Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 10-28 Meridian City Council Meeting October 28, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M., Tuesday, October 28, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Doug Strong and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird __O__ Robert Corrie De Weerd: We will go ahead and start the regular agenda for Tuesday, October 28. It's 7:15. I apologize for the delay. We will begin with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item number two, adoption of the agenda. Are there any changes? Bird: Madam Chairman, we -- one thing that's been brought, Item C on the Consent Agenda, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law just got to us today. I don't know when they got to Harris Homes or if Harris Homes got a representative here or what the deal is, so if we need to pull that or not, I don't know. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, we had the findings prepared and ready to go before the deadline last week, but there was a hold up on verification of the legal descriptions from Harris Homes, which just came. It may have been just yesterday. So, that's why they were late. I don't think the applicant's had a chance to look at them and review them. De Weerd: Okay. Well, would you like to pull that item and put it on the regular agenda? Nichols: Madam Chairman, however you -- Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 2 of 42 De Weerd: Is the applicant here? No. Bird: Madam Chairman? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think there are three of them. Does it affect all three? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, it does somewhat affect all three. It's just the annexation and zoning findings were the ones that were delayed for the legal description. The others were not. So, those, actually, came over last week. I would think that they have gone out and they have had a chance to look at those. De Weerd: But we can't pass the other one -- Bird: So, anyway, we will have to either continue -- continue until next week or pull them to the regular agenda and make them 5C, 5D, and 5E and we can do that when we do the Consent Agenda. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, would it be your suggestion to just continue them until next week? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, yes. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: And also we need a resolution number on the authorizing the city to become a party in the Intermountain Regional Mutual. Berg: Sorry, Madam President. I would have had this posted. 03-416, resolution number. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Will. Bird: Okay. With that, Madam President, I would move that we -- well, we got to take another -- De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I think there has also been a request from our Planning and Zoning Director to add on a department report. What's with the hat? Powell: I can take it off, but you, in Coeur d'Alene, at the conference, you insisted that I wear it to city one day and I thought the day before Halloween would be the only appropriate time that I could wear the hat. So, in the spirit of Halloween, I'm wearing the hat, but if you would like me to take it off, I would be happy to. De Weerd: Remind me to be careful on what I say. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 3 of 42 Nary: I would only like it if Mr. Watson would have one, too. De Weerd: I was thinking Mr. Smith myself. Okay. So, if we can add a department report for our Planning and Zoning Director under four. Add a 4B. Are there any other changes? Bird: Yes. We had a letter -- Madam President. We had a letter from Billy Ray Strite wanting to pull or continue the item number -- which item was that, Will? Berg: Nine. Bird: Nine. Yeah. The Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, Ruwe. De Weerd: To November 5th? Bird: Yeah. To November 5th. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we adopt the agenda as amended. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda with the notations that Item nine has been requested to be continued to November 5th and the continuation of Items 3C, D and E to next week, also on November 5th. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. October 7, 2003 Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting: B.October 14, 2003 Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 019 Request for annexation and zoning of 16 acres from RUT to Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 4 of 42 Highgate Subdivision R-8 zones for proposed by Harris Homes, LLC - 2700 North Meridian Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 10 other lots on 15.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC – 2700 North Meridian Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for single-family residential Planned Development with a mix of attached and Highgate detached housing in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC – 2700 North Meridian Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 020 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.13 acres from R-6 to Office Jet Subdivision L-O zones for proposed by Wardle and Associates – 1975 North Locust Grove Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP 03-003 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 4 building Office Jet lots on 1.13 acres in a proposed L-O zone for proposed Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1975 North Locust Grove Road: H. Development Agreement: AZ 03-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-15 (PD) and C-N zones for The Courtyards at Ten Mile proposed by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: I. Resolution No. : Authorizing the City to become a party to the Intermountain Regional Mutual Assistance Agreement: J. Finance Report: De Weerd: Item 3. Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 5 of 42 Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda with Items 3C, 3D, and 3E being continued to 11/5/03 and Item I, resolution number is 03-416, and for the president to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, with Items 3C, D, and E to be continued to November 5th and notation of resolution number for Item I, 03-416. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Department Reports: A. Public Works Department – Gary Smith 1. Discussion of Prioritization of Transportation Task Force Committee Projects List: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item four, Department Reports. We will start with public works, discussion of prioritization of the Transportation Task Force Committee project list. Smith: Thank you, Madam President, Council Members. On September the 10th, the Meridian Transportation Task Force Committee members met in the conference room at Compass to discuss prioritization of our transportation projects for Meridian and the prioritized list is as presented to you in the attached -- in the memo that I submitted on October the 17th. We spent about four hours, I guess, in that conference room discussing all of the projects that we had on last year's priority list and reprioritized -- changing the priority of those items that we felt, as a committee, should be changed. This evening in attendance to assist in answering any of your questions is Clair Bowman from Compass and Matt Stolle, who is transportation manager for Compass. I know there are some concerns about the prioritized -- the method of -- creating the priority of the projects and Matt would be available to answer those questions and Clair is here to address concerns that you may have on the Ten Mile Interchange and its priority location. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Gary, I got one question. Why is Locust Grove overpass still on priority? I mean that thing is -- we have already bought -- how much right of way and stuff -- it's going. It shouldn't be on the -- on the priority list. It's a job, as far as I'm concerned. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 6 of 42 Smith: Councilman Bird, understand your question and your concern and I think that Matt is probably the person to answer that as far as the priority listing is concerned. De Weerd: Thank you. Matt. Stolle: Madam President, Councilman Bird. Locust Grove is still on your priority list, because you want to insure that ITD and the other implementing agencies understand that it's still a top priority. Although it's labeled in -- or identified in the Transportation Improvement Program currently, there is the potential, if a high priority project came into district three or into the area, that folks could look at what Meridian identified as the top priorities and see that Locust Grove is not identified and slip that project back. There is always the possibility that although it's in a five year time period, that based upon competing priorities during the given year, it could, during the given life cycle of the plan, it could slip, based upon the immediate needs of the community. So, you always want to highlight what your top priorities are until they are built. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Matt, I appreciate that and I thank you very much, but I thought the money and everything was set from ITD, the federal -- the reason we got set back two years is because they -- ITD went out and got federal money and it was the study that done it. Actually, when we originally started this, we were supposed to open it this fall, the same time as the school opened and it has gone back. So, I thought the monies were already basically like our -- up to 1.8 million that we had guaranteed to help with. I thought that was set aside, but, evidently, it don't happen that way, from what you're telling me. Stolle: Madam President, Councilman Bird, to an extent you're absolutely right. If you look at the Transportation Improvement Program, it's a five year program. The first three years are hard and fast money. Once they are in there, we are feeling pretty comfortable about that. For the current plan, that includes 2004, 2005, and 2006. Locust Grove overpass is identified for construction in 2007 and so there is the possibility that -- again, as competing projects came up, it could slide. Now, there is -- additional funds are being spent to move that towards construction and the other thing to keep in mind is that Congressional discretionary funds have been requested for that project that it could get slipped forward significantly if, during the re-authorization process, we get funds. Bird: I understand and I want it kept on there. That's the number one priority. I understand. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 7 of 42 Nary: Yeah. I guess I had read -- that's the way I had read this form as well is what you said. The reason it was on there is what I assumed and the reason the two projects that are removed is because they actually are in the construction bidding process, they are already actually in the process of actually beginning. I think that tells me, though, after our discussion last week, that the Ten Mile Interchange needs to be number two. Bird: That's -- I'm with you. Nary: Because I don't see how we can let that be so far down on the radar, based on everything you just said, as our concerns are is how high a priority we, as a Council, have felt that is and for the exact same reason that you just stated. I think we have to move that to number two. De Weerd: I guess that would raise the question, then, as to all the landing roads, where they fall in the priorities on this list as well. Nary: Well, when I looked at the list, I mean, obviously, number six is already in the process of being constructed, so it's, obviously, not done in this set pattern of one through whatever. So, obviously, those other things are going to have to get done, but if we don't keep the radar screen on that interchange, as much as we have heard from a variety of other sources, especially, the fact that it's low on the priority list in regards to the Congressional funding, it's not going to happen and I think we need to keep that as high on the list as we reasonably can to make sure that is always the forefront to people. Because the other things we happen, the other things are going to get done, whether they are four, five, six, or 12, if they are a landing road and the number two is going to get funded at some point, we are going to have to fix that and fix those other roadways to attach, but I don't see them not happening because something else is ahead of them, because things happen based on funding anyway. But the priority of what we think is important I think needs to stay focused on the I-84. De Weerd: Do you have any comment, Matt? Stolle: Madam President, Councilman Nary, I'm slightly at a disadvantage, because I don't have your particular memo in front of me. However, I would say that whatever rationale that you use for identifying Meridian's priorities, that's fine. What you want to identify is what are the priorities for your community and submit that to Compass and ITD and ACHD to identify where you'd like things -- what projects you'd like to be constructed in your jurisdiction and you need to highlight that, so when they are making their decisions on funding and the competing needs, that they can weigh that. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 8 of 42 Bird: Matt, I have got a question, too, and this is something that was brought up at Compass and I should have brought it up to you there, is why we are lumping Ten Mile in with the Meridian and the widening of the deal. You're taking a 16 million dollar project and making it 56 million. You go back to the 14, 16 million, which was the Black Cat off ramp and we have got a private industry that's coming in and offered five million dollars, that's a good chunk. De Weerd: Ten Mile. Bird: Ten -- oh, I'm sorry. Ten Mile. What was I saying? De Weerd: Oh, my God, you said Black Cat. Bird: Oh. Nary: Strike that reference. Bird: Strike that from the record. It's Ten Mile. I'm sorry. Anyway, It was Ten Mile and, you know, we got a nice chunk being offered by private industry to get this thing built right now and I think I'm like Mr. Nary, we have got to put that second on our priority list and the widening of Meridian can't be done until you get Ten Mile. There is no way you can close that ramp down. You know, you got to have -- that would only leave Eagle Road to go across and the widening of the lanes you won't do until you get those two projects done, so they could be phased. So, you know, we are talking about instead of 56 million dollars, we are talking about 14 to 16 million to do the Ten Mile Interchange. Stolle: Madam President, Councilman Bird, first off, I'd just like to say Compass staff is not saying that it's 55 million dollars, that's ITD's rationale. But I would like to let Clair Bowman respond to that regarding the Ten Mile Interchange, if that's possible. De Weerd: Thank you, Matt. Bowman: For the record, I'm Clair Bowman with Compass. Madam President, Members of the Council, the issues surrounding the Ten Mile interchange proposal are as complex as anything we deal with in our agency. We have five separate agencies with direct interest, plus a developer, and, for the record, the five agencies are the Ada County Highway District, City of Meridian, Compass, Idaho Transportation Department, and the Federal Highway Administration. The U.S. Congress sets up the planning -- the transportation planning process inside this metropolitan area, so that there are two distinct sets of responsibilities that happen in parallel, one by the Idaho Transportation Department and one by the local governments, which Compass facilitates. Neither one of us can force the other to construct something, so we are in a situation where we always have to negotiate. That's the basic premise of how we deal with this. The Federal Highway Administration actually owns the rights to the access on the interstate, so their rules about how we justify access have to come into play. The Idaho Transportation Department in the board meeting for the Community Planning Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 9 of 42 Association last week, stated that it is their belief -- Councilman Bird, I don't think Pam Lowe said that they all have to go simultaneously. What I think she said was that the building of the Ten Mile Interchange, in their mind, requires that as soon as it's open they be ready to reconstruct the Meridian interchange, so that it handled a third lane underneath it and, then, immediately after that one is open, that the third lane be added between the two, so that they are phased projects, but she did not feel comfortable, from ITD's perspective, budgeting one of those, even for 16 million dollars, in the absence of knowing where the other 30 or 40 million dollars is coming from for the other functions to be done there. If I may, Madam Chair, I will go on to one of the questions about what the developer's role is here that I anticipate I have heard from a couple of you. It is clearly possible that the Ten Mile Interchange could be placed into Compass's Transportation Improvement Program in a way that would allow the developer to proceed with the environmental impact statement or assessment. One piece of that environmental impact assessment for an interstate project -- in fact, for most of the projects, but specifically for an interstate project, one piece of it that the Federal Highway Administration requires is for there to be an alternatives analysis. What alternatives exist to Ten Mile? Logically, those are Black Cat, Linder, McDermott, some of those other section line crossings. That doesn't mean we have to give up the investment that the City of Meridian has placed already into your sewer expansion, it doesn't mean we have to give up the long range plan preferences that Compass has addressed over the last five or six years. What it means is that somebody is going to have to do an alternatives analysis. For the developer to pay for and do that is not preferable to the Idaho Transportation Department. They want Compass to do that. Compass can do the alternatives analysis with participation by the City of Meridian at the Compass Board and regional transportation advisory committee levels and the environmental impact statement can include it by reference, if the alternatives analysis is done correctly. So, the discussion at last Monday's board meeting was not to give up Ten Mile and start over again, it was to say we have alternatives analysis we need to do, ITD has offered some funds to do that, Compass has some -- I think we will be able to add to that to get it done well and we should be able to do that reasonably quickly. Meanwhile, if we modify the Transportation Improvement Program, the developer can go ahead and start that environmental impact statement with our alternatives analysis simply to be included by reference at the point where they move forward. I hope that addresses the question I anticipated you would be asking, Madam President. De Weerd: I appreciate you answering a question before I asked it. Bowman: I don't have any comments to offer. Bird: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you, Clair. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 10 of 42 Nary: I think Mr. Bowman raised, you know, some very valid points. You know, unfortunately, it always shows why people think the government never can get anything done, because it takes five agencies to figure out what the best place to build something that in 25 years everybody else knows it. I think because it seems like, in my experience in our community both -- in this county, that there isn't an instruction at the top of this list that says what criteria did we use to put it on this list, but it appears that we have seen other projects fall off the map, it's because the perception is that this listing is what we think is important and sometimes it somehow got on this list, because of funding or perception of when funding might happen or when projects could occur and if it wasn't the priority we thought was important, it's what we thought could happen and I think what we need to do is focus on what we think is important. You know, we said last week and we talked about it last week that our constituents tell us all the time what did you do to get this done and one thing we can do as a Council is we can tell ITD and the feds and the state how important we think this project is and we think it should be number two, because after that overpass gets built, that's the next thing we think should happen. We recognize money may be an issue, we recognize there are other factors and other agencies that have to address it, but as a community we think it's important, we think it needs to get done. How it gets done, when it gets done, we recognize there is some other process to it, but I just can't see how we not send this list back with that as the number two priority after the Locust Grove overpass and how these other things fall into place after that, things will -- things will probably get done. But I think we need to make sure that its number two. Bird: I agree. De Weerd: I agree. I guess it remains, then, as we look at the connecting roads to it, where you put the Ten Mile improvements between Franklin and Ustick and that sort of thing and, Bruce, I guess, if you can -- if you can step forward. How best can we look at that, because we are going to do the Locust Grove overpass and Ten Mile Interchange, you have some -- ACHD already has some of those landing roads in the work plan, in the five year work plan, but do they need to also reflect the high priority, so that some of these other roads need to take a lesser role. So, do we need to further modify this list? Mills: Madam President, Council Members, Bruce Mills, and ACHD. Do you have an extra copy that I could borrow? Nary: Madam President, just while Bruce is looking at that, I mean in looking at those other priorities -- I mean widen Meridian from Cherry Lane to Franklin, the sidewalk project, that, obviously, is a little bit different, but widen Linder Road from Franklin north to Ustick, widen Ten Mile from Franklin to Ustick -- I mean those are areas that are all going to be impacted by the Ten Mile interchange. So I'm not sure that this is, really, a big necessity to move them. I mean the sidewalk project is sort of in the middle there, but it's not funded, it's not on the priority list, it's not even designed yet, I mean I think it was just to make sure it's up there for consideration, but it's not a -- normally not an impact fee type of project, it's going to be a piecemeal type of project anyway. But I Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 11 of 42 mean I think those -- I mean unless there was a specific one you were talking about moving further up, these seem to be fairly high up. De Weerd: I guess the Linder project might need to be moved and I know that the ACHD commissioners at the Compass board meeting did mention, you know, how that would affect our priority list and how those roads would all line up and so maybe if you can also get some further feedback from staff at ACHD on how best to do this. Mills: I can, Madam President. I would tend to agree with Councilman Nary that I don't think at this point, at this stage, there is really a need to reprioritize those, this list here. Certainly, next year would be a good time to look at seeing if we wanted to move some of those differently, but I don't think it would make a big difference this year. Ten Mile, the construction is still out there quite a ways. That's my thoughts. De Weerd: Okay. Just if any of these are an area that you're going to start planning or right-of-way acquisition that might need to be moved somewhere different. I guess those are my questions. Mills: Okay. De Weerd: And we don't want to send the wrong message that maybe we need to do a little shuffling, we are willing to do that. So, just as long as that message is clear, because we have reprioritized or we are putting Ten Mile in there, we want to make sure everything else will align and that we are flexible that we can do what we need to do to back up these priorities. Mills: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Bruce. So, I guess, Gary, this leaves just the one change right now in moving up the Ten Mile Interchange. Smith: Okay. Thank you. One of the requirements is to submit this prioritized list to ACHD and Compass by October 31st, so your recommendation, then, is just to move -- is to move the Ten Mile Interchange into position number two and move everything else down accordingly? De Weerd: Yes. Nary: Well, Madam President, I guess are we really moving everything down? I look at it as remove, but I guess -- oh, I see. I understand what you're saying. Never mind. See, I think that -- do you want a motion to that? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 12 of 42 Nary: Well, I guess, then, I would move that we take what is currently on the list as priority 13, the Ten Mile I-84 Interchange, and move that to the current TIP as the number two priority of project in the 2005-2009 TIP priority list. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's moved and seconded to approve the list with the addition -- or the prioritization of Ten Mile to item number two and all those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Smith: Thank you. B. Planning and Zoning Director – Anna Powell De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. Thank you, Clair and Matt for being here. Okay. Department reports, Item B. Anna. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, on Thursday night I went to the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission hearing for their adoption of the changes to our area city impact agreement, which included the -- having them adopt our July 2002 Comprehensive Plan and the amending resolution of 03-401. There were two outstanding issues. We had a flurry of activity before. They really didn't want to adopt 03-401 and I just said, no you need to. So, they -- we finally agreed that they would do that, but they had concerns about two areas. One was this item, which is part of -- it's I think item four in the urban services policies of 03-401, Resolution 03-401, and their concern is over the park impact fees. They just wanted a written letter from the City Council that said that they -- that you all acknowledge that they would not be collecting fees or withholding building permits until such time as there was a memorandum of understanding between the two jurisdictions. De Weerd: Okay. Powell: And I have penciled out or done just a real rough draft of a letter that stated that -- and in the next issue, which I'll get to. My highlighting doesn't show up very well. I apologize. The second one -- there was two policies under -- actually, they are action items until Chapter 7, Goal 1, Objective D, and there was -- this is one of them where it says require rural area residential development and, then, the other one said allow residential development in rural acres and -- rural areas. Excuse me and they wanted a definition of what rural area -- what that is. Now, I went through all that section and as far as I can tell, the intent was that anything that was in the area of city impact, but outside of city limits that this section of the Comprehensive Plan would apply in those areas and, basically, if you look on this one where it says -- right after the highlighted areas, it says that are outside the city limits, but inside the area of impact. I mean I think it's pretty clear what it refers to. However, they would like that spelled out even Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 13 of 42 more bluntly, so what they have agreed to is that the next time we do a text amendment, if we would just make sure that we put a definition in that states that rural areas are those that are outside the city limits, but inside the area of impact, then, they would be happy with that and I think we could accommodate that by just adding that definition to Objective D in that area. So, these were changes that staff and their attorneys felt uncomfortable with forwarding on a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission until such time as they had assurances from the Mayor and City Council on those two items and that's what I have tried to address in this draft letter. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think the definition of outside the city limits is fine, as long as you put in parenthesis not including enclaved areas, because the concept is if they are enclaved in some fashion, even though they may currently be used for some agricultural purpose, they are susceptible of being provided with city services, much more so than some development that's on the edge of the area of city impact and so when we think about outside of the city limits, we are thinking about something that's toward the edge of the area of city impact, not something that may be internal, but is some enclaved, because it's a 20 acre parcel that has not yet developed and so if we make sure that we exclude enclaves from that -- from that idea, that way somebody doesn't come in and try to do a rural residential subdivision that's in an enclaved area, because we haven't spelled it out accordingly that the county approves it. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary. Nary: To add onto that, too. I think just thinking of the property that's on Locust Grove that we have tacitly agreed to allow to stay outside the city limits, we probably want to -- I don't know it's on enclave, so I want to be sure that we are going to amend the text to include enclaves, that we may also want to include language that says: Unless governed by a separate agreement or something like that, so it's clear that if we have some other agreement, that that's going to govern, not someone wanting to develop, because we have made it -- we did make an agreement with that property that if any part of it was going to get developed, it all would have to get annexed, but I just want to make sure that that gets incorporated in the same fashion that Mr. Nichols is suggesting. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, we did add -- this is probably after you had the joint meeting. As staff we did this, we hope it's okay. Most of the cities, with their area of city impact agreement, have a provision that if the property is adjoining the city limits, that those properties have to come and be refused annexation before they can go to the county and request development. So, as in the case on the Locust Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 14 of 42 Grove property, he is -- he does adjoin the city limits, so that property could not develop in the county until they came to the time city and requested -- or were denied annexation. So, we took care of that in the -- the area of city impact agreements that talk about what applications they can accept and under what conditions. So, that's in a different part of the area of city impact agreement. But the enclaves, there could conceivably be an enclave that was not touching the city limits, so I will make that adjustment and that notation. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Do you need any official action from us? Powell: No, I do not need official action, I just needed to make sure that that was okay, that my -- because I wasn't here during the Comprehensive Plan, sometimes I feel a little uncomfortable just making bold statements, so I just wanted to make sure I was correct and I will meet with their staff and, then, I will -- I do need to get a letter -- I will just talk to Michelle about getting a letter for you all to sign. Bird: Okay. That's what I was going to ask. Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Okay. We did not remove any items from the Consent Agenda. Item 6: Ordinance No. : AZ 03-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-15 (PD) and C-N zones The Courtyards at Ten Mile for proposed by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: De Weerd: So, we will move to Item six. Ordinance No. 03-1054, AZ 03-009, request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-15 PD and C-N zones for the proposed The Courtyards at Ten Mile. I will ask the City Clerk to read this by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 03-1054, an ordinance finding that Anthony Garner and Tracy Garner, the owners of certain real property generally located at the southeast corner of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as The Courtyards at Ten Mile, and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium High Density Residential District (R-15) and Neighborhood Business District (C-N) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 15 of 42 with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03- 1054 by title only. Is there anyone in the audience who would like it read in its entirety? Thank you. Hearing none, Council? McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance 03-1054, request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-15 PD and C-N zones for proposed Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell, Tom Bevin, DTE Developers, with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1054. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: FP 03-056 Request for Final Plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 Trailway Park other lots on 39.15 acresin a R-8 (PD) zone for Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item seven, request for final plat approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 in an R-8 PD zone for Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. Staff? Powell: Madam President, excuse me, Members of the City Council, this is -- this is one of a recently approved in-fill development, actually, for the city and we have got several surrounding subdivisions. We have got -- that doesn't show. We have got Fothergill Subdivision to the north, the Willows to the east, we have got the mobile home park to the south, Bridgewood Park Subdivision over here, and then, this is the meat packing plant and some waste ponds that are in this location, if you remember that conversation. The final plat is in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. The applicant's representative is here tonight and has submitted a letter with -- stating several issues with the staff report. So, I probably need to go through those. There is a typing error on item number three. I think we can consider that one resolved. The applicant will need to discuss eight with you and it's regarding the Ada County Highway District approval in the location of -- in improvements to Blue Heron Lane, which is in the northwest corner Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 16 of 42 of the property. My arrow is not coming up. In the northwest corner of the property by the meat packing plant. It's a substandard road currently and there is insufficient right of way to approve it at this time. Then, on items number ten and eleven, the applicant, when they submitted the preliminary plat, did not specify a minimum lot frontage. When Ms. Kirkpatrick did the staff report, she put down a proposed frontage of 60 foot minimum and 25 foot minimum for the cul-de-sac. As the final plat came through, some of the frontages were just a tad bit less, they are 59 feet and some odd inches. They are exactly consistent with the approved preliminary, it was just kind of a discrepancy between what staff understood to be the minimum that they were asking for, all the variances on our ones where there is kind of an angled portion of the lot, so it's -- it was not readily apparent what the proposed minimum would be. We don't have any problem with the way -- I mean it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat, so we don't have particular concerns. We just wanted to point out that that's what happened. I believe those were the only outstanding issues at this time, but I'm sure represent -- Mrs. McKay will want to speak. De Weerd: Any questions for staff? Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Madam President. Anna, are you saying, then, that in this letter dated October 24th that staff agrees to points 10 and 11 as contained in the applicant's letter? Powell: Yes. I believe that the only outstanding issue from that letter would be number eight. Nichols: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions, Council? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address. McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. McKay: As Anna indicated. We are in agreement with most of all the conditions recommend by the staff. Item three we bolded in our comments, because I believe your motion on the preliminary plat was that we would install any perimeter fencing where there was fencing lacking, because this is an in-fill parcel and we are surrounded on about three and a half sides with existing residential, multi-family and single family development. Item eight deals with Blue Heron Lane. Blue Heron is right here on our northwest boundary. The Jackson Drain comes through our site like this and, then, it turns and goes along the adjoining property on our west boundary. ACHD struggled with what to do with Blue Heron Lane. They finally determined -- and it is specified specifically in their staff report that they wanted us to allocate right of way or dedicate right of way and, then, trust fund for our improvements on Blue Heron. When this property redevelops or is subdivided where ACHD can, obviously, obtain additional right of way and get some improvements for that property owner, then, at that time they will Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 17 of 42 take that trust fund money and make the improvement. At this time it's not possible, because this drain comes in like this and, then, goes to the north, in a kind of a northwesterly direction. We are piping a portion of the drain on our side that we will help facilitate Blue Heron improvements in the future, but it's this off-site portion that is problematic. So, we are just doing what ACHD has requested of us. Items ten and eleven, just for clarification, the problem arises on these pie-shaped lots on these curves. All of these lots are consistently 60 or above. When we come down on the curve we had some that were 59 and, then, on this curve here and that's where the problem arose. I don't know where staff got the 60. Probably looked at the fact that most of the lots do read 60 and didn't check to curve table on these corner -- or these curve lots and -- but I guess staff's in agreement, so -- with us, so we are okay. De Weerd: Okay. Becky, so, then, on item number eight with the ACHD's report, have they corrected that? Is that -- is that reflected in current findings? McKay: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. McKay: It's stated clearly in their findings, which were adopted in our development agreement, that we would trust fund for Blue Heron Lane. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions, Council? Okay. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, does that satisfy you, number eight -- her answer to number eight? Powell: Yes. Bird: I thought so. Ten and eleven you're okay with? Powell: Yes. Bird: How about three? Powell: Yes. Bird: Just want to get it all on here when we make the motion. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 18 of 42 De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the final plat request on FP 03-056, the approval of 161 building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres in an R-8 PD zone for Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corp., east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane, and to incorporate staff and applicant remarks and letters and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the request for final plat on FP 03-005. Mr. Clerk. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: FP 03-057 Request for Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 11 Clearbrook Estates other lots on 11.45 acres in a R-4 zone for Subdivision by R.K. Development, L.L.C. – 2675 North Meridian Road: De Weerd: Item eight, FP 03-057, request for final plat approval of 36 building lots and eleven other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision. I will open with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this is located just off of Meridian Road right above the Five Mile and you have recently seen this. They are coming in for their final plat. This is consistent with the approved final plat. I mean the approved preliminary plat. Excuse me. The applicant has indicated that he's in agreement with the conditions, except for -- on condition number 15 regarding plat note ten, that note needs to be deleted in its entirety. There is no development agreement for this property. It was already zoned. They just did a straight subdivision. De Weerd: So, Anna, you're suggesting to delete 15? Powell: No. Just to delete the reference to plat note ten on condition number 15. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 19 of 42 De Weerd: Does the applicant want to add any testimony? Okay. Okay. Council? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we don't have no discussion, I would move we approve FP 03-057, request for final plat approval of 36 building lots and eleven other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by RK Development, LLC, 2675 North Meridian Road and to incorporate applicant and staff testimony and reports and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, does that include, then, the deletion in item 15? Bird: Yes. That was one of her comments. Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: On item 15. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the request for FP 03- 057. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from October 14, 2003: AZ 03-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G Kissler / Cobbs / Eagy / Ruwe zones for by BRS Architects – southwest corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item number nine has been asked to be continued and I would consider a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 03-018, request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 plus or minus acres, from RT to C-G zones for Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, and Ruwe, by BRS Architects to November 5th, 2003. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 20 of 42 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item number nine, the continued Public Hearing, to November 5th on AZ 03-018. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: AZ 03-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones Sageland Planned Development for proposed by Quasar Development, LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: PP 03-020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 Sageland other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: CUP 03-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a Sageland private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Planned Development by Quasar Development – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. We will open Items 10, 11, and 12, the continued Public Hearing from October 21st, AZ 03-015, request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Sageland Planned Development, PP 03-020, request for a revised preliminary plat approval of 41 building lots and nine other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Sageland Planned Development, and CUP 03-036, the request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Sageland Planned Development. I will start with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, as you will recall at the last hearing, there was quite a bit of -- the property is located at Locust Grove and Victory Road. Sorry. There was a lot of discussion regarding the -- primarily the preliminary plat and including some mechanism to slow down traffic that may be going between Victory Road and Locust Grove Road. The Council talked specifically about including three landscape medians, one at each entrance and, then, one at the intersection of the private lane. It was held over just one week. The applicant submitted a revised plat today, which is before you, that shows speed bumps in two locations. With subsequent conversations between the Ada County Highway District and myself and the applicant prior -- just before the hearing, this is not the preferred approach. Typically, ACHD does not allow speed bumps on new roads, they would prefer to see some other mechanism of traffic calming. The Ada County Highway District has suggested that it would be Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 21 of 42 appropriate to even just cul-de-sac this street here, thereby completely eliminating the possibility of cut-through traffic. I talked with Chief Bowers before and given that there are only 42 building lots or 43 building lots, he's not too concerned about that. They do have an emergency access here, so the cul-de-sac in this location would not be -- they could work with it and would certainly prefer it, rather than the speed bumps. They were opposed to the speed bumps as well. So, that's an issue for the applicant to address with you. The applicant was also going to come back with some indication on reduced setbacks for attached garages and we have not seen that information yet. So, that's the other outstanding issue. We did -- if there is a connection -- if they do cul-de-sac it here, we would like to see a pedestrian and bike connection to continue down this way, because the neighborhood center for -- or the -- there is a mixed use center in this location -- proposed for this location in the future, so we would want to see that pedestrian and foot traffic being able to make its way to the east. With that, I will end staff's presentation for now. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here? Or a representative? If you will raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Forrey: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Forrey: For the record, Wayne Forrey, Pathway Planners Consulting, 1952 South Wild Creek Way in Boise. 83709. De Weerd: Thank you. Forrey: Thank you, Council, for allowing us to come back and clarify two items. In my notes there were traffic calming and setback issues that the Council asked us to go back and evaluate and on -- maybe it's a little hard for Anna Powell to see, but on the plat there is a setback table. It's up in the top -- maybe she can't move that drawing, but on the top of the plat there is a little table that has all of the setbacks in it and the one setback that we added was the rear yard setback of five feet for the detached garages and the garages that are setback on the common drives. The other setbacks are the same setbacks we had in our original application. Thanks to Anna Powell, because she's right, we did not put the rear yard setback in our application and she brought that up at the last meeting. So, we are requesting five foot rear yard setback for the detached garages. Now, on traffic calming. On Friday, October 24th, I had some previously scheduled meetings, so Amanda Alvaro, with Quasar Development, met with ACHD traffic engineers and met with John Wassan and John outlined some -- what works and what doesn't work in terms of ACHD and traffic calming. They looked at the plat and John had mentioned that islands at the intersections were not very workable, given the separated sidewalk and the dimensions of the street. He had mentioned that chicanes or chokers presented some drainage problems. His preferred recommendation was speed humps, traffic reduction speed humps, and, in fact, he Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 22 of 42 outlined that in a letter dated October 24th, and, then, we received it by fax on Monday and I have a copy here for the city, if you'd like. De Weerd: If you will give that to the City Clerk. Thank you. Forrey: In this letter he indicates that there is some difficulty with the islands, there is some difficulty with the chicanes and, then, he -- there is kind of a key sentence and he says: Two speed humps, one on each side of the private lane, would provide proactive traffic calming for the neighborhood and then -- and he also talks about how to install them and he's recommending a portable -- I mean not portable, it's not asphalt, it's recycled tires. It's rubber, and so when ACHD wants to chip seal, a contractor can go out and actually remove that speed hump and they can do road maintenance and, then, reattach that to the road. So, it's a separate rubberized component that is bolted into the roadway and that was his recommendation. So, we took that letter and thought, well -- and our thinking was a stop sign would work at about that location of the intersection, a three way stop, a stop to the private lane -- I will point to it here. A stop sign here, a stop sign here, and a stop sign here. We thought a three way stop would work, but John Wassan said, well, Wayne, what happens -- or to Amanda and I talked to him on the phone, he said people will just ignore that. They will and look see that there is nobody here and there is not a street over here and they will just kind of blow through the intersection is what he said. So, we thought, all right, let's do the speed humps. So, we drafted the plat and we are showing the two locations here for speed humps to physically, you know, slow traffic and discourage cut through, and then, tonight I got here a little bit early and Mr. Mills said, Wayne, have you considered maybe eliminating an access point and he did mention maybe putting a cul-de-sac right here. We had not considered that. You know, we went to ACHD, it was approved. Quasar Development likes the two access points. We have been approved by ACHD and on through the Planning and Zoning and now in front of the Council. I guess if it's the Council's desire that we re-think this, we will have to do that, but our preference would be to install speed humps, if that's workable with other people and the Fire Department. My children attend Borah High School and I have got to go over four or five of those five on the way that I go off of Franklin, down Franklin Park to get to Borah and they do slow me down and the kids, so -- but I know those are afterthoughts and this is a new development and that's one of the points that Mr. Mills made, that this is a new development and we typically install speed humps after there is already an existing neighborhood problem. So, here are some issues, I guess, on how ACHD views speed humps and Mr. Mills is here tonight, maybe he could shed some more light on it. But Anna Powell is right, he did talk to us tonight about could we consider a cul-de-sac here. It's a real tight location to squeeze a cul-de-sac into that location. We might be open to looking at this, you know, but we just don't want to start over again with neighborhood meetings and back to P and Z and back to City Council. So, here we are tonight. We just hope the speed humps work, if that's workable with ACHD and staff and the City Council. Be happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Wayne. Do you have any questions? Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 23 of 42 Bird: Madam President, I do. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Wayne, how many -- I mean you're going to lose some lots if you go with a cul-de- sac back there. I realize that our chief said that he had no problem with emergency vehicles. I do have a problem with not having two entrances myself. I don't like having a cul-de-sac back there. I know you're going to lose a couple three lots with a cul-de- sac back there and I know that's money. Speed bumps definitely do slow traffic down. The safety engineer from ACHD, Mr. Wassan, did you say was the one that -- Forrey: Yes. John Wassan. Bird: -- wanted the speed bumps. Forrey: Uh-huh. Bird: And, Mr. Mills, he's here tonight, he can come and testify why he don't think the speeds bumps should be there. But I have a real problem with that large of a development on having just one entrance and exit. I would -- I think we can somehow calm the traffic down, but I think we have got to leave the two entrances and exists myself. That's my personal opinion. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I'd wait for Mr. Mills. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Forrey: Thank you. De Weerd: Well, this is a Public Hearing. I would imagine maybe if we could have Mr. Mills come up first and -- might influence any other testimony on the two items we kept open for public comment. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mills: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Mills: Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District, Garden City. I guess to answer the questions, first of all, ACHD probably should apologize to the applicant, because, unfortunately, even though are traffic people talked to them last week after -- or afterwards our development people got together and a felt little bit otherwise, I guess, so let me just put it this way. Our preferred option on this one -- the least preferred option, if I could go backwards, would probably be the speed humps, because as was Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 24 of 42 mentioned earlier, speed humps, really, have not been approved on new developments in ACHD before. They have been used to mitigate existing circumstances where there are no other options available. They are effective. They do have certain problems. I know emergency services aren't real fans of them, though, either. So, there, really, are two options, other than that that we see. The cul-de-sac option was just something that our staff kicked around. We realize that you have your own requirements for maximum number of lots and length of street that you would have to look at for that, but we just thought that's one way to totally eliminate any cut-through traffic. That's why we mention that as a potential option. The other one were the islands. I think medians could still work. Obviously, you have to wow around them. If you pulled up to your Clearbrook Subdivision that you did earlier tonight, they were able to still put medians in there and get enough room for the emergency vehicles to get around them. So, that is also another option. We would prefer that over the speed bumps, I guess. So, I'll stand for questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Okay. Any other testimony? Powell: Madam Chair? Or Madam President? De Weerd: Anna. Powell: I had not noticed the table on the corner of the plat. I do have some comments regarding that. They have proposed a blanket rear setback of five feet. It does not specify that that would be for -- just for detached garages. So, I think we need to make that clear. Also, the front setback and the street side yard setback are both listed as -- it's not exactly consist with what the staff report indicated as proposed, so we just need to work with the applicant on the 15 feet versus 20 feet for garage and it's just a bit of word smithing, but the rear setback does need to state that it's five feet just for the detached garages or by common drives, I believe. De Weerd: Thank you. Wayne, would you like to wrap this up? Forrey: Yes. Thank you. Wayne Forrey again. For the record, it would a five foot rear yard setback for any detached garage. Not for a home or living space, but a detached garage, if the builder chose to have a detached garage at the rear of the property and if I need to write a letter to that effect, be happy to do that, in addition to what's in the testimony tonight. Boy, I just hope we don't have to start over to get to this point in the development -- you know, we started back in May of this year and I can see that a cul- de-sac would definitely stop, you know, the interconnectivity there. In my thinking, a stop sign would work, but I follow -- I'm afraid to blow through a stop sign myself. I'm afraid I'd get caught and it's not the right thing to do, but I know people do jam through there and will run a stop sign, I guess, but a speed bump is definitely going to slow Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 25 of 42 down traffic. They will hit it once and the next time they will slow down. So, our thinking is that would be workable. I just hope it's workable with other people. But, boy, we just want to have to start over, having come this far, with a -- what we think is a good project for Meridian and the neighborhood. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, Mr. Forrey, if I'm hearing you correctly, then, I don't think you'd have to start if you put islands there. But if I'm hearing you saying, then, what you're plan is is not to put any islands there, so we either like the speed humps or not? Forrey: It's possible if I -- let me point here to answer Councilman Nary's questions. It's possible there is room to put an island in this area here, but it's not workable at these approached intersections. There is not enough dimension in the width here to get enough traffic for turning movements and that was pointed out in John Wassan's letter. Here there is a little -- it opens up, you know, because of these curve radiuses at this intersection and you have got a micropath there, so there is a little room in there to work with to meet ACHD design requirements. So, if the Council said we don't want speed humps, we want is island, what we would hope that you would allow us to do is put an island at this location. But our preference is not to put an island in, it's to use these speed humps. Nary: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Wayne, are your lots at the minimum size, so you can't do any adjustment on those lots to accommodate an island? Forrey: We have a fixed point here with the pathway and we have got a fixed point with the home right here and a fixed point with this private drive, and so it's these depths here that we just don't have the room to adjust to keep those above minimum lot size we desired and there is just not enough room in here. It's just a difficult design issue. It would just be much easier in this location if we had an island. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Forrey: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 26 of 42 Bird: If there is no more public testimony, before we close it, I'd like to get the other Council's feeling on retaining speed bumps or trying the island at that location. I think, basically, the speed bumps are at that location anyway, you're not going to slow them down until they get there anyway and they do have a curve coming -- if they are going to school, they would be coming off of Victory and turning right coming through there. I would have no problem with an island if it's calmer, over the speed bumps. I, for one, hate speed bumps, but they do do the job, let's put it that way. They do do the job, but if an island would do it there at that one location, I would be for doing that. I'd also like to ask Mr. Forrey before -- and I should have asked him questions, but where he's got the cul-de-sac out there, is there a chance that an island could be put there, too? That would give us two islands to have -- you know, if we put the island there, they have got -- you know, they have got a good, what, quarter of a mile, half a mile to pick up speed by the time they hit Locust Grove and if we could put another island there where it goes off, that would be two islands to kind of slow it down and we have got the corner down on east side there as you come off of Victory that is bound to slow them down. We might have a few wind up in somebody's yard, but that goes with the territory, you know, of any road, but I would like to see the islands in there -- if it possibly could be done, two of them, one at the location there with the private road, which Mr. Forrey already testified he could do, and maybe do one down at the cul-de-sac, if possible. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I guess Mr. Forrey can come up and respond. I would concur that I think that -- that's a much better solution than the speed bumps. I think speed bumps have the same problem that the chokers do, is that they are not a very visible deterrent for cars that are coming. People have a tendency to forget they are there, they going flying over those things -- I agree that, eventually, people figure it out, but I think an island is a visible obstruction that tends to slow people down and looking at the roadway of Clearbrook that we just approved, I mean, you know, even with that -- and that's a fairly small, pretty tight subdivision and roadway and they were able to fit those islands in the middle and I think your solution of putting it there at the cul-de-sac and the private drive is probably better than the entranceway and it is a portion where the roadway is wider and that would seem to make it a better fit and would slow the traffic down. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Forrey, would you like to comment? We just waited until you sat down, so -- Forrey: Thank you. Madam President, Councilman Nary, I just did a little math here and let me show you the distance from an edge of an island here to the edge of the island here is 221 feet. So, it's not a great distance. It's 220 feet between islands. So, I'm thinking in this -- the scale of this project, it's less than ten acres, one island ought to work right here and it's a logical location, because of the private drive and the micropath, so you could incorporate a crosswalk halfway through that island and, then, Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 27 of 42 it's 221 feet to the next, you know, the intersection area and, then, just another less than 200 feet away. Bird: So, we are not even a quarter mile at that? Forrey: No. No. See, from this area back to Locust Grove is probably around -- I can get you the exact -- 350 feet or so. Bird: And another thing I just -- Forrey: It's not a large project. Bird: -- pointed out that putting an island, Mr. Nary, on that cul-de-sac, if you look at block -- or Lot 5, we might have trouble getting in and out with an island there, so maybe the one island -- I didn't realize it was that close, because we don't have a scale. Forrey: Right. Bird: -- deal here, so -- but if it's that small, maybe the one island at the private roadway will work, because I -- you know, it just pointed out to me that Lot 5 would -- it's going to be major getting in and out of it if you have an island there. Nary: True. Bird: Where down at the private one you do have that Lot No. 11, which is a -- De Weerd: Pathway. Bird: -- pathway. I can accept the one island. I can accept the one island if it's done right. Nary: Me, too. De Weerd: Thank you. Forrey: And we can, too. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Anna, do you have any comments or anything further? Powell: Well, I would like to point out that he's got 116 feet here and 106 feet here. His standard lot length in this area is just 100 feet. So, there is 16 feet of length there to play with, if the Council desires a median or landscape island in this location. He is very tight here. He's got a hundred foot lot length in this location on both sides of the street. I'm wondering if the Council wants to indicate some sort of minimum width to the calming device. I mean a five foot -- if you don't have to slow down to get around it, then, it's not much of a calming device. It's got to be wide enough that it actually gets Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 28 of 42 people to slow down and go around them, so I'm wondering if the Council wants to give the applicant some idea on that and I don't know if Bruce would have recommendations on what, actually, serves as a -- to calm traffic for those islands, if there is an optimal size. De Weerd: Bruce, would you have a comment on that? Provide us some feedback. Mills: Madam President, I believe this is 29 feet curb to curb. This -- Powell: It's a 50 foot street section -- or 50 foot right of way, but 29 feet side of curb to side of curb. Mills: Is there parking on one side? I'm trying to remember what was -- that's correct. Okay. Typically, you do want to narrow it down. You still want to -- from our standpoint, we just want to have at least 12 feet of clear distance on one side of the island. I know your emergency services people would want probably 20 on one side and I'm think they are probably -- they can probably still get around on the south side of that island with a private drive there. So, I'm not doing good on the math on the fly here, but -- which side are you going to have your parking on? It's on the north side? Okay. Bird: Bruce, we don't put that in the middle. Let me ask you a question. I can see the kids coming right in and coming right out. I don't see them coming home from school using it, because they have to cross traffic to get out and in. So, I see it being that. So, if the north side has got the parking and stuff, and, like you said, our emergency vehicles need a wider than what you guys require, we are going to have to -- things are going to have to be offset, which I don't think is bad. I think if it is offset it does help. Mills: I think it would. Bird: It would work and do you have any -- we have -- I have no idea what width we need to have there and I don't believe any of the other Council people have, because we have never had this -- and you and staff has to tell us what we need for a calmer. Mills: Yeah. To be honest, I wouldn't know off the top of my head. I would suggest you might say something like minimum five foot, if feasible, and just make sure that we can get something like that. Yes, you want to have something that they can see. You don't just want to have a little two foot curb, because that's not going to do any good at all. Bird: But a minimum of five feet. Mills: Right. I don't know if the applicant has opportunities to wow out the curb, for instance, on the north side or not. Maybe not. Maybe those lots are already squeezed as much as they can be. I don't know. If they can't, then, we just have to fit what we can within the 29 feet, recognizing that we still need to get your emergency vehicles around it. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 29 of 42 Bird: But the nice thing about keeping the two entries, emergency vehicles can come in from either entry to get to it, so that does help. They don't have to go through that calmer all the time, if they -- you know, emergency vehicles don't have to -- Mills: That's correct and I would definitely say that it's -- you know -- do I have this on? Oh, here we go. That this would be more critical than trying to put one down here, because here you have a stop condition, so you're not really calming the traffic at that point. De Weerd: And you bollards on that private drive, correct? Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: So, they have access in there, too. Bird: That's right. Mills: Sorry, that's kind of a half answer, but that's the best I can do. Bird: With a five foot minimum is what we should require. Mills: Yes. Bird: If that's workable. Mills: Correct. Bird: Thank you, Bruce. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I guess I should have given a little more, but if it's five feet, then, you have got two and a half feet straddling, basically, the center line, so you're only having to adjust your travel way two and a half feet. I guess I would recommend ten foot minimum. If you truly want it to slow down traffic, it needs to be enough that they are physically having to slow down to make a curve. I mean, usually, if I was designing one and I really wanted to slow down traffic, I would make it 40 to 50 feet, in all honesty. So, I think that ten feet, as a traffic calming device, is -- is probably a minimum. A five foot landscape is our minimum for a landscape berm -- or a landscape island, but as far as traffic goes, I think that probably needs to be a little bit bigger to really slow people down. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, you say a minimum of ten? Is that workable in there without costing them some lots? Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 30 of 42 Powell: Well, they have got 14 and a half feet on each side of center line for a travel lane right now. If ACHD allowed 12 foot on one side, that gives them two feet to play with on the other side, so that's 16 and a half, they still have to meet probably a 20 foot minimum, depending on how the emergency services can get around it. So, they might have to make up a couple feet there. So, they will have to make up ten feet, but I think that those lots can accommodate it for a short distance in those designs. Really won't know until somebody sat down and designed it. Bird: How long would you recommend the calmer to be? I mean we are talking about ten foot wide. Should it be 30 feet long or -- Powell: It doesn't have to be long, it just has to get them to slow down and go around it, so -- Bird: It should be longer than a car length, though? Or an SUV, don't you think? Powell: I'm not sure that that's necessary. I mean it really just -- the idea is just to get them around and, then, I think we have a minimum size square footage area that they'd need to meet for the landscape island, but -- Bird: Do you know what that is? Powell: Not off the top of my head. Bird: Okay. But you do have -- you do have some guidance -- Powell: Yes. Bird: -- for the applicant on that. I like your ten foot. I have no problem, if we can work this out, and I think we can. De Weerd: I guess what could happen is we can approve the annexation and ask the preliminary plat -- hold it over to November 5th, unless we just want staff to work out the design standards. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I mean I think -- I think we have highlighted in the last ten minutes why we usually have the applicant do this, because either we are -- either we are going to have to have you do it or we are going to have to have you have them approve it and so -- I mean I don't care, but it would seem to me if it's my money, I want to design it. I want to design what I think is going to work the best and I'm going to -- you're the one that's going to have to crunch those numbers to see whether or not it has to be offset a little Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 31 of 42 bit, whether or not it's going to have to take a portion off of the southern properties a little bit. Obviously, you're going to have to move some of the parking a little further away from that island, because you can't have cars parked right up against it, because the road won't be wide enough. But I guess if it was me, I would rather design it myself, rather than have none of us who know what we are doing up here doing that for you, so that we can leave it for Ms. Powell to figure out later. I mean that just doesn't seem very fair to anybody, but -- Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Nary and fellow Councilwomen, I would have no problem passing these with the stipulation that -- I'm with Mr. Nary a hundred percent, that Mr. Forrey and his group design it and -- the staff can buy off on it. They know what we want right now. We want a calmer, ten foot minimum, and -- so I would have no problem passing these, so we don't have to bring them back with us. I think that's the only thing we are questioning and Anna is certainly capable of making sure that it's done right. I would have no problem with that, if agreeable to the applicants. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, if you do something like that, what would I recommend that you do, though, is that staff approve the design before we submit the findings to you for approval. So that we have a design which can be attached to the findings for you to review, so that that way we are not approving -- you're not approving a preliminary plat with an item left undone and if there is some sort of disagreement between staff and the applicant, then, they have the ability to come back before you and have you be the final arbiter of the issue, but that way it's done. I think we'd probably only be looking at a delay of maybe a week for approval of the findings, just in order for the applicant to be able to have a final drawing ready to go, because, typically, we have these ready for two -- in two weeks and so, you know, whatever length of time it takes for you to get it to staff in time for them to review and say, yes, we like this or go back and tweak that, that would be the only additional delay. But you wouldn't have another hearing unless you couldn't agree. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I would agree and what I'm understanding from you, Mr. Nichols, is when we make the motion, we just state your comments, too, but we go ahead and pass these three things with that stipulation on the plat -- part of the preliminary plat. Nichols: Councilman Bird, Members of the Council, I think that's correct. Although I think what you want to do is you want to say the target is this width, because, then, if Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 32 of 42 the applicant presents a legitimate case to Mrs. Powell for a nine foot one and you said it has to be ten foot, then, we could have some issues coming back. But your target width is ten feet and, then, the applicant knows to work with that and see how they can make that work and that's their target, but within allowances, then, Mrs. Powell would know that she could still go ahead and approve something, even if it wasn't exactly ten feet. Bird: Great. Okay. Agreed. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Okay. Any further discussion? I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. McCandless: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11, and 12. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Who dares try this? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'll try the first one. The zoning and annexation. De Weerd: You got the easy part. Nary: Cheater. Bird: Yeah. We are going down the line. Guess who's next. I would move that we approve AZ 03-015, request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC, northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and east Victory Road and to incorporate staff, applicant, and public testimony and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-015. Mr. Clerk. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 33 of 42 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 11. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move the approval of PP 03-020, the request for a revised preliminary plat approval of 41 building lots and nine other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development at the northeast corner of South Locust Grove and East Victory Road, to include all staff comments, comments of the applicant, with the amendments on the plat to reflect that the rear yard setback will be noted on the plat, was for detached garages, that the roadway will contain a traffic calming island at the intersection of the private drive and the main roadway of Sagemoor Drive. The design to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Department, with a target of a ten foot traffic calming island in approximately that intersection, the final design to be approved prior to the approval of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. I think that was it. For counsel to prepare those Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law after that approval. Powell: Madam President? Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Anna. Powell: Madam President, I believe the setback actually goes with the PD. Nary: Oh. I'm sorry. Okay. Well, I thought we wanted it on the plat as well, though. We had -- I guess because it's written on the plat. I don't know if we wanted it on both, as a plat note, as well as in the -- Powell: Brad and I have -- Brad Watson and I have been trying to move away from having notes on the plat that are -- the Ada County surveyor calls them planner notes. We have been trying to record those as a separate document. We are attaching them to the final plats for the purposes of the Building Department, but we are moving away from having to require those notes on the face of the plat. The Ada County surveyor has been making things difficult in that regard and we are just trying to move away from that. Nary: Madam President, did you want them to take off that table entirely, then? Powell: Yes. It would not be on the final plat. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 34 of 42 Nary: Okay. Then, with Mrs. Powell's recommendation, I guess we will include that as part of the CUP application and not the plat. That's fine. Bird: Before the second agrees to it, I got something that I want to say. De Weerd: Does the second agree? Bird: Does the motion agree? I'm the second. This is taking off the plat has cost the City of Meridian bucks. I want everything -- I personally -- and the Council has stated this -- want to see these notes on the plat. I don't care what Ada County says. Every other plat you get -- you go to Boise City and everything is listed on the plats. If there are any exceptions or anything else, they are listed on the plats. We have had -- we have had -- in my six years here we have two or three lawsuits that we have lost because stuff was on the plats and I think it has to be on the CUP, plus, it has to be on the preliminary plat and the final plat, these notes. I don't want to attach things, because when a person goes down there to get their lot thing, they get a copy, but they don't get a copy of this attached sheet, they get a copy of the plat and I want those notes right on the plat, because I don't want it to cost the city anymore and we have been through this. So, I think it has to be both on the final plat or preliminary plat, final plat, and the CUP. So, that's my opinion and I'm not legal or anything else, I don't know, but -- Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. Powell or Mr. Watson, I mean is really all they have expressed to us at this juncture is a preference to not have those types of notes on the plat? Powell: We have -- I can certainly come back to you with this issue. I mean I don't if we are going to resolve it tonight, it sounds like. They have been slowly cranking down consecutively on more and more notes as they go through. If this is a big concern of the Council, though, this is -- I asked the county surveyor to kind of have a meeting with the various City Engineers and Planning Directors to discuss this. I have not seen a meeting scheduled. He indicated that he would willing to do that. So, we have just been incrementally having more difficulties with plat notes as time goes on. We have also had problems on the part of the city, such as Observation Point, where we had plat notes with regard to minimum house size and other things that, from the city's standpoint, it's required a lot of additional hearings. That was part of the reason we moved away from it, but, clearly, we need to come and talk to you all and I'm sorry that we hadn't done that yet. So, I didn't mean to open a can of worms tonight, Commissioner Bird. Sorry about that. Nary: Madam President, I guess, then, I would reiterate on my motion, then, that since we don't have some final decision from the county, that on this preliminary plat that we include the table that's already been there and a note that includes that the five foot rear Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 35 of 42 yard setback is in relation to the detached garages and that we leave it as we originally stated. Bird: And the second agrees. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-020, with special notation on the plat notes and the island. I will ask the City Clerk to call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 12. Bird: It's Cherie's turn. De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we approve the CUP 03-036, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development and to incorporate all staff comments and to have the attorney draw up the proper papers. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-036. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: Park Impact Fees Ordinance Amendments: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item number 13 is a Public Hearing, Park Impact Fees Ordinance Amendments. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments by Mr. Strong. Strong: Madam President, President, Members of the Council, we are preparing a short Powerpoint presentation and I have invited one of our Parks and Recreation Commissioners to come and present this particular item tonight, Mr. Jim Keller, who has been involved on the impact fee committee since its inception and is very familiar with this issue and he will go through the Powerpoint and stand for questions. So, Mr. Jim Keller. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 36 of 42 De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Keller: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you, Jim. Please state your name and address. Keller: Jim Keller. 587 East Kingsford Drive, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Keller: It's a privilege to be here, Madam President and Council Members. I've served, as indicated, on the Parks and Recreation Commission for a number years and just completed our service with the parks impact fee committee and we are here to present our recommendations, which many of you have already seen, so we will try to be quick with our presentation, but we thought we'd give you a little history, so if we could have the next slide, we'd just like to show you the steps that have been taken in 1996 with the original impact fee ordinance where the fee was recommended and adopted. There have been no changes in that fee or ordinance since then and in May of 2002 an eight member impact fee committee was established and that committee -- if I can get this to stay on. I guess you have to leave it pressed, don't you. That committee was organized and met numerous times. We had really good involvement from the BCA and the realtors in this process. Mark Estess and John Eaton were involved in most of the meetings and gave good input. After that review was several meetings and discussions and calculations, then, we made a recommendation in November of 2000 and, then, the City Finance Department, the Parks and Rec group, and the City Attorney, went through the ordinance, made some adjustments to our fee calculations and, then, we had our final impact fee committee, then, in June here of 2003 of this year and, then, we received recommendation to the Council -- or we made recommendation to the Council and we also, then, received support from the final fee from the realtors and BCA. So, now if you will flip to the next chart, then, this is the -- in the -- for developing an impact fee for the parks, we are limited to the dollar amount that is presently being expended for a thousand people for parks and so what we have done, then, is for both community parks and neighborhood parks -- a community park is a park that's in the neighborhood of 18 acres or more. Neighborhood parks are smaller parks, in the range of six to ten acres or so. So, we added up all of the acres and if you can look right here, this is the number of acres of parks that we have developed today, but 40,000 people. So, the standard or the level of service is about 2.62 acres per thousand people and so we are limited to the cost associated with that 2.6 acres and we can't level an assessment any more than that, at a cost of about 95,000 dollars per acre. We, then, calculated what is called, then, the park development cost per person, which ends up to be 248,000 dollars. You multiply that times the number of people that live in a single-family dwelling unit of 2.93. That calculates, then, to an impact fee for a single family for community parks of 728 dollars per home. For a multi-family -- there is not quite that many people in a multi-family dwelling unit, so you multiply that times the per person and you get, then, 663 dollars for the multi-family impact fee that could be levied for the park -- for Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 37 of 42 the community parks. Now, we have neighborhood parks, so we can add an element onto that fee from the neighborhood parks and so we have, basically -- presently, this many acres, 11 acres, of neighborhood parks that we have developed and the realtors and BCA allowed us, then, also, to claim acreage for land that we purchased, but not developed, as long as we only claimed 26 percent, which is the percent of the total cost for the purchase of the land only. So, you calculate that, that leaves us an equivalent 5.83 acres, total, then, of 17 acres of neighborhood parks. You go through the same procedure now to come up with a dollar amount of developing parks. That would be for the 4.43. For 1,000 people it gives us $40.48 per person, multiplying that, here again, by the number of people per single-family dwelling unit, you get the 120. For the number of people here for a multi-family, you, then, get the 200 -- or the 109 dollars. So, now, you take both of those components and add them together and that's the level that we could apply, as long as all of the parks were developed using the impact fees. But the city is allocating money from the general fund and from taxes, so we have to deduct that portion that is being paid already by the citizens through taxation from the impact fee. So, those numbers, then, relate to the proportionate share, which relates to the amount of taxes that are levied. A typical residence is about 166,000 dollars, minus the 50,000 dollar deduction. The average taxable house value, then, is 116,000 times your levy is the 345 and eleven percent of the revenue over the last five years that has been used to develop the parks has come from taxes. So, we have to subtract the 11 percent off, so you take eleven percent times this number and that gives you $39.38. So, we have to take the original number, less that number, plus, we have to subtract out any money that's come from general funds. The Council has decided that they are going to take about 20 percent match and that 20 percent match, then, from the general fund is 20 percent of this number or these numbers. So, you subtract those numbers off and, then, we are able to add an administration fee and that was suggested by BCA that we add an administration fee back on. So, if we will go to the next sheet, we can, then, see that that's blank. But it will appear here. This is the total development cost, if you recall, less the proportionate share that we talked about, then, less the general fund proportionate share, adding the administration cost back on, then, gives us a recommended dollar amount that we are going to recommend for the impact fee and so you take all of those numbers, subtract, subtract, add, and you get, then, the 667 for single family. Subtract and subtract, add, and you get, then, the 607 and the impact fee recommendation for the multi-family. Now, then, what impact does that mean? The old fees were 400 here, 481. The new fee we are recommending is 667, or an increase of 185 dollars. The multi-family, 370, 607, or 236 dollars as the recommended increase. We are also, in addition to this, we are going to recommend that -- that the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission, review this at least every two years for the need to maybe increase, decrease, or whatever and we have support to do that from, both the realtors and BCA and they would like to be involved as we review that. So, any particular questions about the recommendations on impact fees? De Weerd: Jim, only a comment that you took a very complex formula and made some sense of it. I know that this committee has been working a long time to bring this recommendation forward. There is that hat again, and I sure appreciate all the effort. I know this hasn't been a simple task. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 38 of 42 Keller: Well, it's been a very interesting and fun one, so -- De Weerd: An engineer. Remember, he's an engineer. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Jim, I like your idea of -- and, definitely, I don't know how we can -- whether we can put it -- I'll ask this to Mr. Nichols, the idea of every two years reviewing these, because, you know, you look up at the additional cost and impact fees and divide that by the seven years that that's been in effect, it hasn't been very much. It seems like a lot right now, because we went seven years without reviewing it. Keller: Forty bucks a year. Bird: You know, so -- but is there a way we can put that in the ordinance, Mr. Nichols? You know, kind of like the audit ordinance, that that has to be done by January 20th of every year? Is there some way we can do -- Nichols: Councilman Bird, Madam President, Members of the Council. One of the delays in getting you this project this far was to try to get a lot of the work done, so that when the impact fee committee meets again, that they can focus on the -- basically the numbers that plug into these formulas. What's the cost of per acre to acquire the land? What's the cost per acre to develop the land? What's the level of park space -- neighborhood parks per thousand, community parks per thousand? And so the Finance Department worked closely with the committee to try to come up with these things in a type of formula, so it would be easier to do that next time, and as far as every two years, I don't think you put it in the ordinance as such, it's a requirement under the state statute that you come back and review these numbers on a -- you know, on a frequent basis. Two years -- actually, this coming February is going to be about two years sense these numbers were put into play, in terms of the basis for them. So, we are almost on track to do it again. But, again, I don't know that you have to have it in the ordinance as such, it just needs to be a priority for the Mayor and Council to make sure that the impact fee advisory committee is appointed and that they are given their charge. The administrative fee that's on there -- originally, we had a ten percent surcharge for administrative fee, which didn't fit the statute, and BCA and the realtors were quick to point that one out, and so that administrative fee is, really, almost a trust fund to go toward revisions or relooking at the capital improvements plan, because that -- that's another key component that we had to have before we could finish this impact fee work and so your recent efforts to get that finished allowed us to be to this point. That was a long answer -- that was a lawyer-like answer to how often you can review it. Bird: And Nary is sitting there grinning all the time. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 39 of 42 Keller: If I might just add one other comment. Really, the impact fee is set up with a goal in mind over the next six years to raise our level of service from 2.69 acres per thousand people to four. So, that's the goal and projects are set up with some joint ventures with a number of other groups. Hopefully, by the end of six years we will be at four and that's the -- basically, that's the strategic plan. De Weerd: Now, Jim, our commitment, then, to the development community on matching impact fees is the 20 percent? Keller: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Yeah. Madam President, that's another factor that can go into this formulation of the impact fee is what is the projected match, because if circumstances were such that the city was able to increase that funding, then, that goes into the impact fee calculations. If the city can't hit that 20 percent number, then, that goes into the calculations, too. So, that's another reason to revisit this thing is to make sure that those assumptions are correct. De Weerd: Thank you. Boy, you laid great groundwork to make it even easier to keep it up to date. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this item? Okay. Mr. Strong, is there anything you would like to add? Strong: I'd just like to thank Jim for his work on this project. It's been a very complex issue. It's certainly something when I came to the city in March that I was not informed on at all, so it's been very helpful to have people with Jim's experience and understanding of these issues to carry forward, so I really appreciate his work on behalf of the commission and the city, so -- De Weerd: Thank you Strong: -- I think we are ready to move ahead. De Weerd: Mr. Keller, I would echo or -- echo. I would like to emphasize what Mr. Strong has just said. You know, this work has been a long time in coming and appreciate all your efforts. Certainly, it's been something, since I have been on the commission, that we have been trying to assure happen and bringing all the parties together to come to the agreement, that's a major -- a major step forward. So, thank you very much. Nary: Madam President? Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 40 of 42 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: In addition to that, I would also agree with what you said, Mr. Keller certainly made it much more understandable than I think it really is, so I really appreciate that and I also, while we are giving thanks, I also want to thank Mr. Nichols. We changed -- the statute changed in the middle of this process, too, so this not the easiest legal process to get through, either, and I thinks his help has been invaluable in getting this done and I appreciate that. De Weerd: Okay. I guess one final comment is we want to make sure that as our Comprehensive Plan has been finally adopted by the county, that we do get a letter out asking them to collect impact fees in our area of impact and recognize that, now that we have our capital improvement plan and this in hand, it should expedite that request. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, we will present to you at a future Council meeting the actual resolution to -- or the ordinance itself, which adopts the fees, and, then, a copy of the ordinance can be presented to the county in connection with that area of impact agreement issue. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. The Public Hearing is still open. Oh. Anna. Powell: Madam President, Members of Council, I think that Ada County is looking for a specific memorandum of understanding or a memorandum of agreement and it may be because they -- it could be just a question of whether or not you want them to collect the fees or if we are going to collect the fees and, then, they will issue the building permits. So, that it might be something we need to clarify before I send this letter over there, because I think with ACHD I think they went through a memorandum process, as I understand it. But they collect the ACHD fees at the time of issuing the building permit. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, it's my understanding Boise -- that somehow or another Boise City already gets park impact fees in its area of impact, so whatever they are doing in Boise City, we can piggy back on the same sort of agreement or joint ordinance or however they do it. So, we can use that same mechanism. Powell: I will find out what that process is, run it by Mr. Nichols, and include that in the letter that we send for your signature. Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 41 of 42 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any other further discussion? Testimony? Okay. I would entertain a motion close this Public Hearing. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on parks -- Park Impact Fees Ordinance Amendment. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we get the ordinance written -- I believe it already has been written, is that -- get that done and bring it forward to us and get it published and get her done. Going. De Weerd: Okay. What was that? Bird: I move that we get the amendment wrote up in the ordinance and get it -- get it in -- Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to ask the attorney to draw up the formal ordinance to adopt the park impact fees. Mr. Clerk, we will call roll on this. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. It has been requested that we have an executive session. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we go into executive session as per Idaho Code 67-2345 (c). Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 42 of 42 Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn into executive session. Mr. Clerk. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. De Weerd: It has been requested that we have an executive session. Bird: Madam President. I move we go into executive session and ask for Idaho Code 67-2345 (1) (c). Nary: Second. De Weerd: It’s been moved and seconded to adjourn into executive session. Mr. Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Nary, yea; McCandless, yea; De Weerd, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we come out of executive session. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It’s been moved and seconded to come out of executive session. Please note on record that no decisions were made. All those in favor say aye. All ayes, motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting. McCandless: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It’s been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Meeting adjourned at 9:50. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian City Council October 28, 2003 Page 43 of 42 _______________________________ ______/______/______ ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK