
and PP 06-026.
De Weerd: Do I have a second? Geez, Council.
Rountree: I'll second.
De Weerd: Okay. Ifs just a Public Hearing. Closing it.
Rountree: Give somebody else a turn.
De Weerd: I do have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 15 and 16. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none. do I have motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd like to get out of here tonight, so I move that we approve AZ 06-027 and
incorporate staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 15. If there is no discussion -- and I
don't see any -- Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 71 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. Item 16.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 06-026 and incorporate staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. Mr. Berg, will you
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 17:
Approve 2007 Fiscal Year Tentative Budget:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 17. You might have remembered doing a motion last week.
What we didn't -- what we didn't have included was --
Bird: The amount.
De Weerd: No. It had to do with some carry forward and, Mr. Nary, can -- do you know
specifics? Or Mr. Berg.
Berg: Yes, Madam Mayor. The budget last year did not -- or last week did not include
some carry forward and some revenues that balanced the expenditures and pretty
much you had kind of expenditures listed. So, if you compare them you have increased
a little bit more from the last week, but this will be what is going to need to be published
in the paper for the Public Hearing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Clerk, is that the 89 million -- that they went up to 89 million some -- yeah.
What was that final figure? 89 six --
Berg: It's 89 -- 878,533.
Bird: 878. And that's 89 million. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 72 of 77
Bird: I would move that we approve the tentative 2007 fiscal budget in the amount of
89,878,533 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg,
will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird; yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Berg: Thank you, Council, for re-approving that.
Bird: We wanted to make sure we did it wrong, so that Joe would be here this time.
Item 18:
Ordinance No. 06-1244 : RZ 06-002 Request for a Rezone of
0.22 acres from I-L (Light Industrial) to 0- T (Old Town) zones for Stan
Lantz by Stan Lantz - 608 West 3rd Street: -
Item 19:
Ordinance No. 06-1246 AZ 06-016 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.08 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low
Density Residential) zone for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC
-710 Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, can we have ordinance numbers on these next three
items?
Bird: 1244, 1245, and 1246. I forgot.
Berg: We can vacate --
Bid: And 46 is vacated.
Nary: Madam Mayor, we can vacate Item 20, because we are not ready to bring that
ordinance forward yet.
De Weerd: Okay. So, Mr. Berg, will you, please, read Items 18 and 19, ordinances
number 06-1244 and 06-1246 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1244, an
ordinance finding that Stan Lance, the owner of certain real property have made a
written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property located in the
southwest quarter of Block 5 Westview Addition to the City of Meridian, located in the
north one half of section -- of the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North,
Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 73 of 77
ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and
within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning
classification of from I-L to OT in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this
ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and
the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of
the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an
effective date.
Berg: Ordinance No. 06-1245, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the
northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 3 north, Range 1
West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing
certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous
to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT
to R-4 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed
with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and
providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard these two ordinances read by title
only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Either one of them.
Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to approve.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Ordinance 06-1244 and Ordinance 06-1245 with
suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve ordinances for Items 18 and 19. Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Ordinance No. Parking Lot Exchange
Ordinance and Real Property Exchange Agreement:
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, so on Item 20, we are --
Nary: We also had item C, along with the others that are already --
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 74 of 77
Bird: No. No. She means vacating the ordinance. We just have to make a motion to
vacate it, don't we?
Nary: Yes. Just make a motion to vacate that and we will bring it back when it'S ready.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we vacate the parking lot exchange ordinance and real property exchange
agreement.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. You have a motion in front of you on Item 20. Is there any
discussion? Mr. Bird, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider
hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to
include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective
office) and (d) - (to consider records that are exempt from disclosure as
provided in Chapter 3. title 9. Idaho Code):
De Weerd: Okay. We have an addition to the agenda. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(a),
(1 )(c), and (1 )(d).
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: We have a motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will you call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 75 of 77
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Bird: Madame Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Bird: Madame Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we take the proposal that we give Petra for construction management
of the new City Hall on July 17, 2006 presented to and given one week to return it
signed August 1 st. Do you want me to go on?
Nary: Since you did it on the record - didn't you do it on the record last week?
Bird: Yeah.
Nary: You just want to refer that you did it on the record at your meeting on July 18,
2006.
Bird: On July 18th we had approved the original contract.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: Clarification?
De Weerd: Yeah, clarification on if that is not signed the action that the negotiating
team needs to do -
Bird: That is what I wanted to know if we need to put that on?
Nary: Yeah. If it isn't signed by August 1 st at noon - is that preferable and that way it
gives us time to notify you then what direction would you have?
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 76 of 77
Bird: If the second agrees the motion adds if contact with Petra is not signed then by
noon of August 1 st, the Negotiating Committee of the City Clerk and Assistant City
Attorney will start negotiation with second place firm, Kreizenbeck Constructors, Inc.
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Can you repeat the motion?
Bird: I had a hard enough time getting through that. If you don't know what it is you are
in trouble.
De Weerd: Okay, a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Berg: (Inaudible) by the attorney?
De Weerd: I think staff knows what was just said, right?
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay, Mr. Berg will call roll.
Roll Call Vote: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Borton, aye; Wardle, aye;
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: Okay, do I have a motion to adjourn?
Wardle: So moved.
Rountree: Madame Mayor, I have some old business and I had asked Tammy - we got
this letter from William Bohan about impact fees to all of us and I don't think any of us
had responded to him.
Bird: I thought Tammy was going to respond to him.
Rountree: No, she said she -
De Weerd: I had met with him and he wanted to write that to you guys. This way it is to
the Council members.
Wardle: I can write him today. I can copy my response to his email. I notified him of
the potential hearing this evening and some of the further meetings and that there is a
committee and I will just forward my communication with him to you.
De Weerd: That would be great.
Meridian City Council
July 25, 2006
Page 77 of 77
Rountree: (Inaudible--).
Wardle: I invited him to the Salmon feed, too.
De Weerd: Wow, what a guy.
Bird: Are you buying?
Borton: I move we adjourn.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :58 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
\,11\ 11111/11// tJ I /5: I p 6
III
"", ~-.( ~~,.,..-, DATE APPROVED
;' a 0d""'~ rL-- '~
~ .:r '0