HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 08-08
Meridian City Council Meeting
AUQust 8. 2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, August 8,2006, 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, Bill Musser, John Overton, Ron
Anderson, Bill Johnson, Len Grady, Doug Strong, Steve Siddoway 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: Okay. I will go ahead and call the meeting to order. Good evening. Thank
you for joining us. It is Tuesday, August 8th. It's 7:00 p.m. I will start tonight's meeting
with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item NO.2 is the pledge of allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Russ McCrea, with Living Grace
Community Fellowship:
De Weerd: Tonight we will be led in our community invocation by Pastor Russ McCrea
with Living Grace Community Fellowship. If you will all join us in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Pastor.
McCrea: Mighty God, we ask this evening that you might in this summer season bring
us to the remembrance that we have many seasons in our own lives and even in the
lives of our community. May we make the best use of this time. We ask your blessing
to be upon us this evening, the mighty God whose hand created us and we ask that
you'd bless our Mayor, our Councilmen, each of those city officers present and those --
ail of those who serve us on a daily basis, who often go without thanks and
appreciation. God, we acknowledge their gifts to you, their gifts to our community. We
ask that you would grace them in their lives and their family's lives who serve us each
and every day. Bless this time for us all together and may we learn greater in greater
ways to serve and honor you. Amen.
Meridian City Council
August 8. 2006
Page 2 of 40
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor. I do have a City of Meridian pin and we know it's a
collector's items. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Item NO.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the agenda under item U of the consent is going to be a resolution. That
number would be 06-525. And on our regular agenda Item No. 21 is 06-1246. 22 is 06-
1247. 23, 06-1248. 24 is 06-1249. And 06-1250 Item No. 25. Item No. 27 can be
stricken from the agenda as we took care of this last week. With that I move we
approve the revised agenda.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the agenda as revised. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 11,2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of July 18, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT
to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
007 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 85 single-family
residential lots and 12 common lots in a proposed R-8 zone for
Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470
West McMillan Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.98 acres from RUT to
an R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs
Engineering - 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street:
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 3 of 40
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 3
common lots on 9.98 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Prato Villas
Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering - 4052 & 4202
W. Daphine Street:
G. Approve New Beer and Wine License Applications for Sizzler
No. 215 by Sizzling Platter, LLC at 3380 N. Eagle Road:
H. Approve Beer and Wine License Transfer from Albertson's.
Inc.. to New Albertsons, Inc. for Albertson's #164 located at
20 E. Fairview Avenue:
I. Approve Beer and Wine License Transfer from Albertson's.
Inc.. to New Albertsons. Inc. for Albertson's #180 located at
3301 W. Cherry Lane:
J. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Aareement for
Settlement Bridge No.6 by Capital Development, Inc.:
K. Change Order No. 2 for the Black Cat Lift Station with JC
Constructors, Inc.:
L. Water Main Easement Agreement for Lot 3. Block 5. of Bonito
Subdivision with EI Dorado Hotel Partners, LLC:
M. Water Main Easement for the Eagle Road - I 84 to Franklin
(Water Main Relocate) Proiect with St. Luke's Meridian Medical
Center:
N. Wastewater Treatment Facilitv Process Enhancement Study
for Miscellaneous Wastewater Proiects with HDR Engineering,
Inc.:
O. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Naomi
Farms. LP for North Black Cat Proiect:
P. Contract for Geotechnical Services for Well 27A and 27B with
HvdroLoaic:
Q. Centrate Tank Task Order No.6 Amendment No. 1 for the
Centrate Equalization Tank Construction Management
Services with Carollo Engineers:
R. Senior Center Rehabilitation Phase II Accessibilitv ICDBG-06-
1II-05-SR
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 4 of 40
S. Development Agreement: AZ 06-007 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for Solitude
Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC - south of
East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road:
T. Development Agreement: RZ 06-001 Request for a Rezone of
5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) zones for Sundance
Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner
of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
U. Resolution No. 06-525 CPA 05-001 Request to Amend
the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for
Approximately 50 acres from Medium and Low Density Residential to
Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road
Property Owner's Alliance - Land at or near the northeast and
southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road:
V. Lease Agreement with Xerox new COpy Machine in City Clerk's
Office:
W. Agreement for Professional Services for Wireless Network
Infrastructure Maintenance, Operation Support, and Repair
with Zial Network:
De Weerd: Item No. 5 is Consent.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and that would include
Resolution 06-525, CPA 05-001, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all
papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any
discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A. Police Department - Chief Bill Musser
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 5 of 40
1. Budget Amendment for K-9 Training Facilitv:
De Weerd: Thank you. Under department reports we will start with Chief Musser.
Canning: Madam Mayor, before that there were a number of items that were going to
be continued. Did you want to announce those now?
De Weerd: Yes, I will.
Canning: Thank you.
Bird: And I apologize for not bringing that up.
De Weerd: Okay. There are a couple of final plats and vacations that will be -- have
been requested to continue. Item 10, requested to continue to August 15th. Item 12
requested continuation to August 15th. 13 as well to August 15th. And Item 18 is a
vacation as well to September 5th. If anyone is here for any of those items I apologize,
we will, however, continue those items. Okay. Thank you, Anna. Okay. Chief Musser.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This evening I'm here basically to
see if there is any questions or cover any concerns that might be related to a budget
amendment that I met with the Mayor already on and submitted in regards to the K-9
training facility. This is for an additional 40,700 dollars for capital to finish up the training
facility. Basically that capital outlay will look at one time expenditures for radiant heat
and the hot water boiler, finish up the HVAC. Also for fencing. And, then, within the
confines of everything else that we are running with construction costs, we had about
6,200 dollars that we couldn't account for out of the initial 120,000 dollars that we kicked
off this project with.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. As weill think when you came to give an overview of this
facility you gave them a heads up on these expenditures and got the nod to go ahead
and proceed with them. So, this is kind of a follow up to that as well.
Musser: Yes, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Any questions for the chief at this time? Only comment is
it's a beautiful facility and I would ask you are the dogs enjoying it?
Musser: Well, I haven't talked to any of them specifically, Madam Mayor--
De Weerd: You haven't?
Musser: But at this time also we also haven't had any complaints either. We have
kenneled at least one dog from Boise, two from Nampa at this time and, then, I think we
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 6 of 40
had one that was pending from Ada County as well. So, we are getting usage from
some of the other area K-9'ers already at this time.
De Weerd: And before Councilman Bird says it, I know it's his favorite form of officer,
because they don't talk back.
Musser: No. But occasionally they do growl.
Bird: Or they bite.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If there aren't any other questions, I'd just like to thank the chief and his
department, as well as all the volunteer activity that made this successful. With that I
would move that we approve budget amendment for the police department in the
amount of 40,700 dollars for the K-9 training facility.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request in front of you for the police
department. 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.
B. Fire Department - Ron Anderson
1. Rehab of Old Fire Truck:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6-B. Chief Anderson.
Anderson: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Councilmen. I'm here tonight to ask for
your permission to try what we call a refurb project on an older fire engine. It's listed on
your agenda as a rehab and some of my brothers in the police department over there
were kidding me about our fire truck needs rehab -- needs to go to rehabilitation. Kind
of like some of the firemen. But, really, what we are talking about is taking an old fire
engine -- this is a 1982 Pierce Arrow fire engine and what I would like to do is -- other
than buying a new fire engine to replace this, is do a refurbish to this. So, this fire truck
would go back to the factory where it was originally constructed and, then, they would
put it through an extensive refurb and, hopefully, be able to extend the life of it. Anna,
would you switch to the next slide? Here is the older fire engine in front there with the
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 7 of 40
price tag of 175,000, not to exceed on the refurb and there is our brand new latest fire
engine parked side by side and, hopefully, when we get done with this refurb you won't
be able to tell much difference at all between those two fire engines and maybe some of
you right now if you don't now much about fire engines, probably think they look pretty
close to the same, just because they are both red and white, but there are a lot of
differences between that one on the left and the one on the right. Next slide, Anna.
Some of the upgrades that would be included is they would actually take that cab on
that older fire engine and it is an open three-sided cab. So, the firefighters that sit in the
rear of that are sitting right next to the engine doghouse, which you can imagine on a
hundred degree day like today is very warm to be sitting next to that and it gets hot
enough you can burn your arm on it. And during the wintertime it's quite cool to ride
back there, especially when we have freezing temperatures. So, this would enclose
that cab, put a raised roof on the rear part of the cab. They would rebuild all the major
pump components, rebuild the valves, new gauges, all those kind of things. Put
hydraulic ladder racks on the truck, additional compartments on the passenger side of
the apparatus. Replace the steel tank, which those tanks rust out after a few years on
those fire trucks and, then, you have to start continually patching them. So, a new poly
tank would go in there. Replaces all the wiring from the cab of the truck all the way
back. Puts the new NFPA, National Fire Protection Association upgrades on all the
emergency lighting. Adds an engine brake. Recore the radiator, as well as a new paint
job. Next slide, please. So, we are expecting that we can add another ten years of life
to that vehicle by putting it through this refurb process. And the factory is back in
Wisconsin and so we would be taking this fire engine back there near the end of
September and starting that and it would take about four months for them to do this
construction on it and bring it up to speed. And so what we are asking for tonight -- next
slide. Is basically we need action from you guys, a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign
an agreement to proceed with the work to refurbish this fire engine for a not to exceed
amount of 175,000. And I would stand for any questions that you guys might have on
that.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have no questions. I have got a comment.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think that we are -- we basically get a -- and, you know, I know the price is 365,
but by the time we get it furbished out we are around 400,000 and for 175,000 we are
getting that and that truck, basically, isn't worth a whole lot if we don't redo it, because it
is a 1982 and we bring it up to the deal -- I was fortunate enough to go back with the
chief and one of the rural commissioners and get to go through this plant where they are
doing this and what they turn out is amazing. I mean it will look just like the new one
coming off the showroom floor. I think it's a very good investment for the taxpayers
myself.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bird. Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 8 of 40
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just information for the record. Chief, what's the value of that
engine as it sits today?
Anderson: I can tell you we bought a sister truck to this one when I was in Nampa and
we paid 38,000 dollars for it here about three years ago.
Rountree: And the truck as it sits today is really not -- I don't know the word -- qualified -
- it's certainly legal, but it doesn't meet standards I guess or criteria for firefighting and
firefighting apparatus at this point.
Anderson: Right. Obviously, in 24 years times -- you know, fire apparatus have
evolved a little bit and so some of the things like the three-sided cab, hydraulic ladder
rack, poly tanks, all those kind of things, are newer standards. The truck -- fortunately,
we have a very good basis to work with. This was a top quality truck when it was
originally manufactured, has a very large engine, transmission, the drive train is all in
real good Shape on this particular apparatus, which makes it a nice candidate for this
type of work and so one of the problems is this truck is called into service probably on
about a weekly basis, as our other front line trucks go out of service. It doesn't have the
same compartmentation as the newer apparatus, so quite often they have to decide
which equipment they are going to carry and that may mean that when they are
assigned to that new apparatus they have no extrication equipment with them and so of
those kind of things. So, the extra compartmentation that will be added onto this engine
as part of this refurb will allow them pretty much to switch their front line equipment from
one engine over to this one and keep operating the business as normal.
Rountree: That response added another question to my list. My next question is what's
the position of the rural district? Are they supportive?
Anderson: They are supportive of this and they would be paying their 20 percent of this
refurb cost along with you guys.
Rountree: And the final question as you indicated, that this is a backup unit for when
we have our main engines at the various stations out of service. Do we have something
to back this up during the four months?
Anderson: We do right now until we open the next station, because we just took
delivery of that new fire apparatus, so this is a good time to be doing that.
Rountree: Okay. All right. That helps tell the story. Thank you, Ron.
Anderson: Thank you.
Wardle: Chief, one of the questions I have -- and certainly I agree that the cost savings
that the taxpayers would get a like product is fantastic. Now, what type of warranty
comes with this sort of a -- is there --
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 9 of 40
Anderson: The same as a brand new engine. One year with the work.
Wardle: Okay.
Anderson: So, basically, it would be like buying a brand new engine. Get the same
warranty they do. Mr. Borton.
Borton: The question I have is to get ten years, do you expect, out of the reburbish? If
you bought a brand new engine what's -- what would you generally expect to have on
the useful life of a brand new one?
Anderson: Normally they are saying on new fire engines about 20 years is the life
expectancy of them and they are starting to extend that more and more, because of the
cost of fire engines and this is -- you know, to be honest with you, this is kind of
something that is a wee bit of an experiment for us and if it's successful with this fire
engine, then, as some of our other engines age we will be asking to do refurbs on some
of those, other than replacing. So, we are kind of trying this on a trial basis to see if it
could be a cost saving measure for us in the future.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Thanks, chief. Any other questions? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no more discussion, I'd make a motion that we approve not to exceed
the remodel of the 1982 Pierce fire engine and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to
attest.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, would that be in this budget year or next budget year?
Bird: Probably this one.
Anderson: It's, actually, in next budget year, but we need the authorization to go ahead
and start the work for this year.
De Weerd: Okay. And in our budget for next year do we put 200,000 or 150,000?
Anderson: We put 150 and we had 75 in the fire truck fund already and this is a not to
exceed amount, so it may not exceed the 150, but I wanted to not have to keep coming
back to you guys. I think it's going to be somewhere between 150 and 175.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 10 of 40
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief. Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One other question. Ron, is that -- the 175 figure, does that include
transportation costs -- all costs associated with getting it there and back and --
Anderson: No.
Borton: Is that just the work?
Anderson: Yeah. I think I'm going to be the driver on a weekend driving that thing to
Wisconsin. So, try to save a little bit of money on that. But, no, this is just the actual
refurbish cost.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Anderson: Thank you. And if any of you care to join me on that great adventure I'm
sure that the officer seat, which has no suspension in it at all, would be a fun place for
you to ride.
C. Planning Department - Steve Siddoway
1. Discussion on gateway boulevards:
De Weerd: Boy, that was really tempting. Okay. Item 6-C in our Planning Department.
Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Tonight I'm hoping to
engage the Council in just a brief discussion to gauge your interest in the idea of
landscaping medians on arterial roads and gateway areas of the city. We have some
potential opportunities for some partnerships where we can get landscape medians built
at no cost to the city, but the city would, then, have to agree to take on the long term
maintenance of those. So, the cost to the city would be in the maintenance of them.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 11 of 40
There is the potential to try and target some of these areas for partnerships to get the
medians built if the Council so chooses. I know the -- probably the main questions that I
have been trying to research is what does it cost. But, first of all, the -- the photos don't
show up very well. I printed off some photos. The first one and the middle one,
examples of major arterials in commercial gateway settings that include landscape
medians in them. The bottom -- we are going to pass around the copy of the photos,
just to give you some sense of what a landscaped arterial could be. They could look
like many things, but the opportunity to get a landscaped median in the gateway areas,
like a Ten Mile interchange, could bring a lot esthetic benefits, but we have to weigh
those against their cost. So, what I have done is I have contacted -- the city of Boise
maintains several landscape median areas today. I'm going to try and get it to come up
a little better. I was able to get some sample costs from the city of Boise. Park Center
Boulevard has an annual maintenance cost. They spend just at 21,000. Curtis Road,
23,000. Federal Way almost 24,000. Harrison Boulevard just under 20,000. And the
islands that are in Vista 18,000. So, they all -- each project for them ranges around
20,000. I did ask them if these costs are comprehensive or if they are just the
maintenance costs. They said they are comprehensive. They told me they include
everything from fuel to staffing to administration costs, back flow testing. And, then,
they have very detailed maintenance standards that includes maintenance to those
standards. I did some quick calculations and found that the -- these costs represent
anywhere from four and a half thousand dollars per acre up to about 9,000 dollars per
acre, which is a little high given the current experience of our own city's parks
department. In talking -- the note on the bottom there, which is still a little hard to read,
their current cost for maintenance of the parks today ranges between two to four
thousand dollars per acre. I just wanted to provide these to you to give you some sense
of magnitude for what it would mean to an annual budget, because it would most likely
impact our parks department's maintenance budget in order to maintain these
landscape medians over time. I was told that the biggest factor in determining the cost
of these maintenance -- of these median maintenance is whether or not they include
turf. If they include grass, then, they have to be mowed weekly, they have to be
watered, fertilized regularly. If instead of turf you put in shrubs, low ground covers, and
trees, then, it -- they just need to go out basically monthly, clean out the trash, pull
weeds, things like that. So, there is less maintenance in a ground cover and shrub
setting than in a weekly mowing setting. That said, we have some interest -- boy, this
really isn't showing up well. You know, they could -- this is a cross-section of an arterial
road, two lanes each direction, bike lanes with the center landscape median. And I
would just open it to discussion, any direction as to whether you would like the Planning
Department to pursue partnerships to get landscape medians built and we also have
Doug Strong here to talk about impacts to the park's budget for maintenance. And I will
stand for questions.
De Weerd: So, Steve, I know that the per acre costs that you're quoting of Boise seems
to be in some cases more than twice the cost of ours. So, those prices certainly are on
the high end.
Siddoway: I would agree.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 12 of 40
De Weerd: This is also something that we have talked about in terms of interchanges
and so this was applied to gateway corridors and what the esthetic entrance should look
like.
Siddoway: Yes. I don't believe that this treatment would be appropriate on every road
to the city, but I think we might be strategic in picking some gateway areas, such as Ten
Mile, where such a treatment could be successful.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Steve, from my perspective I would absolutely want the Planning Department to
pursue those partnerships. I think these types of gateway boulevard enhancements,
especially down in the Ten Mile area or other proper locations, do nothing but enhance
the value of the property around it I think. I'm not so sure it is a net loss to the city, quite
frankly, despite the beautification process and the rising value of all the properties
around it. I don't know if there is opportunities to -- rather than the city do maintenance,
whether there is the ability to contract it out, which might be a cost savings. I know the
city does that in some of their downtown tree maintenance. There might be some cost
savings. But, regardless, I think it's an awesome opportunity.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Doug, would you like to comment?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Steve and I have talked about this to
some extent and it is a little hard right now, because we don't have much history of
these kind of areas to really nail down a maintenance cost. This is certainly an item --
these types of areas would be what we would consider including in our landscape
contracts we are currently doing, should we continue that into the future, which is our
current plan. It makes sense that the small areas be contracted and other areas that
are in that and that cost we look at annually as we renew that contract. So, over time
we will have a better idea of the actual cost, I think. But anything that would be added
we would need to consider it for a future budget.
De Weerd: Okay. Questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have no questions, but I agree with what Joe said in terms
of the value of these to the community, but they don't come without cost and they can
be very costly if you don't plan properly for them. If we get to this point we need to
make sure that we do accommodate the maintenance activity. Probably the single
biggest issue with maintaining these, particularly under traffic, is safety and getting
vehicles off the side of the road, allowing them to have access to off load mowers,
signage, that sort of thing, to make it happen and that's why your costs go up, because
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 13 of 40
it's not inexpensive to take care of those precautions that you don't typically have to do
in the middle of a 20 acre park. The other issue that the city would face if we got into
this program is that Doug would be back here just as the parks director is in Boise,
grousing about his budget being eaten up for parks for beautification to the city. So,
that becomes a real issue in the future. So, where these are is important. The amount
we are willing to consider is important. And knowing that it's a long term investment that
the maintenance cost far out strip the installation cost. But the installation cost and the
installation design and planning is critical to making them work and make them work
properly. So, I guess those are just bits of advice as we might look at this.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: And I think, Steve, that's probably something that in working this idea
through, looking at costs and -- versus turf and tree plantings, the maintenance on
those, I think it's been stated by this Council that we certainly want to raise the bar and
this not only helps the esthetics for the properties in and around these entry areas, it
brands our city, it associates with our community values and identity, and I think those
things are important. But if we could come back with some more solid numbers, if
Council would like to move forward with this, we do have a partnership that is waiting for
your direction and maybe this would be a good starting point to determine cost and
bring those items back. But they do want to start design on it, so they are looking for a
more immediate answer and that's the direction that I think Steve needs tonight. Is that
correct, Steve?
Siddoway: Yes. I'm looking for some direction on whether to proceed with pursuing
these partnerships and I'm so far gaining the sense that, yes, I should do that. But to be
conscious of the concerns that Councilman Rountree brought up -- and I would suggest
that it also seems prudent knowing that with the single biggest impact in determining the
cost being whether or not it has turf and requiring mowing and a place to stop and get a
mower out, it would seem prudent that we first look at not including turf and trying to,
instead, include landscaping that doesn't require weekly mowing.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a couple comments. And I think I have heard the term terascapes used
on some of that low water maintenance. Certainly would suggest that that would be
something I would like to see. I also agree that the beautification in the entryway
corridors are important. The one thing that I would caution is that in adopting this policy
of pursuing partnerships with the city at the City Council level, at sometime in the future
we don't begin to derail any transportation projects or put them off because there may
not be funding for the landscape to our requirement, as we have seen even in this valley
on certain circumstances. So, just to keep that kind of as an open door policy.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 14 of 40
Siddoway: We would propose that these partnerships would not impact ACHD's budget
in term of constructing the road, so --
Wardle: And, Madam Mayor, to that comment, Steve, I think the most important thing
for our citizens is to move traffic right now and we need to plan for these in the future
and we need -- you know, I personally feel that this is a benefit to the community, but --
Siddoway: But don't postpone those projects to get this. Understood.
De Weerd: But I guess on the flip side of it, these center island treatments also help for
safety aspects, because it restricts some of those turn movements that -- where we
don't want them. So, I think not only esthetically are they pleasing, but they do give us
some safety factors that are also nice in our transportation planning as well, so -- and I
know, lieutenant, I probably beat you to that comment, but I saw you over there thinking
it, so --
Siddoway: Agreed. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Item number C-2.
2. Question Related to Annexation Policy regarding
Spurwing Annexation:
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I am just here to ask for your advice
on something before I accept an application. So, just to be clear from the get go, I am
not asking you to comment on the development proposed by this application. The only
thing I'm asking for is some advice as to the shape of the requested annexation and
whether this is consistent with how City Council views the development of the city. And
I haven't accepted this application, so I am able to talk to you about it tonight. We do
have an application in currently for one lot within Spurwing Subdivision. The annexation
path is a 50 foot private road that would connect for about -- I think that's a distance of
about 300, 350 feet. So, this would be the annexation path to the city, this little tiny flag
here for this property. When it first came in I had concerns -- I have heard the Mayor or
members of the Council state that when one lot in a subdivision comes in, that all of the
lots -- all of the lots needed to come in. I don't think you could have anticipated the one
remainder lot for Spurwing that would come in asking, but I just -- I'm asking for your
advice on -- if this comes all the way up to you and your first reaction is, no, they need
to have more of an annexation path than that, then, I just want to be able to advise them
of that currently. These were two fairways -- is that the right term? I'm not a golfer.
These are -- there is a hole going this way -- or a fairway going this way and, then, it
also wraps up around here. So, currently as proposed this development you would
enter Spurwing, come around the corner, and, then, you would come down a public
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 15 of 40
street here at the north end and into this. But like SSC would be coming into the
unincorporated county and, then, picking up here, going back out. So, I'm just asking
for advice today on whether you think this is an appropriate annexation path for this
development.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I guess my comment is it's a polygon and you can map it, so at least you can
get a legal description of it.
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: But whether it a proper string attachment to the city, I don't know. I don't
think it's a good idea. And definitely wouldn't want somebody to think that they might
have some kind of an access from Chinden into this area with that annexation path, so I
probably wouldn't be in favor of it. That's my opinion.
Canning: Now, is it the -- I guess what I need to know is should I advise them to include
more area or should they just proceed with this one? Should they include portions of
the golf course within their annexation, so it doesn't appear to be a city enclave in the
middle of the county?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I know it's going to be difficult for them, but I think that's probably the avenue
they need to pursue first.
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: Because this is an area that has been asked to be annexed into the city. Not
just this lot, the whole area. At least by some. I'm sure there is going to be more that
don't want to. But I think we owe it to ourselves to find out what the situation is. I don't
know about the rest of the folks.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree. I think more land should be included.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 16 of 40
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments?
Bird: I don't disagree.
De Weerd: That's a glowing endorsement.
Canning: I think I have what I need. Thank you very much for entertaining that.
D. Mayor's Office
1. Pack the Track Proclamation:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6-0 under the Mayor's office. I am sure all of you are
aware that we have Pack the Tracks at Meridian Speedway going on right now. This
used to be Cover the Blue in Boise and because they don't have access to the Bronco
stadium, they have moved this annual food drive to the City of Meridian and the
Meridian Speedway. This is a proclamation in recognition of that. Whereas the Boise
Rescue Mission Ministries and KQFC 98 FM have organized their annual food drive and
whereas the City of Meridian, the Boise Rescue Mission Ministries and KQFC 98 FM
and partners have recognized this effective community food drive and designated this
event as Pack the Track at Meridian Speedway and whereas the Boise Rescue Mission
and associated agencies help feed the hungry in the Treasure Valley and have set a
goal to raise 165,000 pounds of food to fill the race track at Meridian Speedway,
whereas donations are distributed to the hungry in our community by the Boise Rescue
Mission Ministries, First Baptist Church of Boise, Calvary Chapel of Boise, Northview
Food Pantry, Meridian Food Bank and other food pantries and shelters in the Treasure
Valley and whereas drop off barrels are located at the Meridian Speedway, Majestic
Flooring and Design, all Fred Meyer locations in the Treasure Valley, Westmark Credit
Union offices and other participating agencies and churches, therefore, I, Tammy de
Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim August 8 through the 11th,
2006, as Pack the Track Days, urging all members of the Meridian community to
generously respond to the needs of the Boise Rescue Mission Ministries and to become
part of the solution to the hunger in Idaho, dated this 8th day of August 2006. The City
of Meridian departments are having a competition on who can raise the most food in
each of our buildings and so we are participating and will be present at Pack the Track
Days. I will be there in the morning to hand this proclamation to the organizers and we
hope that this shows how Meridian can step up and help in a very worthy event and
cause. So, if there is no questions we will continue on our agenda.
Berg: Madam Mayor, the City Council, if they would like, they can bring cans to my
department and we would gladly take them.
Nary: They can also bring cans to our department if they'd like to as well.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 17 of 40
Canning: Likewise.
Nary: Cans of ham, that kind of thing.
Bird: Are we judging by weight?
Nary: Actually, items for us and weight by the --
Berg: Madam Mayor, we'd take anything in our department.
De Weerd: For any of the members that here as well, if you would like to drop food off
to the Mayor's office feel free to. As you can see we are not very competitive in our city.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
FP 06-033 Request for Final Plat approval for 73 single-family residential
building lots and 12 common lots on 26.58 acres in an R-4 zone for
Reflection Ridge Subdivision No.1 by McMillen Engineering - 4275
South Locust Grove Road:
Item 9:
FP 06-034 Request for Final Plat approval for 53 single-family residential
building lots and 6 common lots on 16.83 acres in an R-8 zone for
Crossfield Subdivision No.3 by Heron River Development, LLC. - 955
West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: So, Items No. 8 and 9 we have heard from the applicants that they are
okay with staff conditions. Is that correct, Anna?
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: To note on Crossfield Subdivision we would ask that it would be -- if the
Council so chooses to approve per applicant's response letter.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would move we approve Item 8, FP 06-003.
Bird: Second.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 18 of 40
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 8. Is that what your motion was?
Okay. Not nine?
Wardle: Not yet.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 9, FP 06-034 and to include staff's
recommendation per applicant's acceptance letter.
Bird: Second.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
FP 06-032 Request for Final Plat approval for 107 single-family &
townhome residential building lots, 23 common lots, 3 commercial building
lots & 2 other lots on 22.95 acres in C-C, R-8 and R-15 zones for
Hiahtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - Southwest corner of Jericho
Road and Chinden Boulevard:
De Weerd: Okay. Item NO.1 0 has been requested to continue to August 15th.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue FP 06-032 to August 15th, 2006.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 1 g of 40
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 10 to August 15th. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
FP 06-035 Request for Final Plat approval for 23 commercial building lots
and 1 common lot on 31.37 acres in a C-G zone for Centre Pointe
Subdivision by Winston Moore - Northwest corner of East Ustick Road &
North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Item 11 has comments by the applicant that staff has indicated agreement
with. Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant just spoke to me and
they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. They just wanted some
clarification on one item and we can do at a later date. It's just on a code issue.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing that, I move we approve FP 06-035 with applicant and staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 11. If there is no discussion, Mr.
Berg, roll call vote.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Item 13:
VAC 06-010 Request to Vacate a portion of Jericho Road north of W.
Hightower Drive and south of State Highway 20/26 for Hightower
Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - Southwest corner of Jericho Road and
Chinden Boulevard:
Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2006: VAC 06-004 Request
for Vacation of the existing utility easements on the interior lot lines for
Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26, Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No.3 Sundance
Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 12 and 13 have been requested to continue to August 15th.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 20 of 40
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue Items 12 and 13, VAC 06-010 and VAC 06-004 until
August 15th, 2006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Items 12 and 13 to August 15th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2006: AZ 06-019 Annexation
and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Southwick
Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2006: PP 06-018 Preliminary
Plat approval of 42 building lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 14 and 15 are continued public hearings AZ 06-019 and PP
06-01. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Southwick project. It was
continued from your June 27th, 2006, hearing and at that hearing -- I'll give you a brief
update. It's located east of Linder Road, south of Ustick Road. It's currently two very
long, skinny lots. It is annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The applicant had
originally proposed 42 building lots on 10.59 acres. At the hearing the City Council had
become concerned with the concept of flag lots being used as a -- as a design element,
basically, for the plat, rather than typically how you see them as an awkward corner that
the developer is trying to reach to and so they use flag lots. At that hearing I had
suggested that Council wait and I could provide some images of flag lots for you to see
how these are constructed. Since that time the applicant has actually -- proposes now
not to include any flag lots. This is the current proposal and I will let them present this
to you. These are quite a bit larger lots. The lot count went down from 42 to 26 lots.
So, this is substantially different than the original application. Staff has a question as to
what Council's pleasure might be on this. At a minimum we need to ask you to continue
this for two weeks, because we haven't gotten -- we haven't had time to review it to see
if it meets our standards and to review it appropriately. The other question that comes
up -- so you could either continue two weeks and we can address those issues in that
interim, but the question becomes whether it would be appropriate to remand this back
to the Planning and Zoning Commission. By dropping that many lots, the density drops
down to about 2.45 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation on this piece
Meridian City Council
August8,2006
Page 21 of 40
of property is medium density residential. So, there would be a need to at least
evaluate the appropriateness of the step down in this case. And the code does allow for
a step up and a step down, but the Planning Commission had not considered that. The
other issue that just occurred to me that I hadn't spoke with the applicants is whether R-
8 zoning would be appropriate on nine and ten thousand square foot lots or if it would
be more appropriate to go to an R-4 zoning. Again, because these impacts are less on
the surrounding property owners, I don't think that it would be necessarily inappropriate
for it not to go back and Planning and Zoning -- or to move forward. But it is a
consideration as to if you want the Planning and Zoning Commission's input on this.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, if we was to -- asking to take that back to an R-4, which I would love to see
done, then, that's probably a big enough change that we would probably want to go
back to Planning and Zoning, wouldn't we? What's your opinion on that?
Canning: I'm a little ambivalent on this one. You can tell. In some ways I feel it's
appropriate to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, because it's a different
project. But, on the other hand, the roads haven't changed. The impact to the
surrounding property owners, who all would have had an opportunity to comment at that
hearing, is less. There is just -- it really is a less impact on the surrounding property
owners. However, you have a Planning and Zoning Commission that takes their job
seriously, that likes to provide a solid recommendation to you. I'm not sure how they
would feel about this big of change. But, on the other hand, they have got full agendas,
too, and they may want it to go through. So, it's really -- there is all sorts of things to
consider and I'm not quite sure how to advise you on this one.
De Weerd: Thank you for the pros and cons.
Bird: Follow up, Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, you're asking for a two week continuance on this? In that time would you be
able, as a staff, to talk to the applicant and see -- and make a recommendation that -- of
whether you think we can legally and rightfully do it with changing it to an R-4? There is
no reason -- if they are coming back to that density that we stay at an R-8 designation,
in my opinion. And in the two weeks, then, you can come back and tell us what you
want?
Canning: So -- Mr. Nary can advise you more fully, but I don't think it's a question of
legally. I think -- we talked about whether legally it was a question and I think you're
okay. .
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 22 of 40
Bird: Okay.
Canning: I'm looking for him to say otherwise and he's not, so --
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, do you have anything to add?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I think it's a discretionary call on
the part of the Council. If you think that's a significant change and that it is more
appropriate to be reviewed, I think Councilman Bird has raised I guess a potential
compromise that you may want to hear from the applicant. The other, if there is an
opportunity for staff to have some better time to have analysis and review of what this
change is, they may be better able to advise you or I could better be able to advise you
on whether or not we truly think it is a different project. Again, normally, a lesser
intensive use normally isn't going to be considered a significant change, but, of course,
there are people who may prefer more density and this is a fairly significant -- trying to
think -- there are lots of people out there in the spectrum that may prefer that. But there
is a significant difference. I mean this isn't 42 single family homes to 39, this is 42 to 28.
I mean it's a fairly large difference what you normally see. But, again, the opportunity
for a little bit more staff time to review that might be more appropriate and, then, again,
the appropriate zoning, those kind of things, but the Council can maybe make a better
decision after that, to, then, decide -- you feel comfortable in it going forward and not
having to be returned for, essentially, fairly routine sort of matter in front of the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
De Weerd: Thank you. And, you know, I think I have been -- sat up here through
Planning and Zoning, City Council, and now as Mayor, and so eight years I have never
heard anyone ask for more density. But, you know, there is always a first.
Nary: Try and just keep an open mind. Me either, but--
De Weerd: I do.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I'm sure you meant to say anyone except your planning
director.
De Weerd: Okay. Public testimony. Mr. Rountree, did you have comment?
Rountree: Just a comment. It seems to me that -- and I agree with Bill's definition of
significant. If it's a lesser impact and a lesser use, I don't necessarily agree that it would
be significant. But my comment is is that we have had a lot of comments about wanting
larger lots and opportunities to have larger lots in the wealth of small lots in many lots
that we have seen in the past few months and -- but we keep doing our level best to
discourage folks from doing that and I would agree with Anna that with this change that
the staff needs a little more time to look at it, but I don't know that we necessarily need
to beat up the applicant anymore than is necessary. So, I would say give staff an
opportunity to make sure it's consistent. I would like to see their request be to R-4 and
Meridian City Council
August8,2006
Page 23 of 40
have it come back in two weeks for consideration and not send it back through the mill,
through Planning and Zoning, et cetera. I, too, have sat on Planning and Zoning and I
would guess their agendas are every bit as rigorous as they used to be and I can well
imagine that they probably really would appreciate not seeing this again.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? As you have heard, staff has requested two
weeks to review this and bring back comments. Does that work for you?
Wildwood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record my name is Susan
Wildwood and I'm here on behalf of the applicant and in our discussions today we were
aware that Anna would need a couple of weeks. The only thing that I would say is -- I
had to kind of chuckle. This is a unique experience for me to come to the City of
Meridian and say, please, give us larger lots. So, I have to say I have lived long enough
to -- you know, to do that. And it's really a redesign based on a bunch of comments.
But we appreciate that Anna needs some time to look at it. And just so that you know, if
Anna and I can run our numbers straight, the difference in the zoning is six lots and so
we are trying to bring you a good project. We actually up the common usable open
space and I couldn't give you the exact footage, but, anyway, we appreciate staff and
we appreciate your look at it and appreciate Bill's analysis. I, too, said that if you are
reducing your impact and you're incorporating the comments, that's one thing as far as
legal notice goes and that's really -- we really needed your guidance as a city council
and Anna needed it, too, to decide where we were going to go, but, gosh, we'd sure like
to give you bigger lots with not a lot of hassle. And with that we concur in the two
weeks and we will be happy to meet with staff and see if we can wrestle her down.
De Weerd: Very good. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no further comments, I would move that we
continue the hearings on Item 14 and 15 until August 22nd.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Items 14 and 15 to August 22nd. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: AZ 06-015 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential)
(10.42 acres) and C-N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) zones for
Tanana Vallev Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by
Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road:
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 24 of 40
Item 17:
Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1
commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a
proposed R-8, TN-R and C-N zones for Tanana Vallev Subdivision
(f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner
of Meridian Road and Victory Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 16 and 17 are AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. They are continued
from July 11 th and they were continued on a couple of specific items. So, Anna, I will
open this for your review -- your overview.
Canning: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the Tanana project. I
think that's how you say it. One of these days I will remember. It is the large project
located at the southeast corner of Meridian and Victory, with annexation, zoning, and
preliminary plat. I'm not going to go through the details, because that's a five minute
speech, but just to generally refresh your memory, this was a C-N parcel. This was a
traditional neighborhood residential parcel. This was a schoo/lot. And, then, there was
some -- the remainder of it is varying sizes of residential lots. Here is one very large
residential lot in the center of the property and, then, three -- or two -- two outparcels
and, then, the grange hall at the east end of the site. The applicant did make one
commitment during the last hearing that I wanted to remind you of, so we can make
sure it gets included in your motion tonight and that was that they are working with the
owners of the outparcels to get the sidewalk and pathway construction done -- or the
sidewalk construction done in front of those parcels, so that we have continuous
connections along the roadway. The reason that the applications were continued was
that the Council had a number of questions and concerns and they were related to the
proposed area for the pool for this site and the proposed look and layout of the
commercial neighborhood lot. The applicant has agreed to address staff concerns with
regard to the revised lot layout near the school. You can see it here, how it made a little
corner there. So, he had agreed to work on that and come back. And, then, the
Council had questions and concerns about the proposed look and product type of the
traditional neighborhood residential portion of the property. And in addition to that, I
believe the applicant wanted to clarify on the future redevelopment of this one very large
lot. I think the concern was that -- perhaps, that you may have thought it was an open
space lot and that he would be held to only having one lot there. Staff was always
aware -- there is a very large home on this lot currently and the applicant has been
trying to decide what to do with that home. Staff was always aware that this was not
open space. We did not include it in our open space calculation, so it was just included
as one very large lot and we had anticipated that at some point we would see this
redevelop. So, we did include that in our considerations and evaluation of the project
and just wanted to clarify that for Council and to get it on the record for the future if
somebody says that that was always intended to be one lot. Just wanted to get it on the
record that we didn't view it that way. And with that I will answer any questions or you
may want to get the updates from the applicant. I know he has been diligently working
to get you the information that you asked for at the last hearing.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 25 of 40
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for Anna at this point?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Martin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Justin Martin at 5606
North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, Idaho. And I'm representing Tanana. I do have a brief
Powerpoint that will show some pictures of the home designs that we have planned for
the project. I also have residential design requirements and commercial design
requirements on kind of a punch list pulled out of a larger document at ACC's that I
thought I would pass out after I was done speaking that is kind of in document as well --
or in this Powerpoint presentation, so we will go through them and if they are of use to
you I would be happy to give you copies of those. With that we will go ahead and start
through the process. These are the smallest lots that we have. These are the lots that
are 32 feet wide, extremely small for anything that we have built in our projects before
and -- so along with building something new is how to make those smaller lots look
good, hold their value, have esthetic appeal and not be square boxes. A lot of that has
to do with just minor things that we keep in mind as we go through the architectural
design standards. A lot of that has to do with mass and making sure the size of these
homes are similar to each other, that there is not a great difference in height and overall
design, to pull away from one or give to another. Some of the things on this -- this
picture are pointed out are the mix of use in materials. We show the cultured stone.
We do require 20 percent stone or stucco. The home on the right is the stucco version,
which we encourage. If a builder comes in and has four lots, would encourage that
builder -- probably require that builder to only build one of his homes with the 20 percent
stucco requirement, but the other three would need to hold the requirement of stone,
instead of stucco. But there is a -- in the last three projects -- the few projects we have
had, we have had a stone requirement -- a stone and stucco requirement and each
project we have been moving that up a little bit trying to encourage more, trying to get
more, and as that goes along we notice that the stone really helps out a lot and that it's
okay to have stucco, just not as many and we don't want three stuccos to one stone.
That wouldn't help the overall look of the project. The overall style that we would be
looking for is a Craftsman style or northwestern, maybe, Craftsman style, but a
Craftsman style architecture. The broken roof lines are really important in the way of
causing character to the home, not being a single -- single sheet roof or adding --
adding character, basically, to the home. The trim detail around the windows, the
corbels or the little notches around there, the gable lines, and porches on the little lots
will be mandated on at least 50 percent of the homes that were built on the small lots
and, obviously, encouraged on all of them and those porches would be of a usable size,
six foot requirement of width so that you could have a chair out there and sit. Eight foot
encouraged. And so we just -- to go on through some of the other pictures. This is
another example of, again, the 32 foot wide lots, the Craftsman style columns over the
porch. The use of stone, the detailing, the modulating of the exterior of the home, so
that it has -- has texture and shape. Again, the square box thing trying not to happen.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 26 of 40
That it be the worst possible scenario that we could do on small lots is have the square
box look. That would be one of the biggest points that we looked at, just not being
square, modulating architecture, requiring that a minimum of every 25 feet there be a
change in the paint, so you can't have a 40 foot long section of flat on the home, things
like that. Try the next one. These are examples of the 4,000 square foot lots, allowing
the two car garage in the front. The ones that we have already looked at would have
had the garage in the back, obviously, the alley loaded. These versions -- same sort of
requirement, same CC&Rs and ACCs required throughout. The same sort of
modulation. Breaks in the roof pitches. six-twelve pitch is the minimum pitch. On this
32 foot wide lot we will look for deeper pitches based on design. Obviously, we need to
look at all of that, but a minimum of six-twelve pitch, which is in the way of what you
would need in our valley. So, obviously, way too steep, but we think it helps on this
style of home as to the look of it. Again, just the use of stone, the use of mixed
materials on the front. Stone, one -- kind of a lap board siding and, then, different
textures in the eaves or the gable ends. And, then, just the detailing throughout. I think
that that's the overall look of all these homes, that is going to help us the most, is really
paying attention to detail on our part and making sure that every builder does his best to
build a really nice home. The larger lots are, obviously, easier to get a nice look,
because of the scale of the home and the width of the home. These ones will be
tougher and we will need to enforce these ACCs at lot more strict. Okay. Just another
example of 40-foot - 40-foot wide lots. Again, two car garages in the front is all that will
fit in there. The use of wood is encouraged. The use of timber or logs, even. We have
inserted minimums for the timbers and detailing a lot of the timber that we see around
now, even in our subdivisions, I admit, are lacking at best. I mean they can be a lot
thicker and add a lot to the look of the home if the timbers were of a larger scale and so
we have required that -- that moved up. Same way if they would use logs. Again, just
the positions of the roof, things moving around, changes in the face of the elevation,
those are the things that we will be looking for for the most part, along with the mixing of
materials throughout. Okay. And that's the last home to look at. Another 40 foot wide
one. This one has the use of some log style trellis out front that's a little bit different
than the other homes that have been shown. Again, these are what I think we can get,
provided we use the ACC guidelines that I have provided. And that they are enforced,
obviously, that the rules are followed and that -- and that somebody -- somebody cares
and somebody is watching and, obviously, we do. Next. These are some of the
requirements that are in the ACCs. I pulled out a basic punch list of some of the -- the
average or better than, I guess, some projects. Some projects wouldn't have such
standards and these are some of those -- the better standards that I think will help
control the way the subdivision looked. So, I just pulled out some bullet points out of
those -- those documents. The little lots with their rear orientation, again, that's the
porch issue on the first one saying that half of them will have porches, encourage it on
all the units and they will be of a usable size. The next line is a really important line.
Less than 4,000 square foot lots shall be dissimilar within 200 lineal feet. The ACC
guidelines go into more detail with what does similar mean. But it has to be a major
change, not a minor change. This is an issue in all these subdivisions around that I see
-- or I should say most of the subdivisions that I see, homes that look the same and right
next to each other and sometimes three and four in a row. That's not what we are
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 27 of 40
looking for and that's not what we want to promote. So, we put these rules -- these are
definitely new for our subdivisions and, then, larger lots, 4,000 feet, will be dissimilar
within 600 feet. Half room over the garage. We will have a change in the front plane of
the garage to avoid large, unbroken surfaces, again, with kind of the modulation
wording that I was talking about. The roof pitches in this show the 6-12 requirement
and, then, it says that we will be looking to encourage steeper roof lines on the smaller
lots provided it fits the architectural look. We will have to see that to make sure that it
fits. If it doesn't fit, then, we will stick with the 6-12 minimum. The facia boards that are
around the edge of the homes are around the roof lines. We require to be eight inch in
width, but they can go a lot smaller than that, it just doesn't have as much of a
presence. And, then, we also require a one-by-three shadow board, which a trim board
on top of that eight inch board that adds -- adds character. It's really not something that
jumps out at you and it's not something you're going to see, but it more of just adds a
feeling to it, something that you don't notice that you don't know why you may like
something a little bit better. I think the implementation of all of these things helps with
that feel of an area as you're driving through it. The next requirement there the 20
percent stone or stucco requirement on the front elevations of these homes. We also
have increased the corners to wrap a minimum 36 inches where ever it can possibly be
done, as opposed to some homes you just see that go right across and as soon as you
get around the edge you see it stop and in the past couple projects we have had it
wrapping -- I believe it was 18 inches or 24 inches. We decided to take that to 36
inches. This time we think that it will help the -- will help the view and tying them around
a little bit more. Obviously, we require them to screen all of their -- their AC units and all
of those sorts of devices that will be sitting outside the houses. We require them to put
the vents and things coming out of the roof for the housing materials on the backside of
the roof, instead of the street view where everybody can see them. We require them to
be painted the same. Rain gutters, obviously, we would have painted the same. You
know, we do encourage copper gutters and more -- more ornamental things, provided
the home can handle that sort of thing in the way of its architectural -- the overall
architectural look and feel. But at minimum they would be required to paint it to match,
so that they didn't stick out or so it wasn't an afterthought later. Well, two years down
the road somebody has one color of a home, comes in and slaps on a rain gutter and
just thinks that that will be their detailing in a different color. We don't want to see that.
We want to see it throughout early on. And the last one this page is the five percent
minimum of glazing or basically window area on any side of the homes. We see a lot of
these homes -- you will see the side view of a home, the street and the front looks really
nice and you go to the side and you just see this little square window and maybe this
little slider to let some air in a bathroom and that's the only window they put on that
whole base of the building. And so we are just -- to insure that doesn't happen, we put
a minimum in the document. Garage entrances, you know, there is more than one door
that they have got to be offset. Again, this modulation. You have to have some
movement in all the textures to keep away from having a large flat plane or wall area.
We require the second door to be offset a minimum of a foot and a half. On the
driveways we have required that -- this was in the wrong one -- the driveway we don't
allow vehicles to be parked out there in the way of recreational vehicles, trailers,
storage, things that are prohibited -- or they are all prohibited by the subdivision
Meridian City Council
August8,2006
Page 28 of 40
standards. This is a fairly normal one for most of our subdivisions that we have done in
the recent time. It's a really important one to continue to pass on. Next one talks about
stamped concrete, colored concrete or brick pavers being used in the -- in the driveway
approach to the home. It just adds some sort of texture or character -- texture and
character to that entryway. As we all know, the more grass you have the less paving
you have and the nicer the subdivision is going to look. The landscaping's really what
gets it done. So, just breaking up the big expanses of gray concrete should help and so
we have required a two foot border on that. We would encourage more from anybody
who would be willing, obviously. The lighting is important just for a safety reason. We
require the front lighting on the home to illuminate the front yard. We encourage them
to use fixtures that don't cause the light pollution to the neighbors, obviously. And, then,
satellite dishes, we require that not be over 24 inches and that it be on the back side of
the roof. So, some of that's not very exciting at all, but that's kind of the standard stuff
that we deal with. It's really important to see it through. These residential design
considerations are more -- more of what -- what we would like to do, but based on the
architectural plan itself we need to see their plans, we need to decide how each one of
them fit and how they will fit to the neighboring properties that have already been
improved in the subdivision. So, the out of scale mapping. The little lots definitely we
need to pay attention to the size of the homes and the massing of the entire block
length. When we approve -- approve a set of plans or five sets of plans, if there is one
coming later that's going to fill in the hole, we need to make sure it fits that area well and
it is not just an afterthought and has the look of an afterthought if you don't pay attention
to it. We believe corner lots are the -- are the strong point of adding a little more value
to those -- those homes. When you pull up on a block you can all look good from the
front, but if you're looking at the side flat surface on a home on the corner lot it kind of
ruins your idea of the entire streetscape. So, we are definitely going to be paying more
attention to those corner lots and make sure there is windows there and make sure
there is modulation and movement in the side of that building and it's not just that big,
long, flat expanse of siding on there. We are going to encourage the timber being four
by size. We think that that will help with the northwestern look. We really like the way
those sorts of homes turn out. We just would encourage -- or if they are going to use
sort of items, beams or logs, that they be of a size that will show some presence and,
obviously, design the home around them. This first one is about the wood post. The
shingles -- we are going to -- I don't know if you want me to continue reading this. It
may be --
De Weerd: No, I don't think Council -- there is still a number of outstanding issues that
you haven't quite gotten to yet.
Martin: So, we should -- we can move passed these and I will hand out the papers. So,
this one is a layout of the commercial area of what we would -- we would suggest it look
like. We would -- we have written ACHD and said we are not going to strip malls there.
These buildings are 6,000 square feet in size. Our control standards would talk about
buildings from 4,000 square feet to the 7,500, that they are one to one and a half stories
in height. That half story would have to be in the eave or something like that. These
aren't going to be massive buildings, a few stores, taking away from the views of the
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 29 of 40
neighbors, the people across the street, as well as our own subdivision. They have
courtyard uses in there and so there is sitting areas. We encourage the architecture to
wrap the entire building of four-sided architecture, as opposed to a lot of buildings just
have, again, that front facade that looks nice. The rest is pretty boring. So, that's the
short version for the next couple of pages. This is an example of one of the buildings on
that site and, then, these are, again, the requirements we can go through. I think the
next thing that we could -- yeah, the park area. So, this still didn't show up very bright.
There was talk about the pool area the last time we were here and I gave that some
thought. This site is roughly -- roughly two acres in size. This is a layout of how it
would fit towards the collector way. We'd suggest putting a three foot iron fence around
the roadside and a higher intensity control, you know, a mother with three kids, one of
the kids -- anyway, she's busy, one kid trying to run away and last chance of getting out
in the road -- not run away, but run off. A six foot fence on the -- on the south side and,
then, again, the size is kind of -- it's tough to see, but the pool is actually roughly 200
feet from the road there. So, it really is a large area. The pool would be fenced as well.
When I say the pool, I mean the exact area. The pool is about 32 or 38 hundred square
feet there and the decking around that is about another seven or eight thousand square
feet. Around that decking on the pool we would have a six foot iron fence and only one
entry in and out of that. Again, helping to control where people are. And there is more
than enough room in the green space in the area to do some berming, to have some
effect for limited on the view. We don't feel that it's -- that we should have a berm there
that blocks the view. We do feel that it should be open -- more of an open area that
would feel large enough that you're far enough back that you are safe. This shows a
gazebo area, a water feature, parking lot -- thank you. So, overall, there is a bunch of
things mixed into this area. A little pathway system. The pool building. All sorts of
things wrapped into there. And it is a large area, but we do feel that safetywise these
things should be in fairly open areas. What we don't want to see are these things
tucked away somewhere and at night anything that's tucked away has the potential to
cause problems with the older kids. Obviously, not the youngest of the kids, but we
would look at it as maybe a nuisance for the neighbors or a potential police problem or
problem for whatever may be going on in areas if you hid them away. So, we would
suggest following the way Bridgetower has put their pools out in the open. There is
Settler's Bridge. Woodbridge. There is quite a few examples in Meridian that have
done this sort of thing and we think that the area is plenty large enough with it. It has
some berming and it has some texture, landscaping, and still get 200 feet from the pool
offset from the road. So, we feel that area is sufficient. I'll move on from that, so we
don't bore you to death. And the last thing I remember that you asked me specifically
for was an update on the traffic signal. I believe Gary Inselman -- he is here tonight.
You could correct me on anything that I may have written wrong on this. I believe that
ACHD has a contract with the developers on the northeast and northwest corners of
Victory and Meridian Roads and that they have entered into a contract with ACHD to
complete that signal there. I believe those developers have let a contractor to -- a
subcontractor and that they have held a preconstruction meeting on that and I do
believe they plan to get it done this year. ACHD has liquidated damage in there. I
believe it was 2006 -- end of this year; is that correct? Gary is shaking his head yes.
So, that was the signal point. Everything else that I had -- the seven acres that I -- it's
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 30 of 40
very possible and most likely that we do redevelop the seven acre single home site. It
has a lot of topography on that site. It has a home that is in the millions of dollars in
value and it's really a unique property. It's going to take more thought -- it's just going to
take more thought. It's going to be more of a unique property. It's possible it could
develop as a single site, but at this point we don't see that being a viable option, based
on -- based on its value. And so I wanted to make sure everybody was clear that I was
clear on what our plan was in the future, coming back in for a re-subdivision application.
The density difference is next to none on the overall scale of the property. And when I
say that, it's from like 3.07 to 3.19 in dwelling units per acre, if we would have filled that
with lots on the entire thing, which we wouldn't, but -- so there really -- anyway, that's
enough said on that. We did agree to cut one lot on this school site -- near the school
site. It had the triangle piece in the back. Anna has mentioned that at the last hearing
and requested that we cut that. I went back and talked with Wendell Bigham about that.
He was happy to have that extra space. It was -- it was no big deal to him. So, we cut
the -- we cut the one lot that caused the problem. The other lot we will simply square
back there, so there is not the little tiny triangle as well. And the school site is in good
shape. We are in agreement with the school on our contract there.
De Weerd: Justin, on the access from Victory Road to that school site, what are the
safety factors on that?
Martin: Access from the school site to Victory Road, we are not showing any direct
public access at all. We are showing the project come back through the development,
go out to the main entryway. This was based on -- on a traffic study that we had done
and also a traffic study that Wendell had done on an earlier project on Locust Grove.
The impact of these sorts of school sites is really minimal. It's not even close to being in
the same park as any of the normal or standard style elementary schools or high
schools. It's so far drawn away from that that it's really of next to no impact. In our
opinion. Obviously, how the traffic impacts affects it. And even an elementary school
would require a collector road right down the side of it to be able to handle this sort of
traffic and this was just extremely minimal in its impact. ACHD has in writing that they
agree that Wendell can pass traffic through the subdivision out to there. And Wendell is
happy with that, with the statement from ACHD that they are happy with going this
route, limiting the number of accesses to Victory Road is helpful, I think, in the overall
movement of traffic, as well as where we would line it up is a bit detrimental to the
grange property redevelopment, is where we could put it. It would be along their
boundary. That definitely would cause them some cost in future redevelopment as well.
As all I had is that you would take into account the comments that I had made at the
previous hearing, the letter that I had submitted at the previous hearing. I think I was in
agreement with most all staff comments, P&Z and Public Works. I'd ask for some minor
changes just for clarification and I don't believe there was any disagreement with any of
those, at least from staff. And I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 31 of 40
Bird: I have none. I have a statement. Justin, you did a nice job. You did everything
that we asked and I appreciate that.
Martin: Thank you.
Bird: You come back with some architecturals and stuff and some elevations and I
certainly appreciate it. You did everything we asked you to do. It's a beautiful looking
development.
Martin: Absolutely. I appreciate that. Again, I do have copies of those requirements
that I had up there, if you have a use for those. You want me to hand those out now --
it's up to you.
Bird: Give them to staff.
Martin: I will do that.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would
like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Council, do you have
any further questions for staff or the applicant? If you have all the information you need,
I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If nobody has anything, I move we close AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on Items 16 and 17. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion? Okay. Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve AZ 06-015 and incorporate in the Findings and Facts the
staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Wardle: Second.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 32 of 40
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if the maker of the motion could
clarify. Did you want the materials presented tonight included in the DA or --
Bird: That's part of the -- that's part of it in the development agreement, yes.
Canning: Okay.
Bird: I think that was part of the applicant's public testimony and that's why I would
consider it, Anna.
Canning: Okay. And, then, also, to further clarify, we will include the previous
commitment of the applicant to do the off-site improvements.
Bird: Yes. Added to the other one. Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. And second agrees?
Wardle: Second agrees. Just for further clarification, that includes the proposed
commercial design and building massing in there, as well as all of the architectural
controls, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 17.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 06-013 and to include applicant, staff, and public
comment.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 17. Is there any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
August 8. 2006
Page 33 of 40
Item 18:
Continued Public Hearing from July 18, 2006: VAC 06-008: Request
for a Vacation of a Pressure Sewer Easement within The Reserve
Subdivision by Conger Management Group - southwest corner of North
Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 18 has been requested by the applicant to continue, VAC
06-008, to September 5th. Council, do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue Item 18, VAC 06-008, until September 5th, 2006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 18 to September 5th. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: TE 06~014 Request for approval of a one-year Time
Extension to record the final plat for Buich Subdivision by RGJ Cherry
Lane, LLC - 2150 W. Cherry Lane:
Item 20:
Public Hearing: TE 06-015 Request for approval of a one-year Time
Extension to commence the Conditional Use Permit for Buich
Subdivision by RGJ Cherry Lane, LLC - 2150 W. Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: Items 19 and 20 are public hearings on -- Mr. Nary, do I open these at
separate times or are they related?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe they are related, so you can
open them at the same time.
De Weerd: Okay. I will open the public hearings on TE 06-14 and TE 06-015 with staff
comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Buich Subdivision, which
was formally known as the Cherry Lane Office Park. This is not the Buich building
adjoining us in the former Shell station, just to clarify that, because there is some -- it
gets confusing sometimes. The application before you tonight is a time extension for
both the final plat and for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. The
final plat was approved by Council on July 6th, 2004, with an expiration date of July 6,
2005. The Council approved a time extension for one year to June 21st, 2005 -- or
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 34 of 40
that's the day you made that and it was -- so it expired July 6, 2006. And similarly for
the Conditional Use Permit. So, you have done a previous time extension on this at the
Council level. Fast forward to the UDC. The old code only allowed one time extension.
The new code allows one kind of freebie time extension and, then, any subsequent time
extension needs to be approved by Council and that's why it's here before you tonight is
because it's a new application, we are bringing it forward to you under the new code
and, therefore, asking for a time extension. The city -- this is I think the first time
extension you have done under the new code. We did write it in so that you can add
any requirements as part of a time extension to meet new standards that have been
adopted in the interim. Obviously, in this case there is a whole slough of new standards
that have been adopted in the interim. We did look at it -- staff didn't feel that it was
necessary to impose any new conditions on this property, so we have recommended
that you approve it just as presented -- or as previously approved.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for Anna?
Bird: That is both items?
Canning: Yes, sir. It was just the Conditional Use Permit for a planned development.
Bird: And the final plat.
Canning: Yeah.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Do you have anything you would
like to add? The applicant has no further comment, is in agreement with staff
recommendations. Council, do you have any questions for staff or the applicant? Is
there any members of the public who would like to offer testimony on these two items?
Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for the applicant.
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address for the record.
Hobbs: Yes. Chris Hobbs with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Since it's been over a year from the last extension, apparently that one's a
freebie and now we have another year extension, is there really intentions of doing
something or are we just playing games here?
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 35 of 40
Hobbs: Yes. No. All the construction plans have been approved. ACHD and Health
District have signed the plat. We are getting it ready to submit to Public Works to get
the plat signed.
Rountree: Okay. So, it's three or four months away?
Hobbs: Yeah.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, does requiring compliance with the current UDC provisions drastically
make changes to this?
Canning: I don't believe so. We didn't evaluate it for that specifically. When this was
approved the main issue that came up was an alternative compliance for the landscape
buffer out in the front and there was a lot of discussion at that time. They had one
additional building. They have come to me and asked me, since your approval in 2004,
if they could lose a building and still be in substantial compliance. I said yes. So, it's
been modified a little bit already. I hope that didn't confuse things here. But I don't think
we need to go back. The parking design hasn't changed. Those kind of standards
haven't changed. The setbacks got more lenient under the new code. The only issue
that if we apply the UDC would have been the same issues that we addressed the first
time that this went through the process.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is no further public comment or questions, no
further information needed from staff, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearings on Items 19 and 20.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 19 and 20,
TE 06-014 and TE 06-015.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve closing the public hearings
on Items 19 and 20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 36 of 40
De Weerd: If there is no discussion, I'd entertain a motion.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 19, TE 06-014 and Item 20, TE 06-015.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 19 and 20. Is there any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21:
Item 22:
Item 23:
Item 24:
Item 25:
Ordinance No. 06-1246 : 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 Hastings by Monterey, LLC - 2300 West
Everest Lane:
Ordinance No. 06-1247 : 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 South Locust Grove Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1248 : AZ 06-007 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by
Providence Development Group, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and
east of North Meridian Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1249 : RZ 06-001 Request for a Rezone of
5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance Subdivision
No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and
Meridian Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1250 Exchange of Certain City Owned
Real Property Located at 55 East Broadway Avenue in the City of
Meridian:
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, are there any issues on any of these ordinances that we
need to have them read individually one at a time or --
Nary: Well, we would read the titles individually, Madam Mayor --
Meridian City Council
August8,2006
Page 37 of 40
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: -- but not that I'm aware of.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read ordinances 06-1246,06-1247,06-
1248,06-1249 and 06-1250 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is Item 21. Ordinance
06-1246, an ordinance finding that Monterey, LLC, the owner of certain real property
have made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property
being Lots 46 and 47, Block 49, of Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12, the same as is
shown in the plat therefore recorded in Book 92 of plats at page 10958 of Ada County
records located in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 26,
Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and described in
Attachment A of this ordinance and rezone -- rezoning certain lands and territories
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian,
and rezoning the use zoning of said lands from R-4 to L-O in the Meridian City Code,
providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the
Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and
providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of
the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 06-1247; an ordinance for annexation of property located in the
southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of
the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining
the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-2 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. 06-1248, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the
government lot of one and two on the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the
southeast quarter or the northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1
East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing
certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous
to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT
to R-8 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed
with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and
providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 38 of 40
Berg: Ordinance 06-1249. An ordinance finding that Gary L. Vogt, the owner of certain
real property has made a written request for rezone of zoning classification for real
property being situated in the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 4 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being a portion of the said southeast
quarter and a portion of Lot 19 and all Lots 20 to 26, Block 7, in Sundance Subdivision
No. 3 as filed in Book 88 of plats at pages 10025 and 10026, records of Ada County,
Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and
territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, within the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-8 to L-O in
the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the
Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission,
as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a
waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 06-1250, an ordinance authorizing the exchange of certain lands city
owned real property located at 55 East Broadway Avenue in the City of Meridian and
legally described as Lot 20 of Block 1 of Meridian township, authorizing the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute and attest on behalf of the City of Meridian the deed and other
documents necessary to complete the transaction and providing for a waiver of the
reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Now, you know why we put them at the end of our agenda. Is
there anyone who would like hear these read in their entirety? Thank you. Seeing
none, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing how there is all the -- we are doing with -- all at one time, I'd move that we
pass Ordinance 06-1246, 06-1247, 06-1248, 06-1249, 06-1250 with suspension of
rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the ordinances Items 21 through 25. Is
there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, roll call attendance -- or vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 26:
Approve 2007 Fiscal Year Tentative Budget:
De Weerd: I was just asking if everyone was still awake after that light reading. Okay.
Item 26, approval of the 2007 fiscal year tentative budget for posting.
Meridian City Council
August 8, 2006
Page 39 of 40
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We -- thanks to our good bookkeeping people, found that in our tentative budgets
that we passed last week we had forgot some carryover. Quite a few. And for
Councilman Rountree and myself, this is a hard number -- I don't even know if I can
pronounce it -- for a budget for the City of Meridian. When we started it wasn't even ten
million, I don't think, was it?
Rountree: It was barely double digits.
Bird: Yeah. Anyway, I would move that we approve the tentative budget for 95,835,010
dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the motion. Any discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: All right. Council, I do have a couple of reminders. On the 11th of this
month at 10:00 o'clock the Ada County commissioners will be breaking ground on the
Weed and Pest Control building just down east on Pine. Also on August 14th at 9:00
a.m. we will have a ribbon cutting for the opening of a small business development
center out -- within the annex over on Main Street. And also a joint meeting with the
Ada County commissioners on the 14th at 11 :00 a.m.
Bird: At the courthouse; right?
De Weerd: At the courthouse.
Berg: Madam Mayor, I will find out specifically what room, since we have to do a notice
and make sure you get that information.
De Weerd: Usually we don't have members of the public still with us. Is there anything
you have -- okay. Council?
Rountree: Just a slow night in Meridian, uh?
De Weerd: Yes, sir. If you will step up to the microphone.
Audience Member: Where can I get a copy of this budget?
Meridian City Council
August8,2006
Page 40 of 40
De Weerd: You can get a copy of the tentative budget online.
Audience Member: Online.
De Weerd: But you can also come into the clerk's office and request a copy there as
well.
Berg: Madam Mayor, the official notice for the Public Hearing will be put in the Valley
Times next Monday and the following Monday as required by state statute and the
Public Hearing will be the 29th at 6:00 o'clock.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You guys don't want to say anything? Okay. I move that we adjourn.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carries.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE Pg,~,~:~,:~)
\ \ III
DE WEERD "",\~~ ~/I///"""
~' c)r~' ~
~ -. ., )'L-- -:::.
( ~m~ 1f~~~,~
%.,.~ ,,~ .oV'{.fl.. LI AM G. BERG JR., CIT CLERK
~ "'Q _'-~r 1S1" ' -.F-::-
-/".< 7Mf COu,m ,C\'t- ,....::::-
"" ." ,"-
"/11 . \\,\
I" \\\
11111111 nl\\\'
'1 / 5 / &6
DATE APPROVED