HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 01-21
Meridian City Council Meeting January 21, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:23 P.M., on
Tuesday, January 7, 2003, by President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: William Nary, Keith Bird, Tammy de Weerd, and Cherie
McCandless.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: William Nichols, David McKinnon, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Ken
Bowers, Bill Musser, Dean Willis, and Will Berg
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird
__O__ Mayor Robert Corrie
De Weerd: Okay we will go ahead and call this meeting to order. It's Tuesday, January
st
21. It is 7:23 and the City Clerk will have roll call attendance.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Number 2, Adoption of the Agenda. Council, any changes other than the
addition of Item Number 8 from Pre-Council, Discussion of Infrastructure of the Urban
Renewal District?
Nary: Madam President, would that be added, then, as Item Number 19 on the Regular
Agenda?
De Weerd: Is there anyone in the audience here to -- that is interested in that item?
Okay so, we will add it as Number 19.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: With that addition, I would move to adopt the agenda as presented.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor -- oh, I'm sorry. Okay all those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 2 of 62
A. January 7, 2003
Approve minutes of Pre-Council Meeting:
B. January 7, 2003
Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 02-
012
Request for waiver of the requirement of tiling of the Rutledge
Kent Mortensen
Lateral by Pinnacle Engineers for – 521 West
Broadway Avenue:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 02-
009
Request for adjustment of area of impact between the cities of
Winston Moore
Meridian and Boise in an RUT zone for by Winston
Moore – northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick
Road:
E. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission:
MI 02-011
Request to remove certain parcels in Dunbar Estates
Packard
Subdivision from City of Meridian’s area of impact for
Estates Dev., LLC
by Packard Estates Dev., LLC – south of East
Ustick Road and west of North Cloverdale Road:
F. Addendum to Development Agreement, Correction of Legal
Description: AZ 01-008
Request for annexation and zoning of
Baltic
12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for
Place Subdivision
by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road
west of Locust Grove Road:
G. Development Agreement: AZ 02-010
Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed
Lochsa Falls Subdivision
by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson –
south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road:
H. Agreement for Services, The Land Group, Inc. – Settlers Park
Restrooms:
I. Award of Bid / Contract for Well No. 25 Waterline Road
Crossing, Irminger Construction
De Weerd: Okay. Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as shown and for the Clerk to attest
and the President to sign on the proper contracts and papers needing those things.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 3 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
De Weerd: It looks like Elroy we didn't need you. That's always nice, isn't it? It was
that very informative letter you gave us. Okay Number 4, Department Reports. Staff, is
there anything that you would like to report under this item?
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
De Weerd: Okay we did not move anything off the Consent Agenda.
Item 6. Ordinance No. : Amending Ordinance No.
02-968 to Correct the Legal Description: AZ 01-008
Request for
annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40
Baltic Place Subdivision
zones for by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin
Road west of Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: So we will go to ordinance -- or Item Number 6. Mr. Clerk, what is the
ordinance number?
Berg: I'm sorry, Madam President, I didn't have this to you earlier.
De Weerd: That's all right.
Berg: Number 03-997.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. We will ask the City Clerk to read Ordinance Number 03-997,
amending Ordinance Number 02-968 to correct the legal description of AZ 01-008,
request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 to RUT to R-G and R-40
zones for Baltic Place Subdivision by LC Development in title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam President just a question to the attorney, if I may, if it's proper
to have another ordinance number or have an amending ordinance referring to the old
ordinance?
Nichols: Mr. Clerk, President, Members of the Council, I would prefer that we keep our
ordinance numbers in order, as long as it refers back to the one that's being amended, I
think is appropriate. Then, as far as the ordinance book goes, I would recommend that
a notation be placed on that original ordinance that was amended by 03-997, so that
there is a cross-referencing in effect.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 4 of 62
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, does that answer your question?
Berg: It answers my question, Madam President. We have done it several ways and
just whatever the current legal counsel advise, I will do. Thank you, Madam President.
Ordinance Number 03-997, an Ordinance amending Ordinance 02-968, finding that
certain land to be known as Baltic Place Subdivision, the location of which lies
contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the
Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated
High Density Residential District (R-40) and General Retail and Service Commercial
District (C-G) 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, and 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 area to be annexed to 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 63-2315.
De Weerd: Thank you. You're getting good at that. Okay you have heard the reading
of Ordinance Number 03-997 by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear this
ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-997, which is amending
Ordinance Number 02-968, to correct the legal description of AZ 01-008, request for
annexation and zoning for Baltic Place and for the suspension of the rules pursuant to
Idaho Code Section 50-902.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Ordinance No. : AZ 02-010
Request for
annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for
Lochsa Falls Subdivision
proposed by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson
– south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay Number 7, Ordinance Number 03-998, request for
annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Lochsa
Falls Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you read this by title only.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 5 of 62
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
998, an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Lochsa Falls Subdivision
located south of Chinden Boulevard, west of Linder Road, north of McMillan Road and
east of 10 Mile Road and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City
of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owners Elroy E. Brandt,
Elroy Brandt, Marty Goldsmith, Sunjay Ray, M.D., Daniel Gibson, Jr., Justin and Tamra
Martin, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land
be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Low Density Residential
District (R-4) 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, and 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 area to be annexed to 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 Ordinance 03-998 by title only.
Anyone who would like to hear it in its entirety? Hearing none, I would consider a
motion.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-998, request for annexation
and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision and
pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902, waive the reading of the rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to accept Ordinance Number 03-998.
Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Ordinance No. : AZ 02-022
Request for
annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for
Havasu Creek Subdivision
proposed by Farwest, LLC – south of East
McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay Item Number 8, Ordinance Number 03-999, request for
annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed
Havasu Creek Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you read this by title only.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 6 of 62
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
999, an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Havasu Creek Subdivision
located south of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road and which lies
contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, and finding that the owners Maclocust, LLC, and Renata Ham, have made a
request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the
City of Meridian, zoning designated Low Density Residential District (R-4) 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, and 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 area to be
annexed to 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. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number
03-999 by title only anyone that would like to hear it in its entirety? Hearing none, I
would consider a motion.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-999, request for annexation
and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Havasu Creek Subdivision and
pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902, to wave the reading of the rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-999. Mr.
Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Ordinance No. : AZ 02-023
Request for
annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Moshers Farm Subdivision
by CMD, Inc. – 895 North 10 Mile Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. I am assuming on Number 9 Ordinance would be 03-1000?
Okay. Okay Mr. Clerk, will you read the Ordinance by title only for 03-1000, request for
annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers
Farms Subdivision.
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
1000, an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Moshers Farms
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 7 of 62
Subdivision, located at 895 North 10 Mile Road and which lies contiguous or adjacent to
the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the
owner, Betty Mosher, has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and
that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium
Density Residential District (R-8) 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, and 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 area to be annexed to 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. You have heard the reading by title only of
Ordinance Number 03-1000. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to have it
read in its entirety? Hearing none, thank you Council?
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1000, request for
annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers
Farms Subdivision with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03-
1000. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-024
Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4
Cobblefield Crossing
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Subdivision
by CMD, Inc. – 4450 North Linder Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-022
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73
building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision
proposed by CMD, Inc. – 4450 North
Linder Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-032
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, 8 single-family attached homes
and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision
for proposed by CMD, Inc. – 4450
North Linder Road:
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 8 of 62
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay Item Number 10 is a Public Hearing on AZ 02-024,
request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the
proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision. We will open up with staff comments.
Bird: Madam Chairman Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can we also open 11 and 12, which are the same -- which one is a CUP and the
other is a Preliminary Plat, open all three at the same time?
De Weerd: At your pleasure. Okay we will open, then, Item Number 10, 11, and 12,
Public Hearings AZ 02-024, PP 02-022, and CUP 02-032. Staff?
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the Council just a little bit of
house cleaning first. If you could look at Item Number 12 on your agenda, I'll make one
correction. In the agenda, it says that there are six single-family attached homes and it
needs to be corrected to eight, especially if you're going to use the agenda tonight to
make your motion. There are a total of 73 units, 64, and six and one doesn't add up.
There are eight units.
De Weerd: So, 64 single-family, eight -- or detached, eight single-family attached?
McKinnon: That's correct.
De Weerd: And one existing home?
McKinnon: That's correct. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKinnon: Members of the Council, on the overhead we have prepared tonight in the
PowerPoint presentation you can see the outlined area of the application we will be
dealing with tonight. As we stated earlier, it's an annexation, a Conditional Use Permit,
and a Preliminary Plat. The piece of property is located on Linder Road, with frontage
on a small flag lot that's approximately 50 feet wide running up to McMillan. That small
flag lot area has been set aside as an area for a pathway with six exercise facilities.
Those types of facilities are similar to those you see on the greenbelt or other pathway
systems from time to time that would have pull-up bars or sit-up benches, those are the
type of exercise equipment you would see on that small chimney type of flag that goes
up there. I point that out, because it becomes more difficult to see as we go to the next
slide. This is the revised Preliminary Plat for the proposed subdivision. The four single-
family attached houses would be located on these long narrow lots located centrally
within the subdivision. The subdivision has a number of interesting amenities. The
islands within the main collector into the subdivision, they have provided some
additional islands into the small knuckled areas and the applicant has made some
changes to the original plat by providing a stub street to the east. When originally
discussing this in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission, there were numerous
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 9 of 62
changes that were requested and all those changes have been made by the applicant.
The application you have in front of you meets all the requirements that the Planning
and Zoning Commission has set forth for you tonight. There were some minor
modifications, such as notes added to the plat, that still need to be made by the
applicant. However, it now meets all the requirements of the city for the Planned
Development Ordinance, among those would be the requirement for two amenities.
One of the amenities they have provided is the aforementioned pathway and the large
open space lot, which was discussed at the last meeting that could possibly turn into a
swimming pool and a clubhouse for the subdivision. Staff supports the application that's
in front of you tonight. There is only one item of discussion that staff feels should be
brought up to you at this time and it has to deal with Page 5 of the recommendation for
the Conditional Use Permit, that's Item Number 15. That recommendation was an
and/or recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was setting
aside with -- it was set aside as an and/or, because there was some discussion at the
Commission level that required additional discussion with ACHD and I will highlight that
for you. As noted in the applications, there is one single-family existing home. That
single-family existing home is located on Linder Road and that's the highlighted portion
that I have got right now. It fronts onto Linder Road right now. In the different revised
plats that we have seen for this, we have seen two different designs for this house to
either take access off of the main road into the subdivision or to have the house
continue to have access off of Linder Road. It was decided at the Planning and Zoning
Commission level that there could be an and/or recommendation, that if ACHD were to
approve access off of Linder and the city approve access off of Linder, the existing
driveway for the home could remain. However, should ACHD and the city desire that
they bring in the access from the northern boundary of the property heading south to the
existing garage -- the existing garage is on the south side of the property facing west --
that if the city and ACHD require that it be brought in this way, that they bring in the
driveway this way and close the driveway onto Linder Road. That's the major issues
that we, as staff, have and we feel that should be brought up to you. At this time, I
would ask if you have any questions of staff.
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay.
Come on up if you will raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm that the
testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Ralphs: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address.
Ralphs: My name is Rod Ralphs. I live at 2730 North Greenbelt Place here in Meridian.
I represent the applicant CMD, Inc., the developer. Prior to responding to any questions
the Members of the Council may have, I have some proposed layouts of elevations of
homes that would be going into the subdivision. One of the things that we have gone
through -- thank you, staff. One of the things that we have tried to create with a fairly
unique property was kind of a neighbor or very close-knit neighborhood, almost like a
north end look, and that's what we tried to accomplish. These are some elevations and
I have some here that I'd like to hand out to Council, if I may approach.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 10 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. Give them to the Clerk.
Ralphs: As staff indicated, all the recommendations and suggestions made by Planning
and Zoning we have complied with. Going back to the green area there just south of
the flag lot right here. We are proposing that we will be putting in a swimming pool and
a clubhouse and that along here you will see a walking path that meanders, so we
would have trees and landscaping in the area. Then, these little smaller rectangle areas
you would see, those are the workout or the exercise stations. I believe something
similar to that existed at Chief Joseph not too long ago, where people were able to go
and walk along an exercise path and participate in different activities. Between the
exercise path and the swimming pool area, those would be the amenities that we would
propose for this subdivision. In response to the issue raised by staff regarding the
house here at the entrance, that house presents a unique situation for us. The garage
is on the west part of the house and there is actually building -- or a structure here in the
back with rooms and storage, so we would not be able to bring a driveway in here on
the east side. So we -- depending on what ACHD recommends, this house, this front
yard basically consists of a driveway, if we have to go that route. Actually, we would
prefer to be able to preserve some access with the existing driveway going out to
Linder. Having said that, if there are any questions from Members of the Council, I'm
open to respond.
De Weerd: Thank you, Council. It doesn't look like it.
Ralphs: Thank you very much, Madam President.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience who would like to enter testimony? Please raise your right hand. Do you
promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Converse: I do.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Converse: Tawnya Converse, 4550 North Linder.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Converse: Yes I just have a couple questions and, hopefully, they can be cleared up. I
live just north of the -- yes. Thank you. I have a question regarding future development
possibilities of our property. There is no current stub road leading in and I'm not quite
sure what the regulations are if we were to develop our property. I think it's deeper than
what is allowed for a cul-d-sac building site. It runs about 640 on the short side and 720
on the long side and I wasn't real sure where that leaves us with our property.
De Weerd: Okay if you can just state what your questions are, we will ask either staff or
the applicant to, hopefully, respond to you.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 11 of 62
Converse: Okay also, I have a question regarding the fencing. When I was at the last
meeting I was under the impression that it would vinyl fencing all the way around, but I
guess, it's cedar, and horses, which we have, like to chew on cedar. I wasn't sure how
far off the property line it's going to be. Will it be right next to it? How are going to keep
the livestock from ruining that type of fencing? We also flood irrigate and I don't think
that's real conducive to a wood structure. Also, our flood irrigation, I was wondering
how they are going to -- if they are going to elevate slightly on their side of the fence
line, so that we are not flooding the homes that would be built there. I think that's about
it. Just some minor little --
De Weerd: All legitimate questions. I'm surprised the developers haven't talked to you
about those. Would you remain standing and, David, can you answer some of the
questions as far as lengths, if -- in future development if a stub road would be needed
from this property to theirs. I guess the developer would need to talk about the fencing
issues but you could probably do the irrigation and the roadway.
McKinnon: I would be happy to, Madam President, Members of the Council, and Mrs.
Converse. Mrs. Converse, you were at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings,
both of those, and it was discussed by members of the Council and recommend by the
Planning and Zoning Commission for an additional stub street to be located someplace
going into the Converse's property. The Planning and Zoning Commission -- I don't
have a copy of the minutes handy -- well, I do have a copy of the minutes handy with
me. It was decided at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that -- that rather
than provide an internal car access to the Converse lot, there would be a pedestrian
pathway located approximately mid block of this long block between Linder and the stub
street that goes to the north. That a pedestrian access could be located here, provide
pedestrian access, rather than full vehicle access between the two lots, so that in the
future when Converse's property is developed, that there would be a pedestrian access,
rather than full vehicle access. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that that
would be more appropriate than requiring a stub street either in this location located off
of a curve going into the Converse's property. They also felt that there would not be
one that would be required at this location, as there would be someplace centered into
the small traffic islands and it would create a problem. That's the most appropriate
location that they felt for a ped path would be right here and the other reason for the
pedestrian pathway to connect to the Converse property is so that they could relocate a
ditch into that pedestrian pathway that they hadn't addressed in their original plat that
they submitted. That's the reason for the lack of stub streets to the Converse property.
Mrs. Converse is correct in pointing out that if she were to develop her property in a
manner that had a cul-d-sac, just went into a cul-d-sac, it would be beyond the 450-foot
maximum as allowed by the Planning and Zoning Ordinance Book. There is the ability
in the future, as they develop, to provide a stub street to the north from the Converse
property, which would, then, be able to connect to this property. There is a stub street
located here that could be brought across to the other property. Interconnection,
vehicular, is not completely eliminated by not requiring the stub street to the property.
However, it would be required upon the Converses to provide a stub street to the north
and the property to the north to provide a stub street to the east to connect with the
proposed development in the future. Those are things that were all discussed at the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and their recommendation was for no access
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 12 of 62
requirement on the Cobblefield Crossing people. As far as the fencing, in the staff
report the fencing was -- it was not a requirement for fencing at that time. However,
there was a requirement for a detailed fencing -- a detailed fencing requirement for a
six-foot fence, but the details of what type of fence could be worked out at the Final Plat.
In the front of the subdivision, that would be the eastern side of the -- it would be the
western side of the property right here, it was discussed at the Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting that that would be a vinyl fence and that vinyl fence would match
up with the subdivision to the south, Baldwin Park Subdivision. It would be a five-foot
vinyl fence matching in color. I believe it was a sand color and as for flood irrigation, I'm
probably not the best person to be able to answer that sort of question, but my
understanding -- I'll defer to Brad, Mr. Watson, on that -- that typically flood irrigation
allows you only to flood your area. Then, if water leaves your property, you would be
responsible for that. I would have to -- that's about my understanding of flood irrigation.
Brad would probably help me out.
Watson: I don't know that I can help out a whole lot, but I would think that the engineer,
while doing the site civil to this project, would take that into account and make sure that
it's draining away from their houses, rather than to their houses. He would probably be
more appropriate to answer that question.
Converse: What about an answer on the fencing?
De Weerd: We will have the applicant answer on that Maybe he can further elaborate
on the flood irrigation issue.
Converse: Okay.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Could I ask, Dave, on the -- the issue on the stub street that Mrs. Converse has
brought up here, if you put the -- right now the stub street is about there correct?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Nary: And so, what I thought I heard you say was that what would happen in the future
is that this property would have to have a stub street north, this property have a stub
street east. Wouldn't that, essentially, just sort of cut this corner off into this little island
on the end by doing it that way, instead of having a stub street here?
McKinnon: Right there?
Nary: Yes having a stub street somewhere in this location. I guess I just am afraid that
in the future no one is going to want to develop -- I don't know how big this piece is. It
must be 35 acres, probably, somewhere in that range?
McKinnon: The property that we have highlighted is only 15.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 13 of 62
Nary: This one here?
McKinnon: The highlighted -- the bolded one this is only 15 right here.
Nary: So, then, this must be only five?
McKinnon: About five or seven. Yes six.
Nary: Six ad, then, you're going to cut a corner -- they are going to have to cut a corner
of it off to provide vehicular access from here through this one into there, which doesn't
seem like that makes any of these very developable at all. I guess I'm not sure that
that's a great solution to the problem.
McKinnon: Madam President, Councilman Nary, I wouldn't disagree with that. The
typical development pattern that you see on these long narrow lots would be a single
street that runs down the middle, whether it meanders or it's a straight distance.
Typically, it would meander, would be to double load that street and put lots on both
sides. If you were to put that -- that stub street to the north at this location, the stub
street to the north at this location, you create a block length that would be very average
from where the laser pointer is now to where the stub street would be. That would be a
very average block length, double loaded, just like you would see in a grid pattern. It
doesn't necessarily destroy the ability to develop that, but it would somewhat restrict the
developability of that. In a long narrow lot, you typically would just double load that
street.
Nary: It seems like I remember we saw that particular pattern within the last year, that
same kind of a deal, almost this shape of lot, the same thing, stub street to the north.
McKinnon: Right.
Nary: You had houses on both sides and, then, one -- basically a straight sort of
meandering stretch that ended up in a curve down here at the bottom.
McKinnon: Right.
Nary: And it seems like it took us forever to get through that, because of the way that
was done. I guess maybe she's raised a good question that maybe the -- I guess we
just need some further discussion from the developers about -- about where the stub
street should be and maybe through ACHD, is that another option that we can proceed
on?
McKinnon: ACHD would not object. I went to the staff meeting with ACHD, they
wouldn't object to additional stub streets.
Nary: Okay.
McKinnon: The presentation I gave you tonight was the recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission and ours was somewhat different from the Planning
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 14 of 62
and Zoning Commission. We did recommend a stub street to the north from this --
along the northern and somewhat northeastern boundary, that we would prefer to see
one there to provide the interconnectivity, but the Commission felt that an
interconnecting pathway would be just as -- would be sufficient.
Nary: All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Dave, your -- in your staff recommendation, they would, essentially,
have two stub streets to the north?
McKinnon: That's correct. Or it may not be to the north, necessarily, but to --
De Weerd: Or to the west?
McKinnon: That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKinnon: If I can go back and find that.
De Weerd: So they would provide a stub to the northern piece -- well, both northern
piece properties in one-way or another?
McKinnon: That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Well, while you look that up, we will ask the applicant when
he comes up to respond to your questions.
Converse: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Converse: Thank you so much.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony for this Public Hearing? Do you promise and
affirm that the testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
English: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address.
English: Brian English, 4650 North Linder. I'm the next property that you're talking of
running the stub road into. I, too, have a couple of questions. First off, have you
accounted for the traffic across the street in this design? Right between the two
properties, between Converse and ours, is where you have already approved a major
stub road coming out of Bridgetower. There is going to be an elementary school right
down that road, there is commercial buildings there, and what's proposed here is to
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 15 of 62
have a stub road running on either side of this. ACHD has already raised issues that
the Bridgetower road is too close to the intersection to have a light. I'm not saying I'm
going to be at this property forever, but I do want to try and preserve the developability
of it. Doing stub roads like that, especially when you take into account along that north -
- along McMillan Road, you're bringing in a power line and they are still arguing about
how many feet are going to be taken for the power line. Right now, I know Ettinghouse,
which is the property on the corner, had been talking about litigation, because they bring
the power lines within about 10 feet of the two houses there. I was just informed
developer has the little wedge and the next property under option right now, so some of
the stub roads could go in there. The way the power lines are going to go in, have
those things been factored into the development? The power lines are for Idaho Power
going over to the Locust Grove substation is already approved, the easements are
being sought. The other questions I have are right now, according to the plat map --
can you go to the plat map?
McKinnon: Sure.
English: We show sewer and water coming to here and, then, you have got to bring it
up. Water goes on the east side of this street. Are you going to take the sewer across
the street, up, and back into the properties up here? How are you going to get there,
because -- to maintain your separation between potable water and sewer lines?
Because one of the things that has been discussed all along and when you did the
Comp Plan was protect the developability of these outlying properties and if we don't -- I
don't want to be cut off.
De Weerd: I'm sure our staff can answer that, Mr. English.
English: I'm going to check my notes to make sure that -- and I have the same concern
with the wood fencing. Pressure treated fences last about seven to eight years in that
area. Water in the summertime is about 30 inches deep. You put a cedar fence in that
sits in water, it will wick, unless they take protective measures when the fence is
installed. There are things you can do, plastic bag the fence, gravel around the base of
the fence, all that stuff will add about two more years of life to the fence. Having
livestock, which both I and the Converses have, against a cedar fence, all you're asking
for is gnawing and they will -- as Converses know, I have -- we have a fence between
the two of us and there is hot wire there now, because even though it's all on my
property, her horses liked it. I have -- I express the same concern, being the next
property over. I guess the concern about irrigation has been expressed to the Planning
and Zoning. I apologize for missing the P&Z Meetings my wife had health issues that I
had to attend to. I wanted to preserve the water the way it was. I get 36 hours of water.
I will start it -- turn it on and 12 days later it turns on again for 36 continuous hours.
That's the type of -- length of time I would need to irrigate my property.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. English?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 16 of 62
De Weerd: Brad, do you have any response in how the stub of the -- stubbing of the
utilities would be?
Watson: Madam President, Council Members, the Preliminary Plat that I have shows
water and sewer going to the northern boundary in Linder Road of this subdivision, so
that's what would be required as part of the to and through policy.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I didn't, but as long as Mr. English had his answer, then, that's all I
need.
English: You didn't fully answer it.
De Weerd: Mr. English, we need to get you on tape here.
English: You have two staff asking questions at the same time, but having the sewer
and water stubbed adjacent to each other, when you go to run it parallel, how do you
get the separation that's required between a public water supply and the sewer? You
either go to extreme expense to double pipe your sewer or you take the sewer line
across the street down and back across, which ACHD doesn't want.
Watson: I'm sorry, Madam President, Council Members, I -- any water line and sewer
line that we put in or allow to be put in meets all state regulations regarding --
English: Twenty-five foot of separation?
Watson: They are required to have 10 feet of separation by state regulations from any
water -- potable water supply to a non-potable water pipeline and that's what's shown
on the plat. Although their separation -- I don't have a scale -- is probably not adequate
on the Preliminary Plat. When engineered drawings come in, they certainly will have
the proper separation or they will be bounced.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay is there any other testimony? Okay applicant,
would you like to come forward and answer a couple of the questions that were raised?
Ralphs: Certainly, Madam President.
De Weerd: Thank you. Can you restate your name?
Ralphs: Certainly. My name is Rod Ralphs I'm representing the applicant CMD.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ralphs: As for the first series of questions regarding potential flooding and the type of
fence that's going in there and potential stub streets, I first address the fence issue. We
are going to put in a vinyl fence here on the front and it will match the existing
subdivision to the south, so it will be a harmonious look there. What we came in with
here is cedar. There was an existing fence there for horses and we would put our fence
right there at the property line and if we need to explore a hot wire, then, we can
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 17 of 62
certainly do that. Four stub streets, as has been indicated, we have this piece here to
the north -- and if we could go back to that other piece, Dave. That one. Yes. Okay.
This is 7.7 acres here that we have just procured and -- or is under option, rather. We
have a stub street coming up here and what we would envision is that the Planning and
Zoning and Council would require us to go east and west on that piece and, then, there
could be some access here from the north and, then, off of Linder. We have provided
for the required 20-foot pedestrian. That also allows for an easement for the Settler's
irrigation canal. Existing irrigation concerns will not be interfered with. We are not
allowed to interfere with those in any way and so existing water rights cannot be
interfered with. Any kind of issues involving power easement, we have developed
several projects that are along Ustick that involve power lines. That's just part of the
development phase where we address that with Idaho Power, where the poles go in,
placement of homes along that and bearing the risk of the marketability of those lots.
Typically, what we see with those power lines is there would be a landscaping berm and
that is where the Idaho Power will allow those to be placed. I don't know if there were
any other issues that we haven't addressed.
De Weerd: Were you able to address the -- how you will elevate your piece of property,
so that it's not flood irrigated along with the Converse property?
Ralphs: What we would do along here, along where this ditch and where this irrigation
would go, whatever the ditch height is on the Converse piece, our -- we would berm up
the ditch bank on our side. Then, we would place the fence on top of that increased
berm height, so that berm height would, actually, be higher than the Converse side, so if
there was any flooding that was going on with the irrigation there on the Converse
piece, would go into the Converse property, instead of into our subdivision. Then, the
fence would be on top of that elevated berm.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Ralphs, the other issue that was raised was about the development across
the street and the school. I guess I didn't think I heard you mention the relationship with
the road and the traffic from across the street in this particular --
Ralphs: What we are working with -- and this is in preliminary discussions with ACHD,
is the discussion of -- they are putting in, I believe, a center turn lane to address those
traffic counts and flows. That's, really, all the information I have for you at this point.
Anytime you put -- you know, when Bridgetower was put it, with the number of homes
that are going in there, with a school, certainly there was anticipation by Council and the
Commission that there would be incredible traffic flows there that should be addressed.
ACHD is addressing that with their -- I believe the insertion of a left turn lane but as far
as regulations, as far as distance to stop lights and those type of things, I don't have
that information for you tonight.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 18 of 62
Nary: I guess the other question, I guess -- and maybe I'm just hung up on the wrong
thing, but on this stub street up here, I guess I still have a concern that right now you
may have an option on this land. If that happens, I guess we are cutting this off by
creating, essentially, a stub this way and a stub north from this one, it creates this little
island right in the section right here. It seems to -- I guess it could be open space or
something else, but it's not really much use for a home or something in that spot just
because of that. It still makes it very difficult, from an access point into this subdivision,
by not having any other access into it, except off of Linder Road. I think we are going to
have significant traffic here and very little connectivity by this piece. If the original staff
report was to provide a stub street, why wasn't -- why wasn't that desired just because
you didn't want one in this location, as well as north? Is that the reason?
Ralphs: Well, we thought we could address connectivity by going here to the north and
the distance here, you could actually put in a lot here. You would not have an unusable
island, you would actually be able to come up here, come across, and, then, drop down
in here and, then, access out to Linder through here or up through here. That was the
findings of the Planning and Zoning and we sort of didn't have any argument with them,
that there was a road needed here to the north, and placing it at that location, along with
the pedestrian walkway, would be able to address that. As far as future development, I
mean, obviously, we are not -- we will do whatever you ask us to do. We are
developing this 15 acres, which we have already put in -- let's see, we have one, two,
three -- we have three stub streets, plus an access point, plus a walkway -- actually, two
walkways on a small 15 acre piece. Then, as we go to develop that 7.7 acres, we have
provided for as much access as there could possibly be on this piece.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Mr. McKinnon, do you want to say what you said in
the public record? I think we'd all like to hear it, too.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. I was just showing
Commissioner -- Chairman -- oh, boy -- Councilman Nary how that property could be
developed in the future and the example I was giving about double loading the
Converse property and the property to the north. I just drew a small diagram that
basically shows how the property could be developed in a manner that's different than
what Councilman Nary has stated earlier. That you would have just a piece of property
that would be blocked off, you would, actually, have a double-loaded street that would
be a standard block length, rather than just having a piece of property that was blocked
off and wouldn't be usable. That's just a typical development pattern you would see on
the long, narrow lots so you don't have a piece of property that would be unusable. It's
kind of hard to correlate what I have got on this small drawing in words, but it's a lot
easier than -- a picture is worth 1,000 words, but I don't think you want me to keep
going.
De Weerd: No, but we do know you were going to be working on that ordinance
anyway on road lengths and block lengths, so -- okay any other questions, Council?
Thank you, Mr. Ralphs.
Ralphs: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 19 of 62
De Weerd: Okay this Public Hearing is still open. Council, what would you like to do?
Sure, Mr. English.
English: One question I was just asking your staff, associated with the irrigation, the
water comes off the ditch to the east of where this property -- the flag lot is. We jointly
maintain it and get together every year to clean that stretch out that's on the -- you
know, runs parallel to the farm and do a ditch clean out. I'd like to have it that the
development be a part of the clean out to maintain that jointly -- joint portions of the
ditch and we have somebody help us do the digging on the sections that not on any of
our individual lands.
De Weerd: The Council will consider that in their motion. Mr. Attorney?
Nichols: Madam President, staff. Wouldn't the ditch be -- have to -- wouldn't that feeder
ditch have to be tiled?
McKinnon: It would have to be tiled. That's correct.
Nichols: So, the portion that would be open -- or the part that would be tiled is on the
development and, then, it would be -- it would open up as it left the development onto
the existing parcels.
English: Excuse me, sir. There is a section that's before it gets to the development
that's open, too. It's a concrete ditch, but you still have to clean it out every spring.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. English, is that to the east of this little chimney lot? So it's on someone's --
it's on another individual's property altogether?
English: I think it, actually, sits in the easement for the Settler's Ditch. What it does is it
comes out and parallels -- you can -- if you were a broad jumper, you could stand on the
edge of the concrete ditch and jump into the Settler's Ditch. It's just a couple of feet.
That one doesn't show it. Do you have your pointer? It comes off right about here and
parallels -- goes under this where this flag lot is and right here there is a junction box
where part of the time the water flows along this line here. Part of the time, you know,
when you close the one gate, open the other, it comes down and comes across here.
This part up here, we get together every year, as all the property owners right now are
getting together and digging that out. That's still going to need to be done, it's not part
of the tiling, and I just don't want to be the one that does all the digging every year until
such time as I leave.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary?
Nary: Well, Mr. English, I don't know that we can make them come out and dig up this
side that's not on their property. I don't know that we can make them do that. They can
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 20 of 62
certainly agree to do that and they can agree to do that as neighbors, but I don't think
we can make that a condition that they come out and work on this property that's not
theirs. They are going to be required to tile theirs.
English: It's a concrete ditch and it's not -- I understand what you're saying. If they
want to use the water and have full water when the water is theirs, they should have
somebody out there cleaning out the ditches is the issue I'm raising.
Nary: I agree, but if your other property owners don't want to participate, that doesn't
mean they don't get water.
English: Not if we go after them and they volunteer to --
Nary: Right. They aren't very good neighbors if they don't, but it doesn't mean that they
legally have to go out there and dig those ditches out for you, so -- I don't think we can
make them do that.
English: I think we have had one year in the nine that I have been there that we haven't
all gotten out there to take care of the ditch and that was the year the two of us were
laid up.
Nary: And that's great, we just can't make them. That's not a legal obligation we can
impose.
De Weerd: Okay Council, this hearing is still open. I would consider someone making
a motion to close it.
McCandless: Madam President, I move to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Do we have a second?
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. Do we have a motion?
Nary: Madam President, I just had one question for staff. David, you raised a question
regarding the either/or recommendation from Planning and Zoning and the one I was
looking at was the Site-Specific Condition Number 1, was the one I noticed that. Is that
the right one?
McKinnon: On Page 5. It's actually Number 15 of the Preliminary Plat
recommendation.
Nary: Oh. I'm sorry. That's why -- I'm looking at the wrong recommendation.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 21 of 62
De Weerd: Oh, I thought it was the CUP.
McKinnon: I'm sorry. It's on the Preliminary Plat.
Nary: I was just looking at the wrong recommendation.
McKinnon: Madam Chairman, you're right -- I mean Madam President, you're right, I
did say the Conditional Use Permit, but it is in the Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: And, then, looking at that -- it's Page 5, Number 15, and which -- just refresh my
memory, which of those ones did you say was recommended?
McKinnon: Both were recommended.
Nary: Well, but -- by you, not by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If we are going
to make a motion, which one are we supposed to pick because I can't remember what
you said?
McKinnon: Madam President, Councilman Nary, staff doesn't have a strong opinion
either way. It's sixes either way if look at it. One, you would have the landscape buffer
that would be a solid landscape buffer that would match up with the solid landscape
buffer to the south, with no penetrations through it. Otherwise, you would have a
driveway that breaks up a landscape buffer. You would have a landscape buffer,
driveway, landscape buffer, road, landscape buffer, and so it's a little bit cleaner if you
don't have the driveway there. You do have a house that has a garage that fronts onto
Linder, and so it may just be appropriate to leave it on Linder or leave it up to ACHD
and leave the same language as is and allow ACHD to make that decision.
Nary: So we could leave this recommendation, if we were going to approve this, the
way it is and wait and see what ACHD recommends.
McKinnon: That's correct. If you were okay with both of those. If you had an opinion
either way, you should make it in your motion.
Nary: All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay any other questions for staff? I would entertain a motion. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve AZ 02-024, the request for annexation and zoning
of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by
CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder Road and for the attorney to draw up Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to include all staff comments.
De Weerd: Do I hear a second? Okay. That motion dies. Do we have another
motion?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 22 of 62
Nary: Madam President, I guess I don't have a motion yet. I guess there are some
questions that I still have and I know we have closed the Public Hearing, so -- and I
don't know if there are more answers than what we had, but I guess I still have concerns
on the connectivity of this. I think it is very positive steps that have been taken by the
developer, but I am a little concerned about this particular project along Linder in this
location and the development across the street. The connection between these other
properties, trying to make sure that all of the properties get developed properly. I guess
I'm just concerned about the -- about this particular project, it's just the first of these
particular ones right now, but with Bridgetower across the street, a school, I think the
two adjacent property owners have raised some -- at least sufficient consideration. The
developer has been very good at trying to address all of those, too, so I'm not trying to
penalize anybody. I guess I just need a moment to try and figure out if this is the best
way to go at this juncture and we should just go forward on this or whether or not we
need to rethink a little bit about it as I didn't know if anyone else had any thoughts about
it.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I have concern, too. I know in our Comprehensive Plan, our -- we
have placed great emphasis on connectivity and also, as we have seen in other areas
along these busy arterials, we really want to minimize the accesses out onto them and
through better connectivity we can have that happen. I guess we've almost gotten
spoiled in the North Meridian area with the large-size developments that have been
coming in. We already see the road grid, see the connectivity and that is a benefit to
the larger size parcels. With that said, we don't want to penalize the smaller parcels
and the developmentability of those and not achieve the connectivity that we want to
allow traffic to flow and certainly to flow internally and not at so many access points. I
do have the same concern that you have, Mr. Nary. It's difficult if we can't see where
the access points of the subdivision across the street from them are and it is also
something that ACHD really needs to play a large part in.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Dave, could you take it back to that one slide, please? I guess to really highlight
my concern is right now, until this piece, which, as the developer stated, it's in option
right now -- until this piece gets resolved, there is only one access into this property
right here and it's right here.
McKinnon: Madam President, Commissioner -- Councilman Nary -- sorry. There
actually is a separate stub street that comes from the south from Baltic Place -- or
Baldwin Park. Sorry about that.
Nary: Right here?
McKinnon: Right there so there is an additional access and that, I believe, is part of
Phase 2 that you have recently approved for that, so it will be constructed. That would
be a secondary access point. There is more than just one access point directly off of
Linder.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 23 of 62
De Weerd: Dave, do you know where the access in relationship to their entrance is
across the street? Where is Bridgetower's access point?
Nary: Right here. From what I’m, understanding, David, it's right between these two
properties right there is that correct?
McKinnon: That's correct and that meets ACHD's offset requirement.
Nary: The offset requirement for -- from this access to this access here?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Nary: Or the offset from this corner to there, are you talking about?
McKinnon: It meets both of those offsets. They have agreed that that's the appropriate
location, that this access right here meets the offset requirements of the access into
Bridgetower here. It still meets the access requirements further to the north onto the
Converse property, which would still allow the Converses to have access to their
property off of Linder.
Nary: But if these were to develop, then, David, then, there still is an access here and
there would be an access here correct?
McKinnon: If they develop separately --
Nary: If they were to develop separately.
McKinnon: If they were to develop separately, that's correct. The most appropriate
location, as you pointed out, would possibly be in a line directly with the access coming
out of Bridgetower. As President de Weerd pointed out, we, unfortunately, don't have
the ability always to require that all the lots come in at the same time to see that pattern
develop, so we have to look at the lots as they come in.
Nary: And Baltic Place is at what -- you said this is phase two of Baltic Place at the
south of this property?
McKinnon: Baldwin Park. Right. It comes right up in here.
Nary: Is what?
McKinnon: Baldwin Park.
Nary: Oh, Baldwin Park. Okay and where is that currently in the --
McKinnon: Boy, the plans are ready to be approved. Landscaping is in on Linder and I
believe it's, actually, in onto their subdivision right now. Phase 1 is built and there are
buildings being built in Phase 1 and Phase 2's plans are ready for approval.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 24 of 62
Nary: And I believe that that access -- that access that -- from this stub street here --
McKinnon: Where are you at?
Nary: Right there.
McKinnon: Okay.
Nary: Where does that come out on Linder? How much further south does that go into
Baldwin Park and, then, how much further south of Linder is that exit?
McKinnon: I don't have the exact number. I can tell you that it is a -- it rounds about as
a block in the center in Baldwin Park. There is an access road that comes in off of
Linder that heads north and, then, wraps around a small block, so that there is a double
front. There is a house, street, house, house, street, house, and landscape buffer
before you get to that access. I don't have a direct -- an exact measurement. I might be
able to find that information in ACHD's report. They may say what the offset is from
Baldwin Park.
Nary: Well, I think you have answered what, I guess, I was determining, because it
sounds to me is that -- from what you're saying is that it's a meandering road that winds
around through Baldwin Park. It comes through here, so if you live in this section of the
subdivision, you can either take this wind around way through this subdivision to get
there or you can basically come in and out of here, I guess.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Nary: And that's your two options.
De Weerd: I guess if your goal is to reduce the amount of access out onto the arterials,
you want more connectivity towards the front of your subdivision to allow for them to
come to a central point. I'd almost like to see an access to the north along that front
part, than -- rather than in the back part. It would be -- because, I agree, that's a huge
burden on this 15 acre parcel to have four stub streets, so where can they be best
placed is I guess -- because we certainly -- I would imagine on the Converse property --
and, maybe, even on the English property. We don't really want to have an access out
onto Linder, you would have just way too many in a short distance. Well, I'm not a
developer, so I just don't know. Well, we do need to do something, either reopen -- I
guess we have a number of options that we can do. Reopen the Public Hearing and
continue it for further information on how to manage access points in that area, to at
least allow comment by the applicant, or you can -- I would accept a motion, if you
wanted to make a decision at this point.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 25 of 62
Nary: I would move that we reopen the Public Hearing, because we have had some
discussion and the developer has the opportunity to provide us with further input. I don't
know, I guess, if I'm ready to make a decision tonight or not, but at least they should
have the opportunity to provide us more information based on the discussion we have
had at this point. I move to reopen the Public Hearing.
McCandless: I'll second that.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor to reopen the Public Hearing say aye. Okay. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. The Public Hearing is reopened. Council, do you want to hear from
the applicant? Okay. Mr. Ralphs. Thank you. Will you restate your name?
Ralphs: Okay Rod Ralphs, representing the applicant CMD. Dave, could we go to that
one that shows the stub streets and, then, if Council would remember, the seven-acre
piece to the north. This piece right here is going to be able to provide access up to
McMillan and you would also be able to pull in here from the west side, from the English
piece, and so we need to leave this one here to be able to provide the connectivity to
this next piece. That would also provide, eventually as we get -- and, you know,
obviously, we would be coming here for the approval of our plat on this, but we would
be tying into McMillan, providing access there. Then, there would be the stub streets
here that would allow for appropriate size lots along here, so there wouldn't be an
unbuildable lot. I would, again, refer Council back to the drawing that Dave presented.
They can have an east-west access, but we do need to have this stub street here to the
north to provide for access into this next piece and to allow access to McMillan.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I know you have kind of said it already, Mr. Ralphs, but I think you heard
our concerns about trying to deal with these smaller parcels. I did -- in fact, one of the
things I did forget to mention, but I do really like that path that you have created to the
north. I think that's an excellent amenity to this project. I think that's a very nice and
different amenity that we have seen, so I really like that. I honestly didn't realize that's
what Chief Joseph used to have. I didn't know that's what that was supposed to be.
Couldn't figure out what those bars were for but, I guess, because -- I guess there is just
some question about trying to deal with the remainder of this piece and the piece across
the street and trying to have access into all these things. I guess I'm just -- I'm just torn.
I don't know that this is the best -- or the only way to do it, but I recognize the concerns
the neighbors have brought forward as to trying to make their pieces still viable, as well
as provide some safer access off of Linder, so not everybody is just coming down that
street. I guess I'm not really sold that that southern stub street is going to solve that
problem. I agree with you that the northern stub street is definitely needed and it just
makes sense that the eastern one is needed as well. I'm just concerned that as those
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 26 of 62
other two lots -- I guess maybe three lots are developed in that north along Linder, the
two folks that are here. I think there was one more piece north of that, that we are just
going to end up with these very difficult to manage, difficult to connect, difficult to -- for
people to a lay out and try to put together. I know that's not your fault, I'm not trying to
blame you, it's just, you know, this is the only opportunity we really have to decide if it
works for us or not.
Ralphs: That's correct.
Nary: If we approve this one, we have pretty much set in motion what you can or
cannot do with those other pieces. This is our only opportunity, because it's an
annexation, for us to say, no that maybe that doesn't work yet. Maybe there needs to
be more -- either discussion with those property owners and some way to find
something that fits everybody -- and recognize you could get this to fit these neighbors.
They sell their property and somebody else wants something different, so I really want
to try to balance those fairly. I'm not trying to penalize you I'm just concerned, because
we won't get another chance to deal with portion, except for this.
Ralphs: And I understand your concerns, Councilman. We have gone to ACHD and
this is the configuration that meets with all of their approvals. I really believe, you know,
short of -- short of the two northern properties going out and expending the money and
coming up with their own engineering layouts to match it up, you really are shooting in
the dark, so I understand completely where you're coming from. However, the stub
street to the north can -- going into that north piece, the 7.7 acres, you can tie into the
west, you can loop down, and you can get the access through those. Those can work
with the configuration that Dave shared with you. That gives them the access off of
Linder, it gives them the access out of -- to the east -- you know, and I'm just proposing
that they can hire their own engineers to come up with it. I mean they would have an
engineer that would -- or a road that would have access in here, so you would have
access here off the west, off the east, and whoever up here, Mr. Ettinghouse, if there
were ever to be an access there to the north, they can address that with them at that
time. Really, what we have got here is -- with this stub street here and with the
proposed layout, that we would be coming to you with -- shortly you would have access
here on the east and on the west of this subdivision and, you know, they can develop it.
I have no idea whether they are going to go commercial or residential and if they were
to sell it, I have no idea what that developer is going to want to do. If there was some
conflict and if there had been some -- you know, perhaps an expenditure for an
engineer to lay out some possible layouts for that property, so that we weren't trying to
imagine something that hasn't been created yet, it is, it's just shooting in the dark. We
have really come to you with something that we believe is the best and we have run it
by ACHD and for this piece ground, with the accesses we have got, I think it can work
with the adjacent pieces. I think it can work in harmony but, again, you're being asked
for those two northern pieces to guess what they are going to go with, you know, the
density of housing. Whether it's going to be mixed commercial residential, we really
have no idea and it's a guessing game that we really don't have a time frame on either.
De Weerd: I guess we just don't want to continue to make the same mistakes by putting
too many access points out to busy roadways. You mentioned an access to the west,
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 27 of 62
that's only if -- if that's feasible. I guess that's why I'm a little bit concerned by providing
access closer to and letting that piece of property access out off to yours. Yes, you
shouldn't have that burden. It's just something that we need to pay attention to.
Ralphs: I understand. I sympathize completely and that's why you're in the hot seat,
Madam President. Again, we -- we have addressed it with as many stubs as we can
and knowing what we -- with the access to McMillan, everything will be able to tie in
through. You will be able to connect to McMillan, Linder, and you will have a couple
access points off of Linder, but there is a guessing game here. I guess that's why we
are all kind of feeling a little frustrated right now. We really don't know what those two
uses for those two five acre pieces will be, when they will be, what they will be, and
that's why Planning and Zoning said let's go pedestrian stub street on that south piece.
There will be a walkway there, it's always there, and as we begin to put in concrete
some of these things here to the north off that seven acre piece, there will be a stub
street to allow them access to the east.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with the applicant to the point that if English -- he decides to develop that
through the one that's one lower they are landlocked anyway. We can have him put
stub streets all over in there he's already got three, plus the main entrance. Who is to
say what some developer might come in and get both of those five acre parcels and
don't want to drop down in there, want to go out to the east or somewhere. My biggest
concern is having entries onto Linder. I'd like to see that one, the first going south on
that side of the road. That's my biggest concern. I don't know how you can -- sure, I'd
like to look out for the other two properties, too. That's only right to do that, but, also,
these developers have come in and put out a good plan. Like Councilwoman de Weerd
said, you know, it's -- the big ones -- we have been kind of getting spoiled having the big
ones come in where we have had our in and outs at the half mile, which we like. I think
these developers have bent over backwards and I understand the frustration of the two
owners of the other property, but they might not want to develop for 20 years. They
might not want to develop for 30 years. We don't know.
Ralphs: And if -- you know, and if in getting the approval, tonight we waive having that
driveway coming off that existing home, then, we will do that. We won't go either/or we
will just tile that up and have a continuous landscaping berm. We could do that tonight.
It's certainly not our first choice, but I mean if that's what it takes to get this approval
tonight, we will have to do that.
De Weerd: Are there any further questions for the applicant? Dave, do you have any
comments?
McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, just -- and Mr. Ralphs, just a
couple comments. Going back to the original staff report that Mr. Hawkins-Clark wrote
for this project, there was a lot of -- he wrote in his additional considerations -- I believe
it was Number 3 -- it's not in front of you right now -- concerning this block length that
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 28 of 62
we are dealing with right now. It's Block Number 1, this larger block that we have been
talking about where this is an additional stub or maybe if the stub should be there.
Then, this block length is -- in Brad's original staff report he said whether it's a
pedestrian pathway or if it's a street, I believe it would be appropriate and the staff
would support the 20-foot pathway, rather than a stub street, because of the number of
stub streets that are located within the subdivision already. At the two Public Hearings
for this, which I was in attendance, there was discussion about a stub street going up to
the Converse property. One of the things that we have tried to accomplish as a staff is
to make the city more pedestrian friendly. That was one of the things that we looked at
and we talked about having a ped path, rather than a road, to add something that
provides the connectivity, but supports -- or promotes walking, rather than driving
everywhere. If people within this subdivision, the Converses, if they are not able to walk
from point A to B point through that ped path, they have to drive from point A to point B.
Then, we have eliminated any possibility or any encouragement of them to use that as a
pedestrian access, so while encouraging interconnectivity for cars, we have also tried to
encourage interconnectivity with pedestrian pathways. That was the justification for
adding the ped path in that location, rather than the street, because it would provide
interconnectivity and promote the walkability of the community and getting that off
street, rather than on street as a sidewalk. The only other comment I had is for Mr.
Ralphs and it's one that I have already brought up to him. It would just be for Council as
well, it was just the fact that we have got a -- we have got some drainage area that's
shown in that green area that we talked about earlier. They want to put the pool -- they
are showing that as drainage right now, so there is going to be some reworking of the
Drain Plan for this and just wanted to make Council aware of that. There is going to
have to be some Drainage Plans that are revised in order to accommodate a swimming
pool and a clubhouse in that area. Other than that, I really don't have any additional
comments.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess this is for Mr. Ralphs and for Mr. McKinnon but is that -- is that -- I don't
know, whatever that pathway that goes north, whatever you call that, that's a private
path.
Ralphs: That belongs to the homeowners association. That's correct.
Nary: Okay so, David, I totally agree with having pedestrian interconnectivity, but why
would they use it? Where would they go? There is nothing for anyone to go there for.
If they use that pedestrian path between the adjacent properties to the north down
through here, what are they doing? I mean there is nothing here for them to use it for,
except to walk into this subdivision, which is fine, but there is no other -- there is nothing
-- they can't use that. The school is across the street. The parks over here I mean it's
nice to have, but it doesn't appear that it adds any particular value to the -- either this
property or the adjacent property, because there is nothing for them to do, so who
would use it anyway? There is nowhere for them to go.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 29 of 62
McKinnon: Councilman Nary, it's very similar to stub streets. We build a stub street
and there is no place for that stub street to go at this time, but we have provided the
interconnectivity between the two subdivisions. Rather than a person that lives in this
subdivision -- in this subdivision in the future as this develops, rather than having this
person have to take a car and drive out to the arterial -- drive out to the arterial, back
onto the Linder, and, then, back in and go to this house, it provides a means of
interconnectivity for walking between subdivisions. It's not intended to be a regional
walking system, like we have shown on our Comprehensive Plan to provide for
recreation, it's just to provide for interconnectivity in lieu of a stub street. In addition to
that, this serves a secondary purpose. The pathway at this location, because this is an
easement for a drainage or an irrigation ditch that will be tiled right there they will be
able to cover that and provide -- they are going to have to provide that open space
anyway to accommodate that drain that's going to be tiled right there. It provides a
secondary purpose of providing interconnectivity in the future, just as a stub street
would. When the Converse property redevelops in the future, it would have to provide
connectivity to that pathway, so therein lies the value of that, it's for interconnectivity.
There is no intrinsic net benefit to recreation by putting that there.
De Weerd: Habits are harder to change than creating pathways. Is there any --
Nary: And I guess that's my point and I do understand what Dave is saying, but I don't
necessarily think -- this is a path that has to be there anyway. I do think it does add
some value, but I think our concern is that the volume of traffic along this roadway is not
going to alleviate by having this as an entrance -- an entrance right now into these two
separate properties. Potentially an entrance in between them and with only the really
really relief of that is this stub road and that northern stub road and I don't know when
this property to the east is going to develop.
De Weerd: Mr. McKinnon is Linder going to be a three lane or a five lane? Is that --
McKinnon: Madam President, I believe ACHD's desire at this time is that it remains a
three-lane road, rather than a five-lane. The staff report you received from ACHD that is
in -- that we have with us tonight shows that they'd like a 96-foot right of way, which
would be a five-lane road. I believe they have changed their minds since the time this
report was written.
De Weerd: So at this point --
McKinnon: At this point I believe ACHD would like this to be a three-lane road.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay anything further, Council?
McKinnon: Madam President, I have one question that's for our Legal Department and
it has to do with ACHD. Bill, if ACHD has changed their mind in regards to the right of
way width and the required right of way width for this application, should we be adopting
ACHD's recommendation for this project as part of our own or should there be separate
language to be as ACHD approves?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 30 of 62
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, Mr. McKinnon, that's the big
question. That's the question as to whether the city is in a position to try to preserve
these right-of-way corridors. I don't think that the issue is completely settled with ACHD,
because they are looking at other ways to preserve those corridors without necessarily
having to buy all of the right of way. My preference would be right now what you have is
-- what the Council has in front of them is a report or findings from ACHD that says
certain footage. That's what the Council has before it to act upon and from a municipal
perspective, if the required roadway width from ACHD is less than that, that may well
affect the Council's decision as to whether to approve development and whether to
approve annexation. I think what's relevant is what's before them and right now that's a
wide enough roadway to go to five lanes, if they -- if they do it.
De Weerd: Well, I guess the next question would be, then, to Mr. Nichols -- in the
approval of these other developments, we have put in the condition based on
recommendations from the North Meridian Area Planning and any special conditions
that come out of that be accepted by the development. Baldwin Place to the -- or Baltic
-- whichever property is to the south, has that condition on it. This would affect their
planning as well, if they -- if they are going to change or are they just going to increase
the amount of buffer. That presents an interesting scenario, doesn't it?
Nary: Madam President, if they were to increase the existing -- the buffer and, then,
lose that existing house -- isn't that where the existing house is now?
De Weerd: Right now are they asking for right of way for a five-lane road?
McKinnon: Madam President, I was just talking with staff over here. There has been a
Traffic Safety Meeting that was held just today. Captain Musser was in attendance and
they did say that Linder would be developed to five lanes.
De Weerd: Five lanes.
Ralphs: And in answer to Council's question, that house does sit in front of that. We
would not lose that house if it goes to five lanes. Just make it a little tighter. Maybe
driving a Yugo would be one of the conditions of living in that house.
De Weerd: Definitely has to be a European made car.
Ralphs: One of those Minis.
De Weerd: Yes Council, any further questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Ralphs, one other question. On that -- that exercise park to the north there,
is the intent currently -- unless that other piece is purchased by your client, just fence
that off to the homes adjacent to this piece?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 31 of 62
Ralphs: It would and that was actually discussed at the Planning and Zoning level. The
concern being that, you know, that was the private property of the homeowner's
association. We wouldn't want to create just an open park area, so there would be open
fencing there. It wouldn't be a tunnel of six-foot vinyl, but it would be an open type
fencing that would proceed along there to keep out existing livestock that would be
there. Right now, there is livestock to the east and west of that piece, but we have
fencing in there and I think it was in the notes.
McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, it is in the minutes and it was
reflected that it was a three-foot vinyl fence.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: How wide is that piece?
Ralphs: It's 50 feet wide.
De Weerd: Okay. Hopefully, we have answered all of the questions or we are going to
be here all night. I don't want to eliminate anything, but we do need to move along here.
If we are not ready for action, you know, we wouldn't want to close the Public Hearing,
but if it's -- if you're ready to take some action on it, I would entertain a motion to close
the Public Hearing.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Council, are we sure now that we don't need anything through the Public Hearing?
We have got all the answers, everything we need? I mean we don't have 100 percent
answers, but -- Cherie?
McCandless: I don't know that we could get anymore answers, but I would be more
than -- I would like to continue the Public Hearing and think about it a little bit.
De Weerd: I'm sure the developer would rather you think about it, than be unsure and
vote against it, so --
Bird: I think that, Council, I would make a motion that we close the Public Hearing on
the annexation and zoning and Preliminary Plat and the CUP.
De Weerd: Do I hear a second. Okay.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Ralphs, although it wouldn't involve necessarily engineered drawings, how
difficult would it be to come up with some drawings of how those -- the English parcel
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 32 of 62
and the Converse parcel might conceptually be developed without, you know, a great
deal of detail? Just some concept drawings for the Council to see how those two
parcels might be developed, either separately or perhaps together?
Ralphs: As far as the dollar figure and complexity, as Council well knows, you'd really
have to sit down with those properties owners and we -- you know, I think we would
have to do this as a joint effort. They would already have to have in mind what they
want to do with it and so if there were some thoughts about going commercial, they
have got to come to the table with that. If they want to go R-4, if they want to go R-8,
we can conceptualize a lot, but there has kind of got to be some type of a target from
the northern homeowners or property owners there. I don't know if that exists.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I wasn't necessarily looking for that -- maybe that level of detail, but I was
getting the sense from the other property owners that there hadn't been a real sit-down
discussion with them or am I just mistaken and did I misread that?
Ralphs: Oh, we have met with both of them in regards to purchasing the ground. We
haven't extended offers to either one. The English’s indicated they were not interested
in selling at the time we spoke with them and we have never gone back with a second
visit to the Converses, so --
Nary: Maybe I misspoke, then, Mr. Ralphs.
Ralphs: Okay.
Nary: I'm not saying you've got to buy their property.
Ralphs: Right.
Nary: I'm saying have you had a discussion with them about the concerns they raised
about the viability of their property and having that kind of discussion, not just buying it.
Ralphs: No, we have not discussed their time frame, their desires to develop it. We
entered into preliminary discussions with them and, then, we moved in on this 15-acre
piece.
Nary: Because I guess my sense from the discussion was we currently don't have a
neighbor meeting requirement. It's in an issue that's later on our agenda tonight and it
sounded to me that maybe some of their questions could have been resolved with a
neighborhood meeting type of discussion. Not a discussion to buy their property, I'm
not saying to do that and not necessarily a discussion to help them develop their
property, because I don't think you should have to spend your money or your client's
money to do that either. I think they -- I guess they have raised some legitimate
concerns and I think it's the reason, I guess, this half of the bench, at least, is really in a
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 33 of 62
quandary over this particular piece. I'm just not going to speak to that half, I just don't
know. I think maybe that's one of the things that I guess makes me -- makes me, I
guess, in puzzlement over this one, because I think some of their issues are very
legitimate. I guess it doesn't sound like you have ever had that discussion with them
over their issues and concerns. I didn't hear from them either, like you said, that they
were looking to develop soon or how they would want to develop or whether it was
housing or residential or commercial or mix, whatever. I didn't hear any of those things.
All I heard them saying was that they wanted to leave their property viable for whatever
they wanted to do in the future. We have been wrestling over here as to what is that
and how does that look. What does that mean to them and trying to, then, do this third-
party conversation to try to do that? I guess what I would rather see is that you have
that conversation with them and maybe there isn't any way to satisfy their concerns, but
I guess I'd feel better if you had that discussion. I don't know if that would take five
minutes or whether you need to come back another day.
Ralphs: You know, and -- Councilman, I know that could take just, you know, a few
minutes or whatever. I know that we have had two Planning and Zoning Meetings on it
when these kinds of issues -- the development issue -- this is the first we have heard of
it tonight, you know, and we would be more than happy -- you know, and that's two
meetings and, then, we get -- and, then, we are encountering that situation -- those
issues tonight. Certainly, you know, we will go and we will visit with them, but as far as
-- we know the uncertainty that's involved. Certainly, we can visit with them and -- but
we have had two meetings already at the public level where these issues could have
been addressed earlier as well.
De Weerd: Well, it appears we have a couple of options here. One is we can just delay
this until further on in our agenda or we can continue this until the next -- until next
week, so that some of these questions that I would ask that -- that you give specifics of
what information you're looking for, so if you'd like them to talk to the neighbors --
Ralphs: And let me have some specifics --
De Weerd: -- what specific information are you looking for that you want them to come
back with and that's whether it's later on in the evening or if it's next week, what
specifically are you looking for? Because I mean I can second a motion, but as you
would have a split vote, there is no one here to tie it, so we just need to move this along.
If we could give them some direction on what we would like them to answer, that would
be helpful.
Nary: I guess here is what I would like to do and I make this in the form of a motion. I
would move that we continue this matter to the end of our agenda. I don't know that this
needs to take a week, but it seems like we have had a three-way conversation tonight
over concerns that have been raised by the two other adjacent property owners in
regards to what they believe is the viability of their property in relation to this
development. What I'd like to do is move that we continue this to the end of the agenda,
give you the opportunity to talk to them and, again, not under the discussion to
purchase their property, but in a discussion as to what they believe makes this property
-- or how this property impacts the viability of their property. It hasn't been very clear, I
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 34 of 62
can't give you, necessarily, a direction as to what specific things their concerns were,
the level of traffic that this would cause, and by the access onto Linder Road, which I
think Councilman Bird has also raised, it having felt that this property, as well as the
adjacent property, all accessing onto Linder Road. Again, I'm not -- I recognize that that
may not be adequate time, but since we seem to talk a whole lot and we haven't really
gotten very far, I'd like at least the opportunity for you to have some discussion with
these folks. I think we probably need a little break and, then, we are going to have
another hearing. We have got some discussion about some other things, so that might
take a little while to get there, it might take a half an hour or an hour, but I don't
necessarily want to set this over. I think you have put together a very good project I
want to at least make sure that's clear. I don't have a problem with your project at all. I
think what you're trying to do is very good, but I think it is our responsibility to look at all
this and, as I stated earlier, this is our only chance to really do that in regards
annexation. If you would indulge us and my motion would be to move this just to the
end of our agenda to give you some opportunity to talk with these folks and, then, we
will take it up again at the end. That's what I would like to do.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to move this to the end of our agenda and a
second. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Public Hearing: RZ 02-008
Request for a Rezone of 1.99 acres from R-
Creekside Arbour II
15 to R-40 zones for proposed by Bill and Lucy
th
Leavell – 1425 Northeast 5 Street:
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 02-040
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for proposed
th
Creekside Arbour II
by Bill and Lucy Leavell – 1425 Northeast 5 Street:
De Weerd: Would you care to take a break or shall we do the next hearing and, then,
take a break? Okay thank you. Okay our next item would be 13 and 14, Public
Hearings for RZ 02-008, request for rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R-40 zones for
the proposed Creekside Arbour II and the Public Hearing for CUP 02-040, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for
Creekside Arbour II. We will open it with staff comments.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. I'll give you a brief
outline of the project and, then, stand for questions. On the overhead that we have on
the PowerPoint presentation, the area that we will be discussing tonight has been
th
bolded. It's just south of Fairview Avenue off of 5 Street. Move forward. The area that
we are discussing tonight would be the area that I have highlighted in the center of the
project -- in the center of the photo it's the rectangular shaped piece of property. Some
older photos. This is, actually, just a continuation of the existing Creekside Arbour
Phase 2 this would the Annex Number 2 of Creekside Arbour to the south. It's, actually,
to the south and to the east of this project. There already are apartments buildings this
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 35 of 62
is just a continuation of the existing apartment buildings as another phase. Here are
some elevations of the buildings for you tonight. Apartment buildings some apartment
buildings that we have on site, some photos, and that really ends the photo discussion.
If I can go back to the site plan right here just to orient you, this is the road coming in off
th
of -- this is 5 Street coming in off of Fairview Avenue. Fairview Avenue is to the north,
so north is to the left on the photo. The applicant has requested this all be zoned R-40,
which is in compliance with our Comprehensive Plan, which designates this property as
high density residential. Staff supports the rezone onto the Conditional Use Permit for
this project and there were, essentially, two things that the applicant proposed that the
Commission and staff disagreed with and it was found in the site-specific
recommendations of approval. One of those was that they remove all of the proposed
rock that they had shown on the perimeter planner adjacent to the fence on the east of
the property and on the north side of the property. The applicant had requested that
they be able to place rock, instead of organic bark and the other types of ground cover.
The Commission recommended that they remove the rock as proposed and replace that
with organic. In addition to that, there was a requirement for some additional two-inch
caliper trees to be placed between the areas that are now shown as the garbage
facilities. If you can -- it's hard to make those all out, but within the project they show
the garbage, a three yard dumpster here, one across the driveway here, and one at this
location. Our Landscape Ordinance requires that you have no more than 12 lineal --
linear parking spaces aligned in a row without a landscape buffer. Rather than install a
landscape buffer, the applicant proposed putting in a garbage dumpster, in lieu of the
landscaping, and so we have asked that they either pull the dumpster forward and put
an additional tree in there to have landscaping, rather than the garbage in lieu of that.
The applicant, I believe, is in agreement with doing that and they will work with staff in
order to make arrangements to do that. As I stated before, this is a continuation of an
existing project and it's just bringing it closer towards Fairview. It is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan, staff does support this, and I stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Are there any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Applicant? Raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm that
the testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Knopp: I do.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
rd
Knopp: My name is Larry Knopp. My address 355 South 3 Street, Boise. I'm the
architect representing the owner on this project. We have discussed the items on the
site-specific requirements with the staff and have agreed on the items that they have
discussed. We are in agreement and this is the final phase or the continuation of the
project. They have -- we have stubbed in all the utilities, the streets in, we have fenced
the perimeter fencing and so this is the final part of this development. Pretty straight
forward, I think.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 36 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Knopp: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to
testify? Okay staff, Council, anything else? Thank you.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is the Council sure, they don't have any public comments? I'll make a motion that
we close the Public Hearings on RZ 02-008 and CUP 02-040.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Thank you. Any discussion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve RZ 02-009, request for rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to
R-40 zones for the proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell at 1425
th
Northeast 5 Street, for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law and Decision of Order and to incorporate all staff comments.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve the request for rezone of
RZ 02-008. Is there any further discussion? Okay all those in favor say aye. Those
opposed? Oh. I'm sorry roll call vote.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: I got ahead of you on that one. Sorry. Okay.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 37 of 62
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve CUP 02-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for
apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for the proposed Creekside
th
Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell. 1425 Northeast 5 Street and for the attorney to
draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to
incorporate all staff comments.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 02-040. Mr. Clerk,
roll call vote.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay I would entertain a motion to take a break for 10 minutes.
Nary: So moved.
De Weerd: Second?
McCandless: Second.
Bird: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Recess.)
(Reconvened at 9:23 P.M.)
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-024
Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4
Cobblefield Crossing
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Subdivision
by CMD, Inc. – 4450 North Linder Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-022
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73
building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision
proposed by CMD, Inc. – 4450 North
Linder Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-032
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, 8 single-family attached homes
and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 38 of 62
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision
for proposed by CMD, Inc. – 4450
North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I will bring this meeting back to order at 9:23. I realize that
we tabled Items 10, 11, and 12 until the end of our agenda, but it looks like they are out
of conference, so -- are the developers and the neighbors -- are you ready to come
back up before us? Would Council agree to move this before 15 okay?
Nary: They are ready.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, Mr. Ralphs, it's nice to have you back. You're already sworn
in, so I won't -- I won't make you do it again.
Ralphs: Appreciate it.
De Weerd: Okay. Well --
Ralphs: If we could go back, Dave, to the -- well, let's see, let's go back to the plat
where you can get a really good look at the flag -- one more. There you go. Thank you.
In meeting with Mr. English and Mrs. Converse, as we prepared to develop Cobblefield
II, which is our second phase here, we are going to work very closely with Mr. English in
arranging for this stub street here to the -- enabling him to have access in here. Then,
English’s and Converse’s will work together in creating some type of a circular or a stub
street to enable them to have access through here. Then, I guess currently -- and I
think it's subject to the winds of change, I guess, but ACHD has agreed to allow an
access here off of Linder, but it actually splits that property line, so half of it is on
English’s and half of it's on French’s. That's just a matter of English’s and French’s
have got to work together as far as whoever sells first, to -- or, I'm sorry. Converse. I
have been doing that for nine months, do you know that? Sorry but, anyway, as they
work -- if they will work together, they can enhance the likelihood of them having access
here off of Linder with the current plans that ACHD has with that access point directly
opposite Bridgetower. I guess, what we are coming back to the table with is we keep
our stub streets where they are, but as we develop Cobblefield II, we make sure that --
Mr. English has indicated that his piece right here is about 250 feet wide. He's not a
three lot wide piece. He actually has to have that road centered as much as possible to
allow him to have development on both sides. We are going to work with them on
getting that stub street placed where he will be able to have that access and I guess, in
summary, that's what we had discussed and would work with.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Ralphs?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: I don't.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Ralphs: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 39 of 62
De Weerd: It looks like Mr. English has additional testimony?
English: I know I'm still under oath and I'm not going to --
Nary: Just state your name again.
English: Brian English 4650 North Linder. I guess this all comes back that we are
trying to make sure -- and one of the reasons why this issue has come up is ACHD has
told me that they are not going to give us any access roads there anymore. They don't
want anymore further north and if that happens and stub roads aren't built in someplace
else, and they also perceive McMillan to be 96-foot wide with five lanes and -- we are in
a corner where you can't get access for utilities. I'm just trying to make sure we protect
our rights for utilities. I'm not opposed to what they are proposing here, I think they
have tried to do as good a job as they can, and I think Tawnya is the same way. We
are not opposed to that. It's just don't leave us out. Thank you.
De Weerd: I appreciate that. Mrs. Converse, do you have anything you would like to
add? Just please restate your name.
Converse: Tawnya Converse.
De Weerd: Thank you if you can pull that mike down a little bit.
Converse: You're telling me I'm short. Yes, I mean I don't think it's up to them to do
any more than they have already done. I mean they have done an excellent job and it's
just we are just stuck and there is no decisions that they can make, everything is up to
the city and ACHD as to what happens to our property. I think there is still a lot of if's,
but there is nothing that they can do about it. It's up to you as far as where we can put
residents to access our property and what we need to do. I just hate the thought that
we have to rely on who sells when and who doesn't, more so my property, because I
won't have an east exist, because I don't know, you know -- and I won't have an exit
onto Linder, unless the English’s would go down the middle, if even that's allowed.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I was just going to say, you know, Mr. English did an excellent job of getting this
access point into this property on the west side of the road to basically split the
difference between the two properties. I think the future is going to be that there
wouldn't be two access points off these properties at some point. You know, I think by
having that split is probably the best you could get and that's probably the likelihood. I
think all we wanted to see tonight -- and not to delay it further -- was that you folks were
satisfied as well, but we were concerned about your issues, but also that the developer
has made sure we have heard all of them and I think we have. I think you have done --
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 40 of 62
I mean they have done the best they can. I think we have done at least at this juncture
the best we can, and I think, realistically, as we stated, it's unlikely that ACHD won't
allow any access on this property. The likelihood is that it would match up with the road
across the street and that would be the only access, though, at some point in the future,
so what happens at that point we don't know, but that seems like, from what we have
got. That's the best we can do with all three of those pieces of property and the fourth
piece, that's probably the best we can do to make them all usable and viable in the
future.
De Weerd: Well, I think with the Converse piece of property, you will have access out
onto Linder at that split point between your property and Mr. English, so you will have
that access if you happen to develop before Mr. English and you. Then, will probably
be asked to stub to the north to have that access into his property and, then, out onto
McMillan at some future date, so -- okay. Are there any other questions from Council?
Okay would you like to close the Public Hearing?
Nary: I would move to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I would second it.
De Weerd: Thank you. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I would accept a motion by one of you.
Nary: If Mr. Bird wants to renew his motion.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve AZ 02-024, the request for annexation and zoning of 15.4
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by
CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder Road and for the attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and include staff
comments.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Well, we have had a motion to approve P -- I'm sorry, AZ 02-024. Mr. Bird,
have you considered including in that motion the typical language for the -- any future
recommendations regarding the North Meridian Area Plan in terms of that roadway?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 41 of 62
Bird: Yes that was included in staff comments, I believe.
Nary: I think we have discussed it. I don't remember if that was in the staff
recommendations. We discussed that that was a condition that we have placed in other
properties, including the adjacent property.
Bird: Yes, that does include that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: If second accepts.
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay the motion is to approve the request for
annexation and zoning for Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision, to include all staff
comments, and the additional language on the roadways. Mr. Clerk.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay Item Number 11, PP 02-022.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve PP 02-022, the request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 73 building lots, and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder
Road. For the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order and to leave the stub roads as shown on the Preliminary Plat as now.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision any further discussion?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Bird, there was the question of that -- about the alternatives on the site-
specific conditions, whether the -- in regards to the existing house. There is the
either/or to leave --
Bird: The either/or --
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 42 of 62
Nary: -- or to eliminate the first option, which would require that the access be not on
Linder, but on the --
Bird: And he said that the applicant agreed to that as the way we have it. Yes. That's
fine.
Nary: So we would eliminate the first of the either/or?
Bird: Yes.
Nary: Okay. I agree.
De Weerd: Is the fencing issue on the Preliminary Plat or on the CUP? I thought you
could answer that quicker than I could find it on my --
McKinnon: I believe it's in the Preliminary Plat. It was a requirement that they submit a
fencing plan with the Final Plat.
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Condition 5 I think he said they would agree to put a hot wire or whatever to
eliminate any potential damage to the fence.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: So that would -- I guess that would be part of the conditions that --
De Weerd: Okay so are you ready for the question?
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: We don't need roll call vote on this --
McCandless: Yes, we do.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Oh so, Mr. Bird, roll call vote.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: Okay Item Number 12, CUP 02-032.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve CUP 02-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
PUD for 64 single-family detached houses, eight single-family attached houses, and
one single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 43 of 62
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder Road. For
the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of
Order and to include all staff comments.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit
02-032. Mr. Berg, roll call vote.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Appreciate your working together on this.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance:
De Weerd: Okay Item Number 15, Public Hearing for the Wireless Communication
Tower Ordinance. Mr. McKinnon, we'll start with the staff comment.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. You should have
received three different sets of ordinances tonight and, as we stated, we are just going
to talk first about the Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance. The reason that this
is before you tonight is the Planning and Zoning Commission has made the
recommendation to you that this should be adopted and it basically does a few things
for the city. One -- first of all, it sets the standards. Currently, we have no standards for
cell towers. Someone comes in, automatically, it's an unlisted use, and it’s a
Conditional Use Permit. We have no standards for design or no standards for location,
so this will give us some standards. The second thing this ordinance will do for us, it will
provide some guidelines for stealth towers. We would like to encourage the use of
stealth towers and have made it easier to receive approval for stealth towers and to
allow stealth towers in residential districts through a Conditional Use Permit where a
standard cell tower would not be allowed. Finally, what this ordinance does is it
provides additional noticing requirement that people within 600 feet of the proposed cell
tower receive notification, rather than the standard 300 feet for that. We will be able to
notice more people, we will have some design standards, and we will be able to
encourage the type of cell towers in Meridian that we would like. Among the standards
that we would be adopting would be a co-location standard, which would require people
that build towers in the City of Meridian to provide those towers to be available for other
people to provide their services on the tower. Rather than have Meridian turn into a cell
tower farm with numerous cell towers, you would have one cell tower with at least two, if
not three, accompanying uses on that. That's it in a nutshell. I assume that you have
had the opportunity to read through this ordinance and I stand and ask if you have any
questions at this time.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any comments or questions?
Nary: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 44 of 62
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: This is just a really minor thing, Dave, but as I was looking through this, the
definition of wireless communication facility --
McKinnon: Sure.
Nary: -- the definition says a steel monopole, guy wire tower. Is that the right term?
Isn't it guide wire? It's not a guy wire.
McKinnon: I think so. Spell check doesn't catch that.
Nary: And I'm not -- I wasn't trying to be funny, like I usually am, but I just didn't know. I
didn't know if that was really a term. I thought it was guide.
McKinnon: Guy wire. I have seen it spelled guy wire and that's -- from the material I
had it was guy wire, but I could be totally wrong with that.
Nary: I just didn't know if that was the right term or if that was a --
McKinnon: I believe that's the term that's used in other ordinances that would be used
for modeling was the guy wire and that's one of the types that we would like to
discourage.
Nary: So it must be guy wire.
McKinnon: It must be correct. One other thing to point out is -- as I was going through
this ordinance, the recommendation was this be Chapter 22 of the Zoning Ordinance. I
recognize that once we got passed 11-22-2, rather than have 22 written in like on the
definition, it says 11 dash question mark dash three, if you could replace all the question
marks with 22, that would be very appropriate.
Nary: I also won't comment that I used to read Captain Musser's reports as Officer
Musser, but I'm still going to trust him to use the term here.
McKinnon: I have had the opportunity to talk with numerous people in the business of
wireless communication towers. A lot of them felt that this was very appropriate to have
something in place. They didn't necessarily agree with the restrictiveness of it, but they
felt it was very important that each city that they work with have some sort of guidelines,
so that they know how to plan and how to designate locations where they can build
those poles. Many of them that I talked to said this is very fair and the inclusion of
stealth towers is something that they encourage in the future as well, however, they are
much more expensive to the people building them.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 45 of 62
Nary: Just one question, David, and it's probably here and I just didn't see it, but I like
the 600-foot noticing requirement for those that require a CUP, but is there a -- is that
because there is a height requirement to have a CUP if it isn't a stealth tower?
McKinnon: No. The require for a Conditional Use Permit is that if you're trying to -- a
stealth tower in a residential zone or the Old Town zone or a C-N zone, would require a
Conditional Use Permit for a stealth tower. Then, in all the other zones it would require
a Conditional Use Permit.
Nary: So is there any concern, then, that if you're building a stealth tower, you're going
to put a tower inside a steeple that's already existing --
McKinnon: Okay.
Nary: -- and the intent is that it's not even going to be noticeable at all, we are going to
send notice to 600 feet away on something they are not even going to see. Doesn't that
-- is that worth -- I heard you say that sometimes people felt it was maybe more
restrictive, but doesn't that seem a little onerous to -- if you're building a stealth tower? I
understand if you're building a 50-foot tower or, you know, a 75-foot tower, that looks
just like a big lattice antenna, because you would give larger notice, because it's so
visible from such a long way away, but if you're building a stealth tower, it seems to sort
of defeat the purpose of doing it.
McKinnon: I think that would be a very appropriate amendment to be added to that, that
stealth towers not be required to have any additional notification. If you'd like to take
that a step further, we could eliminate the stealth tower Conditional Use Permit
requirement from those that want to build in the residential areas. That would be 11-22-
5.2, stealth towers, otherwise, hidden facilities, may be permitted through the
Conditional Use process, if you -- the easiest way might be just to strike that, rather than
having to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, which would require
notification in the first place, just allow those per staff.
Nary: Madam President, I guess -- because to me, if the issue is if the Zoning
Administrator determines that it isn't a stealth tower and the person believes that it is,
then, we could address that issue or whether it's applicable to this condition use. If the
intent is to encourage, essentially, non-visible antennas, that's what we want them to
do, so it doesn't make much sense to make it more onerous to have them go out and do
that. That seems reasonable to me. I don't know about any --
McKinnon: It seems very reasonable to me as well.
Bird: I agree with that.
McKinnon: So, the way of handling that -- would you want to modify 11-22-5-A.2, which
says that stealth towers and otherwise hidden facilities in the R-15 and R-40, C-N, Old
Town zones, be permitted through the Certificate of Zoning Compliance process or the
Conditional Use Permit process?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 46 of 62
Nary: Yes at least that way there would be a check for someone that it is compliant,
that it is a stealth tower, and that somebody doesn't say it is when it isn't. Like I said, if
they disagree, they could certainly appeal that to Planning and Zoning Commission or to
us or however that would work. They could certainly have an appeal to make -- I don't
think they are shut out if the Planning and Zoning Department says it's not and they say
it is, they are just stuck, I assume they would have a way to appeal that decision and be
able to deal with that.
McKinnon: That's correct, Councilman.
Nary: But a Certificate of Zoning Compliance is probably adequate for those types of
constructives.
McKinnon: So, you'd like the modification to be made to strike Conditional Use Permit
process and replace that with Certificate of Zoning Compliance?
Nary: Yes.
McKinnon: Okay.
De Weerd: It looks like you have much of the consent of the industry, since they are not
here, and they certainly have had a long enough time period to comment. It seems to
have been going on forever. Mr. Berg, do you have a comment?
Berg: Yes, Madam President, just to make known, again, that Dave referred to the
people within 600 feet that are still just the property owners.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Berg: Not the residents, not the people living there renting, it's the property owners, and
that's how it is conformed with all of our other notifications.
De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. Okay Dave, I appreciate all the work you
have put into this, because there has been a great deal from the first draft we have
received, you have added a number of papers, so I appreciate the thoroughness in what
you have put into the detail on this any other comments, Council? Okay let's -- this is a
Public Hearing and I see some people out there that want to comment. Do any of our
two reporters or ACHD representative want to -- okay? Council?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we close the Public Hearing for the Wireless Communication
Tower Ordinance.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 47 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. It's --
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: The proper thing right now, if we agree with this -- we evidently do, we instruct
David to -- if we make a motion to instruct David to have, an ordinance brought forward?
De Weerd: They need it prepared.
Bird: Yes. That's what I mean.
Nary: Does it need to go to the Planning and Zoning first?
McKinnon: This was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to you.
Bird: So what we do is recommend the drafting of it and bringing it forward?
De Weerd: Is that a motion?
Bird: That's a motion.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
McCandless: Second.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to prepare the appropriate documents
for the Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance for approval. All those --
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just to make it clear for the record, that would include the amendment to 11-22-
5.A-2, that stealth towers may be permitted with a Certificate of Zoning Compliance,
rather than a Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: First and second agrees?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 48 of 62
Nary: Yes.
McCandless: Yes.
De Weerd: That's --
McCandless: Yes, I do.
Nary: Me, too.
De Weerd: Now, on this, I don't need roll call, but when we pass it, we do? Okay. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All Ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-2-2,
Definitions of the Zoning Regulations Ordinance:
De Weerd: Dave, Item Number 16. This is very exciting to see on here. I have been
waiting for -- these next two for, I think, over a year, year and a half. You started
working on that a long time ago.
Nary: Good things come to those who wait.
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. We have a patient staff. It is a Public Hearing. I will open
the Public Hearing and for staff comments.
McKinnon: Item Number 16 you have in front of you tonight is basically just a list of
definitions of uses that we have shown on our schedule of use control that we do not
have defined. When someone comes to us and says what is a machine shop, we have
now something that would allow us to say a machine shop is -- and we have a
definition. It gets rid of some of the ambiguity in our code by us being able to fit things
in, which might not necessarily fit. It provides some clear guidelines as to what certain
uses are and what the city expects out of those certain uses. That's all I have for you.
There are a number of definitions some that were added. Again, this has been
recommended to you for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, they held a
Public Hearing there was no comment at that Public Hearing, other than discussion
between staff and the Commission. I'd ask if you have any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: David, I think it's wonderful. I agree with the Council President. I did notice in the
documents we have that mobile was deleted and manufactured home community was
added in. Those are the only ones that show highlights and add-ins. Is there a reason
for that? Is that just how the document came out or is it something else?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 49 of 62
McKinnon: I'm sorry about that, Madam President, Commissioner -- Councilman Nary
still having a hard time with that.
Nary: So do a lot of other people.
McKinnon: These are all new ones, they should all be underlined, as they are all new,
and the formatting just came out odd on that. Mobile should be stricken. The
highlighting -- I'm not sure why it is highlighted. That would be my error, but we are
striking mobile and replacing that with manufactured is the intent of that.
Nary: So it was intended to highlight those differently. All of these are new and --
McKinnon: That's correct.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: That will be corrected in the final version any other questions? Okay is
there anyone else who would like to testify on this -- on Item Number 16? Just have to
ask. Okay. Council, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Nary: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Then, I would pray for a motion.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move that we have staff prepare the amendments to the Meridian City Code
11-15-5 of -- or, excuse me, 11-2-2 of Definitions, Zoning Regulation Ordinance, and
return those to the City Council in due course.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay there is motion to approve the amendment to Meridian City Code 11-
2-2 and ask for the appropriate paperwork to be drawn up. All those in favor say aye.
All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 50 of 62
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-15-5, Posting
Requirements:
De Weerd: Okay. I will open the Public Hearing for Item Number 17, Amendment to
Meridian City Code 11-15-5, and Posting Requirements. Dave.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. This one I'm going
to spend -- this ordinance I will spend a little bit more time on, than I did the previous
two. If I could have you all turn to Exhibit A, I will explain to you the format that this is in
and explain to you some of the changes. In Exhibit A, this -- the first part is basically
some housekeeping. Currently, the ordinance reads that the applicant needs to provide
the City Clerk with a list of property owners and that's not how this process has been
working for a number of years. The Planning and Zoning Department has been
providing this list of names for a number of years to the applicant. In addition to that, we
have requested -- the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended striking the
language that any additional area that may be impacted by said application, as
determined by the Zoning Administrator. The reason that we asked for that to be
stricken, the part regarding the Zoning Administrator making the determination, is so
that there would not be any ambiguity in code. Rather than having someone come in
and, then, having Brad or whoever the new Planning Director would be, say we think
additional people should be noticed. Then, in the future they say this wasn't handled
correctly, this was ambiguous, you made this requirement -- you did not make this
requirement on other people, it would keep us out of any of those discussions. If you'd
like to have that flexibility that can definitely be placed back in. I as a staff person,
would always like to collar that as much as possible and leave the ambiguities as much
out of the equation as possible in order to maintain equality for all applicants. Then,
finally, on that is city staff will do the notice -- will do the mailings and that's how it has
been done for a number years, but it wasn't written that way in the code. That's some
housekeeping issues. On Item Number 2, the requirements of the applicant rather than
have the posting notice for one week, we've asked that the posting be done 10 days
prior to the hearing. That just provides the additional measure of public notice, rather
than the statement of seven, just set a standard of 10 days prior to the hearing. Those
would be calendar days, not business days. The Land Use Planning Act in their
references to postings or notices, they use the same language regarding 10 days
versus seven days prior to the hearing and those would be understood as calendar
days.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg?
Berg: Excuse me, Madam President. I don't understand the term calendar days.
McKinnon: Consecutive days, rather than business days, including Saturdays and
Sundays.
Berg: Okay the only reason I say that, because we just reversed some of that stuff in
the election law, to not include Saturday and Sunday as days counting, but that's okay.
I just wanted to --
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 51 of 62
McKinnon: Okay we are intending on counting Saturdays and Sundays.
Berg: Okay. It's clear. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKinnon: There is a statement that we eliminated that we added later. Under Item
Number 2, it states that the applicant delivers a notarized statement they have posted it
and we have added that in another location further into the report, rather than at this
location, and we set forth some new signage requirements. The new signage
requirements model similar to Eagle's. Eagle has the large four-by-four postings and
they have it on four-by-four plywood mounted onto four-by-four posts at least three feet
above the ground. On the back of your application you should -- on the back of your
packet you should see the posting requirements by the city. It gives you an example of
what it looks like and this is the direction that we would like them to go with that and the
requirements go forward in explaining how that needs to be done, under what sizes and
what requirements. If you could flip to the next page for Item Number 3 not in keeping
in line -- or not keeping in line with Eagle, we have added some exceptions to those
requirements that some Conditional Use Permit applications, such as group child care
homes, annexations, Preliminary Plat applications that contain less than five acres of
land. Also, rezone and Comp Plan amendments that are less than three acres in size
can use the smaller 11-by-17 notifications. We felt that it would be appropriate for the
smaller types of projects to have a smaller type of posting, rather than a large four-by-
four sign in front of a single family home for a group child care. We felt that that was
overkill and that an 11-by-17 would be appropriate. And so you may have some
discussion tonight as to what sizes those should be, staff would encourage some
discussion on those items, and what items should or should not be required to meet the
new noticing requirements. Again, there is some additional language concerning the
requirement for the postings. The little D under all of this states that signs need to be
removed three days after the Public Hearing. Currently, we have nothing that requires
that they be removed. There are a lot of 11-by-17 signs that are strewn throughout the
city that have never been removed. This is just a safeguard to require that they be
removed after the hearing. Item Number 3 on this page is something that we had a lot
th
of discussion with at the Commission, both on August 29 and at the last Commission
meeting that I attended in December. We talked a lot about neighborhood meetings
and whether or not we should make it a requirement for all applications that come to the
Planning and Zoning Commission to have a neighborhood meeting. We talked about
whether we should exempt some uses from that and we decided rather than to exempt
some uses, such as we have with the noticing requirements. We felt that if we worded
the language too -- worded it so that the language was that we strongly encourage them
to have a neighborhood meeting, that in our pre-applications that we strongly encourage
them to do that. Let them know at that time that if they don't do it and the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Council feel that it is necessary, the Planning and Zoning
Commission could make it a requirement at that. They would have their forewarning
from staff, they have the language that says it's strongly encouraged, and they have
language that says the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council could make it a
requirement. It sets them forth on notice that they should do it, if they don't do it, they
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 52 of 62
may have to do one anyways, it will slow down their application, and that's the way we
ended that discussion and this is the recommendation that came to you. Additional
discussion on that, I would encourage that. Like I said, there was a great deal of
discussion on those -- on that issue, on the neighborhood meetings. We do have, like I
said, the final page of this, it gives the outlines for how signs should look. It gives some
size guidelines for the size of letters and with that, I'd stand for any questions that you
might have concerning the new noticing standards that were recommended to you by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Council, do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess the one thing -- I did bring up a couple of things to Dave before the
meeting and I'll just put those on the record as well. I did propose today to leave more
flexibility on the additional noticing and the reason -- the reason for that -- and if the rest
of you don't agree with that, that's fine, but we can't foresee every single thing that can
come along and I agree that how you cut and dry 300 feet is very, very simple. The
intent of this ordinance is to make sure people know what's happening and what we
listen to and hear over and over from folks is I didn't know. I didn't know, I didn't see the
sign, I never -- I don't read the newspaper. I don't come to City Hall to see the postings,
I had no idea until my neighbor down the street told me, hey, did you know they were
going to build something over there. If our intent is to make sure people know and that's
really all this is about, then, there should be some flexibility. We can build safeguards in
there -- I mean if we aren't being arbitrary, then, we have to be able to support -- the
Zoning Administrator has to support why they want additional notice, whether it's
because the type of use that's being proposed is going to impact the school. The
school district is 350 feet away, that's the nearest school, and they feel that the school
district still should be notified about it, then, I think that's reasonable. I think if it's -- we
can either limit the additional footage, you can leave it open ended as it was, you can,
you know, add an additional buffer, another 100 feet or another 300 feet, that they have
the flexibility and they have to identify the uses and the reasons for it. It isn't just
arbitrary, but it has something that the Planning and Zoning Administrator has to identify
why it is necessity to do that. Again, if a person has an issue with that, they can bring
that up, but I do think the intent is to make sure people are aware of what we are doing
and what's happening around them. As this city grows, more and more and more,
especially in the north, but all over, we are going to hear that more often. We hear it all
the time now. I'd rather just have that level of flexibility, so that they can do that and do
that if it's necessary. The other thing I had mentioned today was on that section -- I
think it's Section 2-A -- excuse me. Section 2-C, about providing an affidavit or
notarized statement that they did comply with the posting requirements and what I
suggested to Dave and he commented is they have a photograph. It seems like
everybody has a camera or everybody has a digital camera, that they provide a
photograph, because the other thing we hear a lot of is, well, there is a sign, it's this little
rinky-dink sign and you can't read it it's too small. I know we have tried to adjust some
of those things, but, you know, again, I'd like to be able to tell somebody here is what
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 53 of 62
the person said was there. Here is a picture of it, you know, is that on the property,
because if there is an issue, at least we have some idea of what it looks like. Many
times we have asked the same question, well, where was it, what did it look like, and did
it comply. It's not a big thing. On the neighborhood meetings issue, I guess I didn't chat
with Dave about this. I like the idea of having a neighborhood meeting. I guess my only
thought is, is that I think we just need to fish or cut bate. I think we need -- is the
neighborhood meeting important or is it not. To strongly encourage them is great, but if
you had somebody go through the entire process and come here before us and we say
you should have had a neighborhood meeting, why don't you go back and start over
and have a neighborhood meeting. By that point they are all mad, all the neighbors are
mad, and, eventually, what we seem to find when they get here is they are mad at us.
They are not mad at anybody else anymore, they are mad at us. To, then, send them
back out the door to do it over is going to make it worse and they are not going to reach
any concessions. Many, many times we have seen developers, especially the ones that
develop a lot in Boise where it's mandatory to do it, do it routinely, because that's just
the way it gets done. They also know that it solves some problems. Tonight we
probably wouldn't have had the same issue if they had had a neighborhood meeting.
We have seen many of these projects that probably would have been done a lot
smoother if they had it or at least we would have identified the issues that they couldn't
agree on a lot better if we would have done that. It can be very onerous and I recognize
that if we put it on every one -- and maybe what we need to do is identify the types of
projects that it needs to be done on, but I think strongly encouraging is nice, but I don't
know that it's going to get anything. We have seen so many developers I think, come in
here, and say you don't require it, so we didn't do it. We are just going to argue to you
on whether we want it and they will ignore it and do what they want. I'm tired of that. I
think of our intent, people have notice they have an opportunity for input, to try to work
those problems out before they get here. Then, I think we make it mandatory and
maybe we just identify what it is that we think the types of projects that we need that for.
Oh, and the other thing -- and if we are going to do that, then, I think what we want to
make clear is that the noticing requirements are the same as what it is in the first part,
so to make sure the language is the same. It will allow the Zoning Administrator to
expand the mailing, we will make the language of the neighborhood reflect the same
and mail. We don't want them -- we don't want to notice two different people, we want
to make sure we notice everybody the same.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I had that same thought on at least the neighborhood
meetings. I would be in support of it. I know Boise does it. I don't know if Nampa does
it or not. I know they have talked about it. I don't know if they have done that or not but
people that are building in Ada County and getting used to that, are developing and it's -
- it does make things a little bit more clear going into the development specifically what
the concerns are. What staff and the decision-making body needs to really concentrate
on so, Keith or Cherie, do you have any comments?
Bird: I agree with you.
McCandless: I agree.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 54 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. Well, since Mr. Nary has been through here with a fine tooth comb,
we will look to him to make the motion, but it is a Public Hearing and I would invite any
comments from those that are still with us, do you have any comments you'd like to
make on the public record? Any staff?
McKinnon: Madam President?
De Weerd: Dave.
McKinnon: Members of the Council, just a couple things. Just to go back through what
Councilman Nary touched on tonight. As far as the inclusion of land area that would be
as determined by the Zoning Administrator, some sort of constraints or guidelines for
that, as to when and what he could do I believe would be very appropriate. From time
to time developers can feel that the Zoning Administrator is more of an adversary than
an ally and I don't want to be in a position where, you know, that the Director of
Planning has to make justification without having any guidelines or constraints in place.
De Weerd: You could add, or his designee.
McKinnon: No. No it's not so much one person or his or her designee, it's just that if
you had standards --
De Weerd: I'm sorry, Dave. I am making light of your comment.
McKinnon: Thank you. Got it the picture requirement that Councilman Nary brings up,
that would be 2-C, the applicant shall submit a notarized statement and include
language regarding a picture for that. Staff would have no objection to that. That's a
great comment. I know that some cities actually do, do that, and require that. It's very
important sometimes -- I have actually seen where people have removed the notices
after they have been posted and if we have a picture documentation that shows that it
was done, it's very helpful. On to the discussion on neighborhood meetings, that
Councilman Nary discussed we have no objection as staff to requiring the neighborhood
meetings, but if we do require the neighborhood meetings for all applicants or limited
them, some additional restrictions should be required. Boise City with their application
requires that they submit -- they have their neighborhood meetings prior to submission
of the application. In addition to that, they have set forth guidelines that say if you're
going to have a neighborhood meeting, you have to notice them at least seven days in
advance, so they have an opportunity to plan for it. It doesn't help if they get a notice
that says tonight we are going to have the neighborhood meeting. It doesn't give them
an opportunity to stand for that so some additional language would need to be placed
into that if there is a requirement for the neighbor meetings. Staff wouldn't object to
that, but some additional language should and could be included in that. Some minor
wordsmithing of the language that's been recommended to you tonight by the
Commission could be accomplished in a matter of a few minutes. It would take some
time just to sit down and figure out what that is and whether you want it to match up with
Boise City's directly or if you'd like to modify that to meet with whatever you would like,
that would be fine as well. I can provide either for you in a short period of time, but I
think some additional requirements should be added if we are going to, as
Commissioner Nary said, fish or cut bate. It sounds like we want to fish, but we got to
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 55 of 62
set something that -- to be guidelines for that and I think that those would be appropriate
to add.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary always comes up with some new quotable terms. Mr. Nichols, do
you have comment?
Nichols: Thank you, Madam President. With regard to the neighborhood meetings
issue, if it -- it if comes down to that becomes a point where you want more action on it,
we could simply pull that out, adopt the rest of the standards. Staff can continue to work
on the neighborhood meeting section and bring it back to you as a separate additional
amendment. If -- when you see what Boise City has on those items and think maybe it
doesn't really work for Meridian, we can pull that out, set it aside, just simply have the
other things that you have talked about, and adopt those. It doesn't have to be an all or
nothing, just to remind you and I know you know that, but just a reminder that that might
help speed some of this along.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'm -- since I'm the one that brought it up, I would be more than willing to
work with Dave and maybe we can put some language together, the two of us. We can
certainly bring something back within three weeks -- three or four weeks. I mean I don't
know that there is an urgency that we do this tonight -- I mean I think we want to get this
accomplished, but I think we need to at least bring back a proposal within three or four
weeks.
De Weerd: I was going to give you five minutes.
Nary: Or two weeks but at least three or four weeks and that way we have time to at
least look at that and see if we want to use the type of requirements Boise City has or
we want to change them, make them a little better, streamline them a little bit, easier to
give better guidance. We can bring that -- and I agree with Mr. Nichols, if we don't like
that, if we want to spend more time, we can certainly separate it at that point, but I think
in three or four weeks, David, I could probably meet, get it accomplished, and at least
get something back to you.
De Weerd: So would Council like to go ahead and make a motion on the rest of those,
to exclude the neighborhood meeting section?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We can either do it that way, which would be my preference, but Councilman Nary
thought that they -- we didn't -- it wouldn't be necessary to do that if they can get back
with the whole thing in three to four weeks. I guess we continue the Public Hearing --
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 56 of 62
we can continue the Public Hearing or we can close the Public Hearing and make a
motion to take that out, pass everything else and --
De Weerd: Yes. I think probably Mr. Berg just mumbled a comment that it might have
to go back to Planning and Zoning and he does have a good point, by taking this out of
the document. It will at least allow us to go ahead and move forward on the noticing
requirements and, then, let the amendment go through the appropriate channels. Even
if you come back in three or four weeks, it will still probably need to go back to Planning
and Zoning, because it would be a significant change.
McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, and our Legal Department, that
would be a question I have, is at what point does it necessarily have to go back? Is it at
the Council's discretion as to whether or not the change is significant or is there some
bright line definition of what significant would be?
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I can't remember exactly what the
code says. I think it just -- maybe Councilman Nary can help me out if he remembers,
but it seems to me that there is required to be -- all the zoning amendments have to go
in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe that may be a State Statute
requirement. If all we are doing is saying neighbor meetings are mandatory, I don't
know that that's a significant change. Then, if we go into what they have to say and
how it's laid out, what they have to have in the meeting and those kind of actual
structure of the meeting that may be a significant change. Then, again, I'm not so sure
that even -- that on this particular type of an ordinance, if you did go ahead and make
the change, brought them back here, didn't go back to P&Z and you adopted the
ordinance. I'm not sure that that would be a -- I just don't think it would be a successful
challenge to the ordinance under those circumstances. Those that would have been
interested could have been here to see what the actual change was, but maybe the
development community wouldn't view mandatory neighbor meetings as a huge
change.
McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, as I was reviewing what I have
written here, I have actually included all of those standards that are in the Boise City.
Standard, just as should, instead of shall language that they should attempt to notify
homeowners within 300 feet, that they should either be hand delivered or mailed to the
recipient at least five days prior to the meeting. All that language is in there, it's just
rather than having shall language, it has suggestive language. The simplest thing to do
would be to change the shoulds to shalls, to get rid of the permissive language, make it
a requirement, and, then, we could have the additional statement that they submit
something upon application that they have had the neighborhood meeting. An affidavit
of legal -- an affidavit of -- someone help me out -- an affidavit that says they have had
their neighborhood meeting, a letter that says when it was, who attended, that could be
a simple statement to be added to that.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 57 of 62
Nary: I guess the one concern -- and I was trying to look at the Planning and Zoning
Commission's requirements on the issue they reviewed, because the amendments of
the code don't require that we have a Public Hearing. It's just -- it is just a legislative
function, but it doesn't require that. I certainly know -- I certainly think of both sides, that
if you were a developer and we had discretionary language requiring them to have a
neighborhood meeting, they may not care. If you're required to now have a
neighborhood meeting and that's going to impact you to do your business, as well as
some additional cost, I mean you have to rent a room and something else to have an
actual meeting, maybe you would want to come and tell us that that's not such a great
idea. I do think that there probably maybe needs to be some further discussion about
that. We are not necessarily bound by that, but I couldn't find quickly on how much
leeway after the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed it and made a
recommendation to us that we need to send it back to them, because we have made
some significant changes. I agree also, with what Mr. Nichols said, that we certainly --
there hasn't been any input, really, from the outside community on that. It may be -- it
may be something to -- as was suggested earlier, to separate that particular piece out at
this juncture. Since we don't have it, it's not hurting us. If we want to sit down and
come up with some things and see whether or not we get some further input if we make
it mandatory from people like the building contractors and those types -- and defining
what types of situations require a neighborhood meeting, then, maybe we would get
some better input, that might be better. The only other issue we had talked about -- and
I guess I'm not reading everybody very well tonight. We had talked about the issue
regarding providing more notice on whether or not the Zoning Administrator has the
flexibility to require more notice and potentially more fees if it's beyond the cost of
what's already being done on whether or not we want to allow that. I think it gives the
city more flexibility in situations where it's warranted and right now I guess I just always
hate the answer of that's the rule and we can't do anything else. I think we'd rather
have some flexibility. Is that a significant enough change to require Planning and
Zoning to rehear that -- that, again, I don't know. Would a developer have been
concerned about it enough to say, wait a minute, you're going to make me post it 600
feet away -- or give notice 600 feet away, I certainly would have -- and pay an extra fee
for it, would I have come and had some concern about that. I guess it's always a
possibility, but, I don't know, I guess I'll leave it to all of you. If you don't want to do that,
but I just think we'd rather have more flexibility, as much as we legally can, to give us
the ability to make sure that there is adequate notice out there to the public, so that's not
a concern.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: A couple of suggestions. One is on the last point. Staff can certainly insert a
limiting language, such as up to an additional 300 feet, which would, then, limit the
discretion of the Zoning Administrator. I would think that if this issue was really a
burning issue with the development community, they would have been at one, either the
P&Z or here to say, yes, this is a great thing to take this discretion out, make it a bright
line standard that we can live with and they are not here. With regard to the
neighborhood meetings issue, if you think you're going to make it mandatory, I would
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 58 of 62
just encourage you to leave this permissive language in for now. Then, clean it up with
whatever you want for mandatory, so that at least you start the ball rolling, start them
thinking about this issue of being strongly encouraged, and perhaps required later, so
that you have started that part of it. Don't just not address it -- or I'll go ahead, leave it
in, and continue with it, but just work to make it mandatory, if that's your pleasure.
De Weerd: What's your pleasure? Mr. Berg remember, Keith's not feeling well, let's not
prolong this too long.
Bird: Don't make me the --
Berg: I'm sorry, Madam President, I'll forego my input and let you go about --
De Weerd: Well, I will use an excuse. Mr. Berg, did you have something? You can
comment.
Berg: Okay quickly, I just had a couple things, is I don't know on some property if we
need to address a site triangle issue. These things are going to be up three-foot off the
ground and making you have not in the right of way or anything like that, but we do have
sight triangle issues on some corner properties, especially if they are small parcels that
may not have much of a width. Another concern was a four-by-four post. I know that's
really nice, but sometimes in the wintertime it's tough to get -- dig up posts. Just didn't
know if that was ever thought of or if you have some exceptions to that. Just a third
thing was on the example that you used, if you're trying to follow exactly what you did on
your example, you had the Public Hearing notice centered, but your example doesn't
show it centered. Another thing is I think somewhere we should have City of Meridian
somewhere on there that stands out, showing that this is a City of Meridian project. I
know that you have listed some of the wording, I presume that's just suggested wording,
or is that mandatory wording? The reason I say that is because as you get closer and
closer to some of these other cities, it might be important that they know City of
Meridian, City of Boise, not in little letters. Another question is if this is an example, do
we need to put the address of where Meridian City Hall is or where ever we are going to
have the hearing, like just what our notice says if they have a question about the item, if
they have a phone number, they can call? That's just kind of going off of what we have
on our little 11-by-17 yellow sheets. Not saying you can see them from the road, but
that's what we have on those.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think we might be a week or two early on this application. I think we need to --
because we have got so many different departments involved in posting of the notices --
I mean, evidently, the Clerk's Office hadn't even seen this revised notification. I would
continue this for another week and let's get the things -- let's get it back so that we look
professional and get all the departments that have anything to do with it okayed on it
and that includes Mr. Nary, too, Councilman Nary. No, I'm -- I want him to be in on the
wording of it. That would be my motion.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 59 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion on the floor --
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: -- to continue this until next week and a second. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay do you have a clear indication, Dave, of what all you need to clarify?
McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think I do. Get some direction
from you, would you like additional language as proposed by Legal Counsel to add up
to an additional 300 feet, so the Zoning Administrator has some discretion? Move
forward to 2-C, to add language regarding adding a picture to be submitted to the City
Clerk's Office.
De Weerd: Yes.
McKinnon: Item Number 3, the neighborhood meetings. As we stated early, we want to
go fishing, so we want to add that, possibly. I like what Mr. Nichols had to say about
adding it now and, then, in the future we can move forward with it. Would you like to
see some alternative language for that and leave this the way it is and have some
alternative language as well?
Nary: Madam President? I think on this one, I would leave it the way it is, other than to
make sure that the noticing requirement and the neighborhood meeting is the same as
the noticing requirements of the CUP. Let's leave it at this, as Mr. Nichols suggested,
but let's work towards seeing whether or not mandatory will work. We want to get some
better input from developers groups and things like that, so that way they are not getting
caught unaware that they are being required to have now an additional meeting that
may have more impact on them than the discretion right now.
McKinnon: No problem. Going on to the page with the example, as noted by our City
Clerk, he said that it needs to be noticed per the requirement of the ordinance. Would
you like me to make that change? I'll just go ahead and make that. Do you want the
additional language as suggested by Mr. Berg, to have the City of Meridian, the address
of the location of the meeting, and a phone number added to the sign?
Nary: Yes.
McKinnon: Okay all those will be done. If I can address one issue that Will brought up
that was extraneous to that, was the sight triangle, and our Sign Ordinance does
address the issue of sight triangles. That's not an issue per the Sign Ordinance. The
idea of a four-by-four post, an alternative to that in the frozen ground, the only thing I
can think of that would be an alternative to that would be the type of signage that's
allowed for street signs, where you have a base and, then, they put sand bags on it to
keep it from blowing over. I don't know if that's the most appropriate way of doing it. It
looks like a temporary sign. Some additional input, if you have some, would be
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 60 of 62
welcomed by staff as to what type of alternative that might be, or if you would like us to
pursue alternatives.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'd only suggest that the reference to the sign ordinance be included in
here, so that they know what the sight triangle requirements are. I think probably just
some language in that Section A -- would that be the appropriate place -- some
language there that said, you know, alternative -- alternative posting would have to be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.
McKinnon: Right and the requirement of three feet above the ground and, then, in
accordance with the Sign Ordinance.
Nary: The only other thing, Dave, that I think would be important to, again, provide
some balance is that additional 300 feet that the Planning and Zoning Administrator has
discretion to require additional noticing, would have to identify the locations. The
reasons for the additional noticing, so that the applicant knows that it isn't arbitrary, the
person would have to identify it's the schools, it's these homes, this apartment complex,
whatever -- the reason why.
McKinnon: Okay I can add all that. When would you guys like to see this back with
those corrections?
De Weerd: It was moved, seconded, and passed next week.
McKinnon: Next week? I will get it done tomorrow morning while it's still fresh in my
head.
De Weerd: Thanks, Dave.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Item 18. Water, Sewer, and Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Okay moving on. Item 18, Water, Sewer, and Trash Delinquencies this is to
inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a predetermination
hearing at 7:00 P.M. -- I'm not sure why this says 7:30, but 7:00, Tuesday, January 21,
2003, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts
and to defend a claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is
delinquent. You may retain counsel. Services will be discontinued on January 22,
2003, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest
his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? The two out there must be good people
and I'm -- there is no response. I don't have to read the no response. Okay they are
hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed by the
Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they may
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 61 of 62
appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $30,571.98 -- .89
cents. Sorry. Is there any discussion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the delinquency turn off list for Tuesday, January 21,
2003 and the turn-off date is January 22, 2003, in the sum of $30,571.89.
ndth
Nary: Second but I believe there should be two turn-off dates, the 22, and the 29.
Bird: We were doing it a week apart and, then, I heard -- somebody said that they didn't
need that anymore. What was the deal on that, Gary?
Smith: Madam President, Council Members, it had to do with the number that we have
for turn off and they are able to -- I think they are able to accomplish 300 on one turn-off
day, but I -- and I don't know how many there are number wise. If we could schedule
two days, I think it would probably be safe to do that and, then, if they can accomplish it
on the first turn-off day, then, that would be fine.
Bird: When do you want the second one, Gary a week apart?
Smith: Yes.
th
Bird: The 29?
Smith: Yes, sir.
nd
Bird: Okay. Include in my motion January 22 and January 29, 2003, as cut-off dates.
De Weerd: Does second agree?
Nary: Agree.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Discussion of Infrastructure of Urban Renewal District:
De Weerd: Okay we do have an Item 19 and it's the discussion that we brought over
from Pre-Council on infrastructure of the Urban Renewal District. There was some
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2003
Page 62 of 62
question at the Meridian Development Corporation about the infrastructure in the Old
Town area and if it would support urban renewal and I think -- Cherie, did you ask that
this be put on here? I'm not really sure who put it on here. Maybe the Mayor did.
Public Works, you have been looking into that?
Watson: Madam President, Council Members, Steve Siddoway notified me after that
meeting earlier this month that that was a topic of discussion and during the
superintendents meeting last week I discussed that with Water and Sewer staff and we
will be looking into it over the next several months. It's not a quick thing. Steve
Siddoway did invite me, so to speak, to the next MDC Meeting in February to discuss
this so I am aware of it and doing something,
De Weerd: Okay. Well, great. Appreciate that. Okay. If there isn't anything, further --
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I just want to publicly thank -- since the ACHD representative is here, that they
did put up a sign at Chateau Park notifying people there is a park there, so I appreciate
them doing that. I want them to know that I noticed that and thank you very much.
De Weerd: Well, thank you. If you will take that word back and maybe, you might ask if
we get our public parking signs. Or, Mr. Clerk, are you working on that? Didn't one time
we ask that public -- or the public parking lot be identified from Main Street? Okay.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Nary: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay adjourned at 10:25 -- or 35.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK