HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 07-08
Meridian City Council Meeting July 8, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., on
Tuesday, July 8, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, William Nary, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird
and Cherie McCandless
Others Present: Nick Wollen, Brad Watson, Anna Powell, Dean Willis, and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll Call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird
___X__ Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: Well, then, I will open the Meridian City Council Regular Meeting on Tuesday,
July 8, 2003, at 7:05 P.M. I want to welcome everybody here this evening and at this
time, I would like to have the City Clerk give roll call, please.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Thank you. The second on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Council,
are there any additions or corrections that need to be made at this time? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
th
De Weerd: Only the change in Item Number 6 to July 15.
Corrie: Okay. That will be the new fence Variance Ordinance will be tabled until the
th
15 of July. All right. Hearing none other, I will entertain a motion to accept the agenda
as corrected.
De Weerd: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to accept the agenda as
corrected, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 2 of 58
A. June 24, 2003
Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Reimbursement to Havasu Creek, LLC, for Water System
Construction Costs – Havasu Creek Subdivision No. 1:
Corrie: Consent Agenda. We have two items under the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest on proper papers.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda.
Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department:
Proposed Sewer Re-routing by Tuscany Development, Inc.:
Corrie: Item Number 4 is Department Reports. Public Works, proposed sewer
rerouting by Tuscany Development, Inc.
Watson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. The computer is evidently not
going to cooperate with me. You do have a map in your packets, I believe, that shows
what was going to be up on the screen. This is one of those rare situations where a
water and sewer routing issue isn't resolved amongst staff and the consultant or the
developer. This issue revolves around the Tuscany Lakes complex of projects, which
includes Messina Hills, Messina Village. This project -- the Preliminary Plat for this
project was approved about a year ago in July of 2002. We have gone through quite a
bit of plan review and back and forth over the year to the point where those plans were
ultimately approved early this spring. The Preliminary Plat sewer plan showed sewer
coming from the Meridian Greens area down to Victory Road, east to the intersection
with Locust Grove Road and, then, south on Locust Grove and, then, into the project.
That was what was modeled, that's what the project was approved on. One thing to
point out is that there were two alternate alignments already approved with that
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 3 of 58
Preliminary Plat. One of them -- I really wish I had this up, so I could point it out to you,
but one of the alternative alignments was right where the project takes off from Meridian
Greens, they ended up taking it through an undeveloped parcel, rather than a county
subdivision, which was fine, we said that was okay. The other major variation that they
have is that they run the trunk through their project to service the area over near Victory
and Eagle Road. These projects were approved, construction was started I think in
somewhere around March. About mid March we received a request to alter the sewer
alignment, so that it no longer went down Victory Road to Locust Grove and, then,
south, but, rather, cuts across a piece of property that they were hoping to purchase
and develop, that property is approximately 35 acres or so south and west of the
intersection. In your packet you will see a letter that I wrote to Briggs Engineering and
Westpark listing reasons why we weren't going to consider that alternate alignment. I
understand the major reasons from the developer are that, one, they would save money
by, for lack of a better word, cutting the corner and, two, restrictions by ACHD on
roadwork within Victory Road. I confirmed with Ada County Highway District yesterday
that their work is restricted to weekends only, because of the Overland Road rebuild
project, and I think the gentleman's name was Brian Hewey at ACHD, said that they
wouldn't be able to work in Victory Road during the week until that project was
significantly buttoned up, which was around the end of August or first of September.
About a week -- about a month ago this issue was raised by the developer again, likely
because the plats were in my office for signature. I have signed the Messina Village
plat and it should be at the Ada county surveyor right now. The Messina Hills plat is still
in my office. Building Permits would probably be requested sometime mid August on
the Messina Village project and as of right now there is no sewer in the ground to serve
those. There is an approved set of plans that shows the sewer coming along Victory to
the intersection of Locust Grove Road and I guess they are hoping that Council will
direct me to accept those plans. I haven't accepted them, because of the reasons
nd
outlined in that April 2 letter, and I can go into those a little bit more. The one reason
is Number 3 on the list it had to do with our hesitancy to approve a plan going through a
subdivision that hadn't even been submitted yet, because we don't know where those
streets are going to end up. They have submitted that application, although it hasn't
come to City Council yet. We are here seeking a little direction, I guess. There are
quite a few interested folks out in that neighborhood, who I believe are here tonight. I
understand this isn't a Public Hearing and I think most of them understand that this isn't
a Public Hearing, but I said that I would point out to you that they are here tonight they
are very interested in this proposal, and not in a positive way, from what I gather. I
hope I haven't left anything out. This is a year long story, so I probably have. If you
have any questions, I would be glad to answer those. I know Mr. Dean Briggs is here
representing the developer and he could answer any questions you might have from
that side.
Corrie: Brad, would you suggest a Public Hearing on this, because of the controversy?
Watson: Well, I think my recommendation would be that -- and I'm not sure what forum
it would take. Perhaps counsel could help us -- help me with that, but the Public
Hearing on the Preliminary Plat, the sewer was going to go along Victory Road to that
intersection. No one testified one way or another on the sewer that I could find. I think
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 4 of 58
if this had been part of the Preliminary Plat application, it, perhaps, would have had
testimony. I think just from my personal view that there should be some public input
allowed at some point before this is approved.
Corrie: Before it's changed. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, what is on the -- our map here? It was on the Preliminary Plat. What about
the Final Plat?
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor, and Council Members, the Final Plat doesn't
generally ever show --
Bird: The sewer.
Watson: Well, particularly, the off-site sewer, because the Final Plat just has to do with
what's in the bounds of that subdivision.
Bird: Well, the thing I -- the question I have got is why are we bringing it forward? The
developer should have brought this Variance or something forward, not our -- you made
a ruling as a department and you did it, because that's the way you had the sewer line
set up. That's the way it went through the Preliminary Plat. I would have to have some
awful, awful good reasons to change it from the Preliminary Plat myself.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I agree with Councilman Bird. It's just like these next item that we -- one of
the items we have tonight is to change conditions on an application and what the
findings are. Without it going up and being considered under Public Hearing process,
you know, I think this is premature. I guess you just want to know if we would consider
the change?
Watson: From -- Council Member de Weerd, from what -- from my viewpoint I guess
there are two options. The first one is that you just direct me to a status quo, more or
less backup my so-called ruling, I guess. Number 2 is to have another Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Well, I think status quo has been shown, in particular with Wingate, is if
something needs to change on the original findings, it needs to go back through the
process and so your original finding should stand, unless they want to come back and
re-apply or at least challenge that one condition and that would have to go through the
public process.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 5 of 58
Watson: Okay.
Corrie: Any other comments, Council?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I guess, Brad, I was -- one thing I guess I didn't hear, but I wanted to be
clear, is that when -- what I thought you were saying or what I guess I understood is
there is sometimes in this Preliminary Plat stage that some of these things change to a
slight degree. I think what I was understanding you saying is this is much more than
that, this is a significant change from what was originally contemplated and you have
made a decision as the city engineer not to approve those changes without either our
input or another Public Hearing. Is that right?
Watson: That's absolutely correct, Councilman Nary.
Nary: And I guess I would concur with both Councilman Bird and Council Member de
Weerd, that, you know, if the applicant wants to -- wants us to re-hear it, then, they need
to ask for that. Other than that, what you have decided is within your authority to do that
and if they want us to reconsider it and have a Public Hearing to revise the Preliminary
Plat, I think would be the process, to reconsider these issues, we can have a Public
Hearing. I certainly am not ready to decide that they can't have it or that they can, I just
think if you want to have a hearing, they can apply for it and request it and we will have
a hearing.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I would concur.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just to clarify, I believe what the city
attorney is telling us these days is that if they do want to change any of those conditions
of approval, they can request those changes through Final Plat process, but, then, we
open up Final Plat to a hearing, rather than just to a meeting.
Watson: And, Mr. Mayor, if I could just clarify on last thing, is that this specific routing
wasn't a specific condition in the Preliminary Plat. Those are boilerplate conditions that
say they will coordinate sewer routing and sizing with Public Works staff. It's not a
specific thing that can be overturned.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: But we are saying we agree with your authority to do it. If they are saying we
don't agree with the City Engineer, then, they have got to come back here and ask us to
do that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 6 of 58
Watson: Correct. Thank you. I understand.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Do you want to get the information from him? Is that what
your -- what's your point of information going to be? Come up here, we need you on the
record. Name and address, please.
Liddell: I'm Russ Liddell, 1777 East Victory, on the corner -- southeast corner of Locust
Grove and Victory. The point of information is a what if question, Your Honor, and that
is should there be a request for a Public Hearing, what's the timing on that, and is that
someway fast tracked or does that go through the normal process?
Corrie: Goes through the process.
Liddell: Two or three times and several months?
Corrie: Just like the original and you will be notified of the Public Hearing, when it is,
and the same time as we always do. It will be the same process.
Liddell: Very Good. This was a significant change.
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Okay. There was no items moved from the Consent
Agenda, so we are on Item 5, which is a –
Item 6. Tabled from June 24, 2003: Ordinance No. :
Fence Variance Ordinance:
Corrie: All right. On Number 6, is an ordinance for a fence Variance Ordinance and we
th
have been asked to table that until the 15 of July, so I will entertain a motion to do so.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we move the ordinance -- the fence Variance Ordinance from
th
tonight's agenda to July 15.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to table the fence Variance
th
ordinance until 15 of July. Any other discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, that was 2003, wasn't it?
Corrie: Yes. I'm sorry.
McCandless: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 7 of 58
De Weerd: No 2004, because she has to stay on there until then.
Bird: I thought you wanted to serve another year.
Corrie: It will be 2006 and we will all be here. All right. All in favor of the motion say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Ordinance No. : RZ 03-005
Request for a
Christ Lutheran
Rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for
Church
by Christ Lutheran Church – 1406 West Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Ordinance Number 03-1029 is a request for a Rezone of 4.738 acres from an
R-4 to an L-O zone for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church 1406 West
Cherry Lane. At this time I would like to have, the City Clerk read Ordinance Number
03-1029 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1029.
An ordinance finding that the owner of Christ Lutheran Church of certain real property
has made a written request for a Rezone of the zoning classification for real property
located at 1406 West Cherry Lane, Meridian, Idaho, and lies within the boundaries of
the City of Meridian from R-4, Low Density Residential District, zoning district, to L-O,
Limited Office District, as defined under Meridian City Code, Section 11-7-2G, repealing
all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing
the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of
Meridian, Idaho.
Corrie: All right. The public has heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1029 by
title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have it read in its entirety?
Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the request for Rezone ordinance.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approved Ordinance 03-1029, request for a Rezone of 4.73
acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Christ Lutheran Church and ask the Mayor to sign and
the Clerk attest, with suspension of rules.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: All right. Motion has been made and seconded to adopt Ordinance Number 03-
1029, with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote,
Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 8 of 58
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Tabled from June 24, 2003: FP 03-033
Request for Final Plat approval
Devon Park
of 7 building lots on 14.31 acres in C-G and C-N zones for
Subdivision
by Fairview Lakes L.L.C. – 824 East Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item Number 8 is tabled from June 24, 2003, FP 03-033, request for Final Plat
approval of seven building lots on 14.31 acres in a C-G and C-N zone for Devon Park
Subdivision by Fairview Lakes, LLC, 825 East Fairview Avenue. I will entertain staff
comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this -- this property is located along
Fairview. It's one of the larger in-fill properties left on Fairview there. You have seen
this a number of times now. Last week you approved the new Preliminary Plat for the
northern portion of the property, so – okay, in this portion here. This is the preliminary --
or this is the Final Plat for the southern portion of that property. The primary purpose of
platting this property at this time is to get this road to the northern portion of the
property. Because that's really the driving force along here, there is another -- is a
number of issues related to this Final Plat that we have worked out with the applicant,
but that it gets a bit confusing. What they have proposed in Lot 3, as far as the lot
configurations, is not consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat. The applicant has,
however, submitted a letter stating that they are aware of that and that they will not be
able to develop those lots until they have an approved Planned Development that
reflects development of these lots. Basically, they are asking for Final Plat before they
are coming through with the Planned Development to you. That's issue Number 1. This
lot was, actually, on the Planned Development that you approved last week as being
this corner down here. This is what you looked at last week. This is that -- this lot is
part of the Final Plat of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. Then, again, just to refresh your
memory, what they want to do is see how successful this is and, then, they will mirror
that on this side and they will probably bring that all in with the remainder of Devon Park
No. 1. That would come back in with the property up here and, then, down here and
around like that. Because it's still kind of up in the air as to how he's going to develop
the interior of the property, he's asked to only install the frontage landscaping at this
time, so he would provide the landscaping along Fairview, along his interior street here,
and, then, on Carol Street as it stubs into the surrounding neighborhoods. The
remainder of the landscaping, being here to the east and here to the west, would be
done when the -- when these lots were developed with the buildings. They would be
tied to certificate of occupancies, rather than the Final Plat. If you decide to let him do
that, there is a modification -- we have provided the wording for a modification to
condition of approval Number 3 and I believe that the clerk gave that to you on a piece
of paper.
Corrie: Yes, he did.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 9 of 58
Powell: So -- and that's the end of those -- the issues for that Final Plat. It's taken us
awhile -- it's taken us a number of weeks to get this all worked out, but I think we feel
fairly comfortable with the way it's going through, if you're comfortable with allowing lots
to go through that don't have an approved preliminary yet, but there is a letter in the file
stating that he understands that. I think it's the third Planned Development that would
come through on this piece of property, but --
Corrie: Okay. Any questions of Anna?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, it's not how comfortable we feel, how comfortable do you and the staff,
Public Works staff feel? I mean this is something -- they are wanting a Final Plat before
the Planned Development and they want do all this stuff without it. What if they are not
the developers that do rest? What if it's sold to another developer and that happens
quite frequently.
Powell: They have not asked for more lots than they were approved for in the
Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Yes. I understand that.
Powell: So, there is the possibility that you could do lot line adjustments to get back to
the original that was approved. One of the conditions of approval is that the services
also would not be provided to each individual lot at this time, but, again, that would be
done when those buildings came in for development, so that that was --
Bird: I just have a hard time playing with a Final Plat, because it seems like we always
get hung out to dry when we do and -- but if -- you know, if the staff feels comfortable
with it, I -- I just -- I know you guys will take care of it. I trust you, but, you know, we
want to remember that they might not be -- this group might not be the developers for
the other part of the parcel.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bird, one option that we did consider was to just
have them plat all of Block 3 as a single lot and all of Block 1 as single lot at this time,
thereby, basically, forcing them to come in and re-plat if that did change ownership and
that's certainly --
Bird: Did the applicant agree to that?
Powell: Well, he preferred to try it this way, but I think that --
Corrie: We could find out.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 10 of 58
Bird: He's here. We'll find out.
Powell: Yes. That might be an option.
Corrie: Very good.
Bird: What do you feel the most comfortable with, Anna?
Powell: Well, the differences on Block 1 were fairly minor. I'm not uncomfortable with
that. When I had them write the letter it was specifically about Block 3, because the
Planned Development that they -- the concept that they have for that area is fairly
different than what was approved, so Block 3 would be my lesser comfort level.
Bird: Okay. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Is the developer's representative here this
evening? You don't have to be sworn in, just how do you feel about the comments that
she made and are you willing to do that or what's your pleasure?
Tamura: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Doug Tamura. My address is
499 Main Street.
Corrie: Thank you, Doug.
Tamura: We are the owners and developers of this project. When we originally started
working with staff on this, it was kind of directed that we do the plat accordingly. One of
the things that we did was we met with staff and Anna and with Public Works and
discussed the option of redoing it and taking all of the lots off and just doing the road,
but they were thinking that for us to do that we would have to start over. What we
submitted was -- you know, it was our understanding all along that what we have is just
a conceptual plan approved zoning wise on our commercial property, that all we have,
really, is just the underlying commercial zone, that it still requires a detailed conditional
use before we can build anything on those property lines. The other thing that we
understand is we knew that we could do lot line adjustments, that we could go ahead
and lot line adjust the configuration of our lots prior to Final Platting, as long as we didn't
increase the number of lots that we had. What we are planning on doing is that we are
going to ask for three out pads when we come in for our detailed Conditional Use.
Currently right now we understand that we have got non-buildable commercial lots. We
are planning on coming in probably -- we are in negotiations with two major tenants right
now. We are hoping that we will have letters of intent within the next week and so by
August we are planning on submitting a detailed conditional use on our commercial
portion of the property. It's our preference to kind of press ahead as we are heading.
The one thing that we are pushing real hard to do -- you know, we applied for a
miscellaneous application to provide a temporary private road on our north retail
avenue, because we have had a lot of interest on the office buildings. We are getting
ready to submit two or three Building Permits to start the office portion of it, so it's critical
for us right now to keep pressing ahead where we can go ahead and put roads and
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 11 of 58
utilities and start the office portion of what we are doing. We have got all our submittals
into both the city and to the Highway District in regards to the signal and the road
construction and I think the only thing that -- as far as the conditions of approval, we
concur with everything that the staff had. There was one minor item that I would like to
point out to see what Council's feelings are. The one item is on Item 6-D and Sonya
had required us to put an additional tree, which is this Lot 1 of Block 1, right along in this
area here. The one thing that we'd like to request is that we delete that one condition,
because what the plan was is -- and we are not real sure exactly where these curb cuts
fall, but we'd like to create a boulevard all the way up to the end of the cul-de-sac. We'd
like to pair it, so that both the trees on both sides match all the way down and, then, the
street lights match all the way down and by, you know, incorporating that additional tree,
it might not give us that pattern we are requesting. In lieu of asking that favor, what we
did do is we felt that the other thing that was real important was that we buffer those
neighbors real well. Particularly, the people along Settler's Village, and so on our Site
Plan we showed that we are willing to go ahead and space our trees at 30 feet on
center in lieu of deleting that one tree on that one block. The other thing is a
housekeeping item, because I notice that the same condition that I requested be
deleted on our Preliminary Plat on Devon Park 2, Item Number 19, where it refers to 35
foot wide landscape buffers that do not include the ten feet of right of way. Again, I
think -- the only thing I could think of was the right of way issue on Fairview that I think
we have got worked out with the Highway District that we are not going to dedicate the
additional 10 feet. Again, delete Item Number 19.
Corrie: Okay.
Tamura: Yes, it's our intent to go ahead -- press ahead with commercial development
and leave everything kind of as is, status quo, and just know that we understand that it's
not buildable.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions from Council?
Bird: Yes. Doug.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna has some problems with Lot 3, as you understand. Do you believe we can
work something out, get something in, so that we are covered regardless of who the
developer is?
Tamura: Yes. Hopefully, our goal is within the next 60 days we will have a detailed
plan submitted on that whole Block 3 for you to review.
Bird: Does that satisfy you, Anna?
Powell: Yes. That's fine.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 12 of 58
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could ask the applicant to explain his
comments on Condition Number 19 again. I didn't understand it.
Tamura: I believe Condition 19 is -- originally, when we did the right of way on Fairview,
the Highway District requested that we deed some additional right of way. What we did
is I met with Gary Inselman with Ada County Highway District and the only addition --
the only reason for the additional right of way was to incorporate the sidewalk. I told
him that what might work the best is we were going to do a meandering sidewalk inside
of our landscaping strip anyway and that we were going to request a License
Agreement. The thing that seemed like would be the best is, one, the Highway District
wouldn't have to purchase additional right of way, we'd do a License Agreement, put the
sidewalk in our landscape buffer, and so the requirement of an additional 10 feet right of
way went away. The other thing is we are showing a 30-foot -- the required landscape
buffer along Fairview is 30 feet and so the notes that are requested to change here in
the Final Plat reflect a 30-foot landscape buffer along Fairview with no additional right of
way. I think that 45 feet was from the original Preliminary Plat way back when we were
showing a 35-foot landscape buffer, plus a 10-foot right of way take from the Highway
District.
Powell: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my understanding, then, is that the
Preliminary Plat was approved with a 45-foot landscape buffer and you are now asking
for a 30-foot landscape buffer?
Tamura: But that included a 10-foot right of way take.
Powell: Again, the Preliminary Plat was approved with the landscape buffer drawn at a
line that was 45 feet from the centerline of the road.
Tamura: Well, actually, from the centerline of the road the -- Fairview right now has an
existing 100 foot right of way.
Powell: Oh, I'm sorry, from the edge of your property. I think staff would like to see
Condition Number 19 stay in there to maintain at least a 35-foot landscape buffer as
was shown on the Preliminary Plat.
Tamura: If you refer to condition -- Condition 18, staff, it talked about -- because we
have got the landscape buffer shown on our plat and it said to correct it from the 30 --
from 35 to 30.
Powell: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Obviously, there is conflicting
information there, so I think that -- I'm not fully appraised of what's going on there, but I
-- I suspect that --
Tamura: We call that a 30-foot landscape all along Fairview and the scale is 30 feet,
but for some reason our engineer didn't change this note right here and left it at 35 feet
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 13 of 58
and it calls it out as 30 and she was just clarifying that we need to change that note to
comply with our --
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it would appear that Number 19 needs to
be deleted.
Corrie: Thank you.
Tamura: Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions of Doug?
Bird: I have none. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I just had one question for Anna. Mr. Tamura asked about amending I think
Number 6 on the Landscape Plan about this one tree, but -- so what would we be
amending it to? It says a detailed Landscape Plan must be submitted. Is he saying just
delete that -- I guess I'm not sure that's deleting that.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the -- Council Member Nary, he wanted to specifically
delete 6-D, which says that one additional tree will be required.
Nary: I must be looking at a different 6-D.
De Weerd: It's on Page 3.
Bird: Yes.
McCandless: Here it is right here.
Bird: 6-D. No, that's --
Corrie: 6-E?
De Weerd: D as in dog.
Nary: Mine says a detailed Landscape Plan must be submitted for the required 25-foot
buffer.
De Weerd: You're on the wrong one.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 14 of 58
Corrie: So am I. I'm on the wrong one, too. Number 6. Oh. Okay. One additional tree
will be required for adjacent -- I guess I can read English, too. All right.
Bird: Additional trees will be required in landscape buffer adjacent to the --
Nary: As long as you guys all got it, that's fine.
Corrie: Well, you guys have eagle eyes, so --
Nary: All right. I'm good.
Powell: This project seems to breed confusion.
Corrie: Any other questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess -- I think that seems like a reasonable request, to put it into the
perimeter. Okay.
Powell: Staff would agree.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wollen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe we have conflicting reports here.
nd
I have the July 2 report by staff, which on page three of that report, 6-D, states one
additional tree will be required adjacent to the east boundary of Lot 1, et cetera. I
believe that's the most recent report we have.
De Weerd: That's what we are talking about.
Wollen: Okay. There is another one that has 6-B, with June 19, 2003. I think -- I
believe we just have some different reports, so I just wanted to clarify which one we are
deleting.
nd
Bird: So, we are going off of the July 2 --
Nary: Right.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would make a motion that we approve the request for Final Plat of FP 03-
033 of seven building lots on 14.31 acres in a C-G and C-N zone for Devon Park
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 15 of 58
Subdivision -- or Devon Park Subdivision and to delete Item 19. Modify Item 6-D to
allow them to move the additional tree into the perimeter landscaping and to -- I guess
staff felt comfortable with Block 3, so ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second. What one are we going off of?
nd
De Weerd: And we are using staff comments of July 2 and to include the Item 8
th
modification that was received on July 8 regarding approval Number 3.
Bird: Second agrees.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved, Final Plat.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. FP 03-038
Request to amend conditions of approval on the Final Plat for
Packard Acres No. 2
by the City of Meridian – east of North Wingate
Lane and south of East Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item Number 9 is a Final Plat 03-038, request to amend conditions of approval
on a Final Plat for Packard Acres No. 2 by the City of Meridian, east of North Wingate
Lane and south of East Ustick Road. Anna.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my understanding was that this was
nd
noticed for July 22, so we are tabling it to that date.
nd
Corrie: That answers our questions up here doesn't it, so it's July 22.
Berg: For Public Hearing.
Powell: Yes.
Corrie: That answers a big question we had up here.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we table Item Number 9, the request to amend conditions of
approval on the Final Plat for Packard Acres No. 2 to July 22, 2003.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 16 of 58
Bird: Second.
nd
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the motion to table it until the 22 of July for the Public
Hearing. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Powell: And, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I did want to say that it wasn't the
clerk's office, it's just that because this was a special item we didn't inform them until it
was a little too late that they needed to send out public notice, so it was a coordination
problem. We'll do better next time.
Corrie: We are having so much fun up here blaming the City Clerk that we'll take that
under advisement.
Powell: Okay.
Item 10. FP 03-039
Request forFinal Plat approval of 96 building lots and 7 other
Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3
lots on 38.59 acres in a R-4 zone for
by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation – south of West McMillan
Road and west of North Meridian Road:
Corrie: All right. Number 10. This is a request for Final Plat approval of 96 building lots
and seven other lots on 38.59 acres in an R-4 zone for Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3
by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation, south of West McMillan Road and west
of North Meridian Road. Anna.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the third in the series of Final Plats
for this subdivision that wraps around the city park at Ustick and Meridian Road. It is
presented to you here in two pieces. There is a portion along the western boundary of
the northwestern portion and, then, there is a single lot for a school site below that,
south of that. The Preliminary Plat -- or the Final Plat is consistent with the approved
Preliminary Plat. These are the landscaped areas. Really, we didn't have any issues.
It was consistent with the approved preliminary. You did receive a revised Landscape
Plan today that we received just little bit before 5:00, so -- staff as no further comments.
Corrie: All right. Thank you. Is the applicant or representative here this evening? We
will get you on record that -- if you have any comments.
Fluke: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Darin Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South
Beachwood in Boise. We are fine with the conditions as written.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, any other questions? All right. I will entertain a motion,
then, on the request for Final Plat approval.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 17 of 58
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for Final Plat approval of 96 building lots and
seven other lots on 38.59 acres in an R-4 zone for Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3 by
Howell-Murdoch Development Corp. South of West McMillan Road and west of North
Meridian Road, with staff comments incorporated and for the attorney to draw up
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Final Plat of --
Final Plat 03-039 for Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 3. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll call.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Public Hearing: VAR 03-017
Request for a Variance to the cul-de-sac
Bear Creek No. 7
length requirements in an R-4 zone for by Bear Creek,
LLC – north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road:
Corrie: Public Hearing is number -- Item Number 11 for a Variance, 03-017. This is a
request for a Variance due to the cul-de-sac length measurement requirements in an R-
4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7 by Bear Creek, LLC, north of West Victory Road and east
of South Stoddard Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff's
comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you approved a new Preliminary Plat on
this application, I believe it was last week, and there was some question as to whether
or not you needed to see the Variance and, indeed, you did. The original approval
looked something like this and it may have been a tad bit over 450 feet with the
hammerhead turnaround. We didn't catch it at that time and require a Variance, but, as
you can tell, it has gotten longer, because they have kind of straightened it out, so it is
considerably longer. This is a case where a Variance is warranted staff feels. The
connection, if they were to punch that correction through to Victory Road in that
location, because there is a significant grade change from Stoddard along Victory down
to the Ridenbaugh, it would be an unsafe location to punch out a second street, so there
are topographic constraints that would warrant issuing a Variance on this property.
That's all staff has to say at this point.
Corrie: Is the representative for the Bear Creek No. 7 here this evening?
Briggs: Dean Briggs.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 18 of 58
Corrie: Raise your right hand. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Briggs: It is.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Briggs: Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering. We really don't have anything to add, unless
you have some questions.
Corrie: Okay. Questions from Council? Okay. Thank you, Dean. Anyone else from
the public that would like to issue testimony in this Bear Creek No. 7? Okay. Hearing
none, thank you. Council, anything on the Public Hearing to discuss?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item Number --
Variance 03-017, Item Number 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I believe through looking at staff comments that they meet all the criteria to -
- for this Variance and so I would make a motion that we approve the request for
Variance for Bear Creek No. 7 and ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
Variance. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 19 of 58
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: AZ 03-010
Request for annexation and zoning of 39.15
Trailway Park
acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) zones for proposed
Subdivision
by Hillview Development Corporation – east of North
Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron Lane:
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 03-011
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
161 building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD)
Trailway Park Subdivision
zone for proposed by Hillview Development
Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron
Lane:
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-021
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced
setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, and house sizes in a proposed R-8 (PD)
Trailway Park Subdivision
zone for proposed by Hillview Development
Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue Heron
Lane:
Corrie: Item Numbers 12, 13, and 14 are Public Hearings on Trailway Park Subdivision.
One is AZ 03-010, a request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from an RUT to
R-8 PD zones for the Trailway Park Subdivision. The second Public Hearing is the
Preliminary Plat approval of 161 lots -- building lots and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres.
And the third part is a CUP, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, front --
lot frontages and house sizes in a proposed R-8 PD zone for the proposed Trailway
Park Subdivision. With the Council's approval, we will open all three public hearings,
12, 13 and 14, and take testimony on all three of them and we will start out with staff
comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as you can tell from the overhead, this is
an in-fill development. The property has no less than six stub streets, two from the
west, two from the north, and two from the east. There is an existing use here for a
meat packing facility that is still within the county and, then, this is the large in-fill project
that's before you tonight. Again, you can see the level of development. There is -- the
meat packing facility is here. This large piece of property is apartments. You also have
apartments in this area. Then, single-family homes in this area. These appear to be
mobile homes down here. One issue of concern that came up was the property owned
by the meat packing facility, which are these two properties. Forgive me, I'm not, -- I
can't recall if this is included as well, but these are the two properties. There is a lagoon
here and here. This is kind of the secondary lagoon this is the primary one, where they
do wash out their facilities. The effluent goes underneath and into this first lagoon here.
This is the proposed development. The drain comes through the property here
providing a constraint. In addition to all of the stub streets, there is the additional
constraint of having a drain -- a major drainage facility comes through the property. The
applicants have proposed some attached units to the west and the remainder of the
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 20 of 58
property is single-family detached units. There is a park at the center of the property for
the common area. They are proposing to pipe the drain just through this area here. It
would remain open on the other portions of the property and, then, they would relocate
it. Currently it runs at a diagonal here and they'd relocate it to the property line on this
side. At the Planning and Zoning Commission there was quite a bit of testimony from
the surrounding neighbors. They were concerned with traffic and cut-through traffic
through their neighborhoods and the Planning and Zoning Commission was able to
address quite a bit of their concerns. They also had concerns about irrigation that the
Planning and Zoning Commission was able to address. There were a couple of issues
with staff. Originally, we had requested that the applicant provide a 35-foot landscape
buffer on the attached units to the west end of the property located there, because of
the proximity to what was deemed an industrial use. The landscape ordinance requires
a 35 foot buffer and there was a -- there was an opinion from the city attorney that those
sewage lagoons were associated -- were tied to the meat packing facility, so they were
considered one property. The Planning and Zoning Commission decided to -- to grant
the applicant's request not to provide that 35-foot landscape buffer. There was also
some discussion about tiling the Jackson Drain, because the Comprehensive Plan does
call for that being left open. Given the steepness of the banks in this location and the
additional constraints because it was an in-fill development, staff doesn't have too many
lingering concerns about that, but it was an original concern. There was also concern
about the proposed pathway as constructed. The Parks Department has been talking
about a ten-foot pathway along the drain, with a five-foot gravel shoulder on each side.
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this at length and they did decide that
the applicant could do just an asphalt pathway. Looking back through the minutes,
though, we just wanted to make sure that conditions of approval were added that stated
that the homeowners association would be responsible for the maintenance of that
pathway, because they did not have the gravel shoulders, and I have some specific
language regarding that if that's something you want to add. Then, also a plat note
stating that the public would have access to that pathway, and that it wouldn't just be a
private access for that subdivision. Again, those were issues that were discussed in the
Planning and Zoning Commission, but didn't quite make it as conditions of approval yet.
We tried to contact -- since the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing we tried to
contact EPA and DEQ regarding the ponds, the waste ponds, and staff's real concern is
that they are just a large unknown at this point. The developer's representative
happens to be working with that owner as well and may have more information. What
we found out from the EPA and DEQ was, basically, that they hadn't run into the
problem yet and didn't know anything about those particular ponds and really couldn't
offer a statement until someone had done some testing. With that, I'll leave that as staff
comments. We did receive a revised plat dated June 27, 2003.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Anna?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Is the developer or representative here this evening? Is the testimony
you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 21 of 58
McKay: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay.
McKay: Becky McKay, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Business address. If I could
use the A frame? I'm representing the applicant Hillview Development in this matter.
As Anna indicated, this is an in-fill property, even though it is 39 acres in size, which is
unusually large for an in-fill. You can well see all the way around the property are
subdivisions. The unique thing about this particular property is the diversity of uses
around this development. We have a single-family subdivision along our north
boundary, a single-family subdivision along our east boundary, and along our south
boundary we have a mobile home park, we have some multi-family like townhomes. On
our western boundary here we have Bridgewood Park, which is a 4-plex development
that I did years and years ago and, then, you have Aspen Hills Apartments along this
western boundary here and, then, right here we have, as Anna indicated, two ponds
that are associated with the jerky, pepperoni place that's there. I can't remember the
name. We do have a wide diversity. In your Comprehensive Plan this is designated
mixed-use neighborhood, which allows for a density, obviously, up to three to eight
dwelling units per acre. Our gross density for this project is 4.11 units per acre. We
have two different product lines on this subject property. We have detached single
family, obviously, on the bulk of it and, then, we have just a few attached -- what we
would call duplex or townhomes just on this cul-de-sac. This wasn't an easy piece of
property to design because of the constraints. We have multiple stub streets, as you
can well see. Blue Heron comes in on the west. James Court comes in along the west.
We have two additional stubs on our north boundary and, then, we have two stubs on
our east boundary. The Jackson Drain -- its historical location is located where you see
it here and in our design, we tried with great effort to try to retain that location or the
natural historical location of that Jackson Drain and work around it and that's what you
see here. That Jackson Drain comes up and it comes out like this and, then, it exits the
property and goes across Blue Heron. The Jackson Drain is indicated in your
Comprehensive Plan and as one of those protected waterways. It's also designated for
a multi-use pathway. We did plan a multi-use pathway and that's what you see here in
the gray. The multi-use pathway would be a ten-foot asphalt running parallel with the
Jackson Drain. We would pick it up here. We have a pocket park right here in this
middle section where we will pipe the drain through here and, then, that pathway would
meander through the pocket park and, then, obviously go up. You have a pathway --
there is a pathway just on the north side of Blue Heron and there is another segment of
pathway just southeast of us. This will make a connection at some point in time and will
be an integral part of your pathway system. Now, I know we did have a little bit of a
disagreement with the Parks Department. Their standards are the ten-foot asphalt and
that's what we have provided. Then, we intended to put two-foot gravel on each side of
the asphalt, because Nampa-Meridian likes a 14-foot travel surface -- or hard travel
surface. Your Parks Department said they would like five feet gravel on each side of
the pathway in order -- it was based on the boom length for their weed sprayers. We
disagreed, because we only have so much room to work with on that bank of the
Jackson Drain. I'd like to submit some pictures of the Jackson Drain to kind of give you
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 22 of 58
an idea of what the facility looks like. It's not -- it's not the deeper sections that we see
throughout the valley, but, yet, it's not a five-to-one or a four-to-one slope either. This is
the Jackson Drain as it traverses through the mid section, I’d like to present that into the
record, and that kind of gives the Council an idea what that facility looks like. You know,
it's not real deep, but it's not a little tiny, shallow, slow running slough. I did meet with --
I met with Nampa-Meridian twice concerning the Jackson Drain and the Jackson stub
drain, John Anderson and Bill Henson. Now, what John Anderson indicated to me is it
is their preference where we have a pocket park and we will be drawing, mostly like
children with play equipment, because that is one of our amenities, is the play
equipment. The second amenity is the pathway. Since we will be drawing small
children there, it is their preference that we pipe that through the pocket park. If we
don't pipe it through the pocket park, the park will be bisected and will be almost
useless, in my opinion. As you can see by the picture, I really don't think somebody
would want their three or four year old, you know, playing right next to that. It is my
opinion that it is in the best interest of the project and the city that this stretch through
here be piped. Now, on this drawing we show it coming -- opening right up through
there and, then, existing out in a northwesterly direction, but there -- we have issues
with this public roadway, so we may have to pipe further up than is shown in this
drawing. I want the Council to realize that, that we are under design and evaluating
that, but due to the roadway and storm drainage and groundwater and other factors, we
may have to pipe a stretch here. Obviously, as you can see, we've tried to protect the
vast majority of that. We have micropaths that are interconnecting through this block
and, then, a pathway interconnecting through that block. We have in that pocket park I
think there is approximately a couple acres -- a little over two acres, I believe, in the
pocket park, so it's a pretty good size one and, obviously, the more we pipe of the
Jackson drain, then, the more usable area, the more open space and play area we
have. The other controversy we had was the ponds. We have some ponds on our
western boundary and if I show you a map, this is a map and, as you can see, here is
the subject property's western boundary. It is zoned R-1, so the adjacent property to us
that is owned by Charles Schwerd is zoned R-1. That is an estate residential zone
under the county zoning destination. Just west of that is the M-2. Now, that is an
industrial zone under county jurisdiction and the M-2 is where the facility lies and it sits
-- I have evaluated the aerial photos and it sits right there on that line or maybe just a
smidge of it overlapping, but the industrial use is there. The two ponds -- what they do,
they do jerky, pepperoni, they do, do some wild game processing, but they -- the
discharge out there is minimal. Schwerd family has come to me and they have asked
me to prepare an application to request annexation and Rezone for their facility into the
city, so they can connect the city sewer and city water for that facility. I have met with
your staff in a pre-application conference to try to determine what would be the best
zoning designation because of the current uses that they have on the property at this
time and I think we have come to an agreement on our approach. The ponds -- this is a
picture of the ponds. This was taken about a week before the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, which would have been, what, six weeks ago? Five, six weeks
ago. As you can see, that's the Aspen Apartments. They lie next to the pond. The
source of water in the pond is primarily groundwater and according to the owners of the
jerky facility west of us, they discharge into the large pond. Here are some other
pictures. The northerly pond is considerably smaller, but, as you can see, it looks like a
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 23 of 58
water amenity. There are cattails. There are apartments next to it. There are homes
around it. This is the pond to the north. It's not as attractive, because it doesn't have as
much vegetation. You can see the homes that adjoin it. They have been there for
many, many years, according to the owners of the property. I went out there today right
before the hearing to take a look, because staff had concerns about the condition of the
ponds as the -- our temperatures rise, so we've had quite a bit of hot weather. I went
out there -- I fell in the ditch.
Nary: Did you bring a picture of that?
McKay: No. No but my shoes are kind of squishy. It -- there was no odors. There are
some algae growing along the exterior of it with the heat that we have. The ponds have
dropped about a foot since we took the first pictures, but there is water in there and
according to Mr. Schwerd, at the end of the summer the northerly pond, the little one
that they don't discharge into, dries up and the one to the south, which is larger, will stay
wet year around. I just don't see these as a detriment. I mean we build these in our
subdivisions to look like this a lot of times and call them a water amenity. I don't feel
that the 35-foot buffer is appropriate, because I don't think -- I just don't think that that's
a nuisance. It doesn't look like a nuisance, it's attractive, and it’s been out there for
years. I don't know -- have any knowledge of any complaints from the adjoining
apartments or 4-plexes or homes that are out there concerning that facility. Concerning
the irrigation, the property is split between Settler's and Nampa-Meridian. The Jackson
Drain is the boundary. This is Settler's. This is Nampa-Meridian. There is an existing
pressure irrigation pump station for Fothergill Subdivision. It is our intent to go in and
upgrade that. It's owned and maintained by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and they
would like that to become a regional pump station for this subdivision and Fothergill.
We have told them that that is our intent. We are in Nampa-Meridian's Drainage
District, so they have indicated to me that they are not going to have the legal problems
as far as the assessments to the homeowners like we have had in other projects with
split jurisdiction. We have the Watts Lateral that comes along here and, then, exits.
The Watts Lateral is a users ditch. According to Settler's Irrigation District, they are not
requiring a separate lot or anything, just pipe it along or perimeter and provide an
easement, which, according to Nathan Draper, I think is 20 feet. We have what we call
the Jackson Stub Drain coming in here. It's been piped through these existing
subdivisions and they dump into this stub drain, it runs down here and, then, dumps into
the Jackson Drain. There are also multiple pipes coming out that street where the
drainage is just dumping directly into the stub drain. I talked to the adjoining neighbors
who had hoped to try to regain some of their property, because that is a 50-foot
easement along that stub drain and 20 feet on the existing subdivision side and 30 feet
on our side so their fences are inset feet. John Anderson has told me that he will not
allow those neighbors to encroach into the easement with their fences and he would
only allow a minor encroachment on our side. It has multiple pipes that are dumping
into it, so from our perspective we would like to see that stub, which is -- does collect
groundwater also, left open and I have got some pictures of that and just fence that out.
It's not very pretty. We can go in, knock down some of the spoil piles, and make it look
a little bit better. Here is the spoil pile. That's along the east boundary. That's the best
picture. That's the Jackson Stub Drain right there. It was not piped when the adjoining
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 24 of 58
subdivision was developed, even though that easement overlaps and the top of bank
does adjoin. I assume probably because it does collect some groundwater, it's some
type of an interceptor, and, then, the fact that there were so many pipes coming from so
many different directions in the east dumping into it. We have proposed to leave that
open. I've read through the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I believe we are in agreement with just one clarification. Under special recommendation
A, they had required the applicant to work with Mr. Fothergill and the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation Association to remove the headgate on Mr. Fothergill's property. If you look at
the minutes, that's not quite what was said and I just need to kind of fill you in. We had
one resident that attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting who owns a
lot right here. The Stokesberry Lateral is piped along here and that's a Nampa-Meridian
facility. It happens to be -- that's the location where they put a box. The box sits kind of
high. The gentleman said, well, is there any way that that box can be eliminated. I think
our response to him was, well, we could take a look at it and we said what's the purpose
of the box and he says, well, it feeds -- he believes it feeds a little -- the Fothergill
property, which is right here. He says if you're going -- if you're going to develop this,
could that be abandoned. We said we would meet you out at the site with our
engineering, go through that, and see and evaluate it. Since that's on the Stokesberry
Lateral, that is under jurisdiction of Nampa-Meridian so, therefore, we never said we
would remove it. I think the language stating that we will remove the headgate is wrong.
We may not be able to do anything with that box. That box may be permanent there
forever. I don't know its exact purpose and we have not evaluated it. I do need that
language changed. The second thing is in my meetings with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District, John Anderson has told me that they will not allow us to construct that multi-use
pathway unless the City of Meridian enters into one of those agreements with them like
you did on Five Mile Creek, indemnifying them from liability. I said, well, if -- so, you
would not -- because I asked him point blank, I said so if this pathway were under the
association, you would not allow it? He said that is correct. Our board has made a
determination that these multi-use pathways, as designated by Meridian, we must enter
into an agreement with Meridian or we will not allow you to install it. I will need the
cooperation of the city attorney and your Public Works staff to initiate that agreement
and get that done. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think these agreements have come up before and our attorney has noted
that there can be some kind of a three-way agreement. I just don't recall what -- what
the details are and, I'm sorry, Nick, I'm sure you probably can't help us on that, but --
Wollen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, and Councilwoman de Weerd, it is
something that I'm afraid I can't give an answer to you right now, but it's something that I
can look into and ask Bill Nichols about and see what exactly our opinion is on that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thanks.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 25 of 58
Corrie: Any other questions?
Nary: I have none.
Corrie: I guess not. Thank you, Becky.
McKay: Thank you.
Corrie: I believe James and Corey Schwerd -- do you want to -- anything to say? Just
for it? Okay. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony?
Okay. I guess we won't get a chance, Becky to hear you again. On that one, anyway.
Okay. Any questions of Council? Discussion on the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. If there is none, I would request a motion to close the Public Hearing on
Items 12, 13, and 14 of Trailway Park Subdivision.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 12, 13, and 14
of Trailway Park Subdivision. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye? All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would like to make a comment. It looks like this piece of property
had a number of challenges and I think that you have really done a nice job in tying it all
together. In-fill -- in-fill applications are really -- have a lot of details that -- if you're just
doing a bare piece that's not surrounded like it is -- I think you have done a great job.
Not having the neighbors here testifying against it is testimony enough that you have
addressed the concerns of all the neighbors. I just think you have done a good job.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Not hearing any more comment, let's go on with it. I would move that we approve
AZ 03-010, request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from RUT to R-8 PD
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 26 of 58
zones for the proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation,
for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of
Order and to incorporate staff and applicant's comments.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I was just going to ask, Mr. Bird and the Council, I noted in the
recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission there is a statement
saying require applicant to put jungle gym and slide on tot lot. I noted Ms. McKay did
say they were going to do that, but I think the wording should probably be not just
putting a jungle gym and slide, but to submit a plan for approval of whatever recreation
amenity they are going to provide on that lot. The other one was on the issue, Mr. Bird,
regarding the removal a headgate issue, the one that's a statement here just to work
with them to remove it, if you want to just remove the language saying to simply work
with them on whatever --
Bird: Whatever solution they can -- yes. I agree. Motion agrees.
Nary: I concur.
Corrie: Thank you.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, could I also ask that if -- were staff
comments meant to include that the -- if the pathway does not comply with the Parks
Department standards, that the homeowners association would be responsible for the
maintenance of that pathway?
Bird: That would be true.
Powell: And would it also include that there be a plat note stating that they have
allowed public access on that pathway system?
Bird: Yes, ma'am.
Powell: Thank you.
Corrie: That was a long --
Bird: That was part of the applicant's --
Corrie: -- two party -- three party --
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 27 of 58
Bird: Yes. That was part of the applicant's --
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess there is a lingering question and since our -- Bill Nichols is not here
to address it on the -- kind of the three way agreement, if that cannot be worked out
maybe at Final Plat, it can be brought up again for discussion, or how best to deal with
that?
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you know, the attorney's office has been
primarily dealing with those with, I believe, the parks department, so I haven't been
involved in those discussions much. I can't offer much advice. We could -- we have
been raising these issues at the Final Plat time if there are concerns.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll call vote, please, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved for the request for annexation and zoning.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, we'll entertain a motion for the Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve PP 03-011, the request Preliminary Plat approval of 161
building lots, and 24 other lots on 39.15 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed
Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corp. For the attorney to draw up
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to incorporate
all staff and applicant comments.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: All right. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
Preliminary Plat. Excuse me. PP 03-011. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll
call vote, Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 28 of 58
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion for the request for Preliminary Plat is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item Number 14 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development a single-family residential use. CUP 03-021.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve CUP 03-021, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Planned Development for single family residential use with reduced setback lot
sizes, lot frontages, and house sizes in a propose R-8 PD zone for the proposed
Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. For the attorney to
draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and decision of order and to
incorporate all staff and applicant comments.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a Conditional
Use Permit 03-021. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Request for Conditional Use Permit is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15. Public Hearing: AZ 03-008
Request for annexation and zoning of 34.52
Birchstone Creek
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Subdivision
by Centennial Development, LLC – northwest corner of West
Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road:
Item 16. Public Hearing: PP 03-008
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 89
building lots and 7 other lots on 34.52 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Birchstone Creek Subdivision
proposed by Centennial Development,
LLC – northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road:
Item 17. Public Hearing: VAR 03-013
Request for a Variance to Meridian City
Code 12-4-5 requiring blocks to be not less than 400 feet and not more
Birchstone Creek Subdivision
than 1,000 feet in length for by
Centennial Development, LLC – northwest corner of West Ustick Road
and North Black Cat Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 29 of 58
Corrie: Item Number 15, 16, and 17 are public hearings for Birchstone Creek
Subdivision. The first -- Number 15 is the request for annexation and zoning 03-008 for
34.52 acres from an RUT to an R-8 zone for proposed Birchstone Creek Subdivision.
Item Number 16 is a Public Hearing, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 89 building
lots and seven other lots on 34.52 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Birchstone Creek
Subdivision. Item Number 17 is a Public Hearing, Variance 03-013, request for a
Variance to the Meridian City Code 12-4-5, requiring blocks to be less than 400 feet and
not more than 1,000 feet in length for Birchstone Creek Subdivision. At this time I will
open the Public Hearing on all three items and invite staff comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as you can see from this map that this
adjoins city property to the south, but it's kind of the breakout into this new section here,
as bounded by Ustick and Black Cat Road, surrounded by large properties which are
undeveloped at this time. Well, undeveloped, other than farms. The proposed
subdivision does include a large lot for approximately a nine and a half acre lot for an
elementary school. It's bounded by a large irrigation facility here on the west and it also
wraps around and comes down here as well in this corner. There are two entrances
into the subdivision, one off each major arterial and a fairly well interconnected system
of roadways interior to it. There is a pedestrian path that connects this cul-de-sac over
to this open space area, so that children get from the cul-de-sac, basically, to the school
grounds without having to go all the way down the street and back up. The outstanding
issue that -- as you can tell from my new cheat sheets, there is -- no one showed to
testify against it or in favor of it at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Three property
owners attended and did state that they were in support of the application, although
they didn't testify. You do have a revised plat dated the 7th, I believe, of this month, just
for your records. The only outstanding issue that really remains on this one is a
question of this open space located here. Staff had recommended that the applicant
submit a Variance for that property and the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred
and, then, I didn't realize the Planning and Zoning Commission had already decided the
fact and I did tell the applicant that I didn't want them to submit a Variance application
and I will explain why. The Variance was for the minimum five percent open space.
This is a straight subdivision. It's not a Planned Development, so they are required to
provide five percent. That five percent is all included within this lot right here. When
this is platted, the applicant will develop this as an open space amenity for the
subdivision, if and when they do anticipate selling this to the school district. When this
is developed as the school district, the applicant will adjust the lot line such that the
common facility goes approximately just in this area here and the rest of that property
would be deeded to the school. In the future, the common lot open space will not meet
the five percent requirement. Now, of course, it's still going to be open -- I mean it's still
going to be there, it will just be under the ownership of the Meridian School District. As
this travels through our processing system, though, they do meet the five percent
minimum open space, but they have been open about -- I mean they have been honest
and forthcoming about what they intend to do with that in the future. The Council may
want to recognize at this point that that would be -- if they are in favor of that, you might
want to state that that will be okay, because, otherwise, when they go to do a lot line
adjustment we may have difficulties approving that, because that lot is the open space
requirement for the subdivision. The only -- the applicants worked out a lot of the issues
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 30 of 58
with staff prior to going to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The one thing that's
not reflected in this drawing is that this property, which is shown as unplatted, they were
going to annex it, but they were not including it in the subdivision. They have agreed
and the Planning and Zoning Commission required them to include it in the subdivision.
It will take access from the subdivision. It's currently the same owners as own the
property that is being subdivided and those were the only outstanding issues.
Corrie: Any questions? Okay. Hearing none, is the representative from the Birchstone
here? Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, so help you God?
Amar: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Amar: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Kevin Amar, address
114 East Idaho, Number 230, in Meridian. We are here before you for Birchstone Creek
Subdivision and, as staff has indicated, we have been able to work out any outstanding
issues with staff and we -- by the way, I like the cheat sheet. I don't know whose idea it
was, but it was great. It makes it a lot easier to review what those issues might be. I
have gone through the cheat sheet, so to speak, and we are still in agreement with all of
the outstanding conditions of approval. A couple of items that are not reflected on this
plat, unfortunately, is one of the requirements was this cul-de-sac be made permanent.
We had initially proposed it as a temporary turnaround until such time as the school
puts in their parking area that's going to be in here. It will be a permanent turnaround.
In fact, it's going to be on the other side of the street, so it doesn't interfere and conflict
with school use of their property and we will build a permanent cul-de-sac in that area,
still allowing for access across the Eight Mile Creek should that ever happen. In the
meantime, there will be Fire Department ability to get in through there. The other issues
were providing an easement through this common space open area for this in the future
and also include this in the Preliminary Plat. We have done all that and, as staff has
stated, we don't have any other concerns. One of the questions that we did bring up --
and Mr. Bigham apparently couldn’t be here tonight there is a school board meeting
also tonight and he was going to try to make it. At some point they are going to build a
school in here and in speaking to him that point could be two years and it could be ten
years. He's trying to juggle a lot of different schools and where their growth is coming
from and where they are anticipating it to be. In doing so, we tried to incorporate --
because we know there is going to be a school here, we wanted to have -- what we are
going to put in is a permanent park area in the same proximity as where the school
playground area would be and we wanted to do that for two reasons. One, we get the
full use of the ground and also for the long-term benefit is parents can watch their little
kids play on the playground equipment and their big kids play soccer or chase or
whatever they do in the open space. It allows the parents to be in one area and see all
the open area. The other thing it does is it provides a better visual access back into this
-- what will be the future school play yard. We have also provided a couple of pathways
that will also be beneficial to the school and to the subdivision. With this park, if you
draw a line here, the portion to the west will be dedicated to the school in the future at
such time -- and we are trying to work that out with the school's attorney, if they want to
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 31 of 58
own it now and grant us back an easement or we need to dedicate that in the future and
that really is up to their attorney. We have told them just tell us how you want us to do it
and we will do it that way. Immediately we are going to develop all of that open space,
so the kids have a place to go play. There will be grass and there will be -- so it will be
put into use. We are also going to put a recreation facility on the portion of the ground
in this area that will remain under ownership of the homeowners association. When
school is in session -- this will be fenced off, but there will still be the younger kids will
be able to get in there and use the open space area and the parents will be able to go
there. There is going to be an open space dedicated solely to the homeowners
association. Speaking with staff, I believe they are in support of it. Mrs. Powell, I guess
she can correct me if I'm wrong, but they are in support of doing that joint use facility,
they just wanted to be sure that we brought this up before the City Council to make sure
that this body is also in agreement with what we were trying to do. We are trying to use
the best open space as we can and provide the best product for the end result. I have
also provided you with what we do on all of our projects anymore, a list of CC&R’s or
what will be incorporated into the CC&R’s. We do this just -- I guess we feel
comfortable putting things in writing, so it makes it easy to see what we plan on doing.
On the third page -- and I'll get a bigger map, so it's easier to see. This shows kind of
the breakdown of where the lot sizes are, so you can see and as far as the colors, the
yellow depicts from 6,500 to 7,000 square feet, blue from seven to 9,000 and red from
9,000 and up. We tried to depict that even though we are asking for an R-8, there are
quite a few larger lots within the subdivision. With that unless, there are other
questions, the revisions that you see here do reflect and the map we have up there do
reflect all of ACHD's revisions, with the exception of the cul-de-sac and that will be
incorporated into the design. I would stand for any questions should you have any.
Bird: I have none.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'm a little bothered by your disappearing park which you have at -- the
fact that -- I mean I guess I look at most of the school sites in Meridian are probably
sooner, rather than later. It appears to me that within two to three years when you buy
that house on the front portion, like at the corner of Ustick and Black Cat area, you
know, that park is going to disappear that you think is going to be there. Nothing is
going to tell these people that park is going to go away and a school is going to be built
there and there is a fence, so they won't be able to use it anymore.
Amar: No, there will be a park there. There is going to be a fence here, because the
school doesn't want their kids being able to get out.
Nary: I understand.
Amar: But this portion is always going to be here.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 32 of 58
Nary: I understand.
Amar: And it will be open and this portion is going to be grass and so this park won't
disappear, it will, actually, get larger it's just going to change ownership.
Nary: It's just going to have a fence across it and you're not going to be able to access
it during school time and you're going to have -- I mean, basically, the park that -- when
you buy your house down here or even adjacent to that park, you know, within two or
three years half of that park is going to disappear into the school ground with a fence
across it and it's no longer a park to the people that live there, it's just school ground,
like everybody else is part of the school ground.
Amar: I guess I disagree to some extent. That park goes from an acre and a half to six
acres of open space. They can't use it when the kids are in school, but the kids that are
going to use that park are in school anyway. The tots that are going to go slide down
the slide are going to use the tot lot and that's what we are going to continue having
there and that's our intention of putting this -- but that's why we want to provide an open
space.
Nary: Okay. The intent of the five percent is not to go steal it from the school, but to
provide it to the residents within it.
Amar: Correct.
Nary: And so I think what you're doing, although it makes sense from your standpoint,
to me it robs the people that are living there of the five percent open space, which is the
intent of the ordinance. You're really borrowing the school's open space to make that,
because once that school is going to get built, their five percent open space has gone,
it's no longer in the homeowners association, it's the school's property. It would be
there regardless of whether or not there are houses there and the people in the front,
since it's not even centrally located, those people in the front have as much -- limited
access to using it anyway and --
Amar: We initially had this park moved up here -- we initially did have it up here and at
the request of staff and other people that was -- and from the Police Department, it was
requested that we move back, so they can see to the back of the school space. That's
the reason that it is in that location. As far as these people being robbed of this, well, I'd
submit that we are providing a site for the school to build an elementary school. These
people are going to move here because there is an elementary school. They are going
to understand they have that ability. I think there will be more use out of the school site
than just out of an acre and a half of park, because there is going to be more
opportunity for the kids to go in and play soccer, play basketball, whatever the school --
they have much more facilities than most subdivisions. Although I understand your
concern, I think with this design and talking to the school and talking to staff, it really is
the best of both worlds. The kids can't use the park when school is in session, but the
kids are at school when the school is in session, so --
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 33 of 58
Nary: Well -- but once there is a school, there is no five percent. I mean the whole
intent of the ordinance is that there is a five percent of open space within that
subdivision and once that school is build it is no longer there.
Amar: I guess I understand that --
Nary: And the school property is the school's property and they are going to -- you
know, whatever limited uses they have and whatever limited access they have is totally
up to them. The people using it, yes, it's no different than anybody else. The people
within that subdivision don't have that open space that they would normally be entitled
to, the same as everybody else in the other subdivisions in the city. They are just
getting half of it, because they happen to be next to the school.
Amar: I think it's a -- I mean there is opinions here, but other subdivisions, the people
also don't have a school sitting in the middle of their property that they may want. This
really is going to be beneficial to what we see. In talking to the school district, they
though it was beneficial, they are able to acquire ground that they need in this area and
they were pretty excited about this proposal. I believe staff -- obviously, this board has
the final say, but staff is understanding and in agreement with what we are proposing.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: That park land or the open space, you won't be selling it to the school
district, will you?
Amar: No. It's going to be deeded.
De Weerd: It will be donated, then.
Amar: I'm not exactly sure how it's going to work out. The school's attorney has to tell
us, either -- they are going to provide us an easement, but we have offset the cost
already to account for that.
De Weerd: So, they are gaining that green area and they are not going to be charged
for it?
Amar: Correct.
De Weerd: So, you know, I guess I would -- I have a little bit different perspective than
Councilman Nary. I think the neighborhood does gain in that open space and it does
make it more desirable living behind the school and that sort of thing and your
homeowners association is not going to be paying to provide the maintenance to it and
you will be doubling -- more than doubling -- tripling your open space that is behind your
house or available to your kids, because at Ponderosa I have never seen them block off
access to it, it constantly has access, and that's what the open space requirement,
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 34 of 58
when we wrote it, was really to provide that open space of relief from the houses and
that sort of thing and I think it's a nice amenity and certainly if they were going to be
selling it to the school district, I would have a problem with that, but if they are deeding it
to it and it's providing even more of an open space, I don't have an issue with that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I see where Tammy is coming from, very much so, and I have no problem with it
either, but that is not -- it's like our ordinance says it's five percent green space. That is
not -- even though they are saying right now that that is part of this subdivision, as soon
as the school is -- gets the ground -- and they could buy the ground tomorrow and never
build a school for 15 years, you can't tell me that you're not going to start building
houses in there faster than they are going to build the school. They do not meet the five
percent requirement. I have -- to be truthful with you, I have no problem with that on
this deal, because I agree with Tammy, but I have also seen schools -- I have also seen
schools lock down where you cannot get through there and if you cannot get through
there, then, that green space is no good. That's my opinion on that. I mean I would not
hold this up for that deal, but our ordinance says that this subdivision by -- on its own --
stands on its own with five percent green space and it doesn't do it, because there is no
way that that little L is part of this subdivision.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, we have had other developers adjacent to Settler's park ask for the
same thing and we said, no, you're not going to use the public park to take your five
percent. You're going to have to find it within your subdivision. I don't think this is any
different. I mean I appreciate your creativeness in trying to do it, but if we grant this, we
are going to grant this for everybody else that builds it next to a public park, a public
school, or something else that they think is good enough open space to meet the
requirements. You know, the access to this park to that five percent, even during this
time period, I don't think is very good. Trying to get there once the school locks that --
blocks that off, in looking at your picture, you have got a pathway -- I don't have a
pointer, but you have got a pathway that accesses the -- you got a pathway here, right,
that accesses this current green space. At some point this is going to have a fence, so
all of these people in this area, to get to the school -- this is not a street right? The
street's here and the streets here and there is one pathway right there correct?
Amar: Correct.
Nary: So, the only way all of these people get to use this park, this -- what you consider
to be a park or green space in the future, is to go all the way in the street and drive all
the way around. There is no way for them to get there, other than this one little pathway
right there, unless the school opens the gate or has an open space or whatever. I don't
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 35 of 58
know what the school is going to do and neither do you. Eventually all you will have is
this little tiny park with some play equipment on it and all the green space access is
gone.
Amar: Okay. I do know the school is providing an open -- a continual open fence area
or gate or pathway into that green space from the subdivision.
Nary: But there all houses here, so where would it be? I mean it has to be here.
Amar: Correct.
Nary: So, you're saying that the school is going to -- but, again, we don't have that
here. They are not here, there is nothing committed from them that there is going to be
access to here.
Amar: I guess they have told me that.
Nary: Okay.
Amar: Is what I'm here representing.
Nary: And I don't disbelieve you, but what I'm saying is we have got to look long term.
If we grant this exception that this park can go away and use this as your five percent,
we are going to have to grant this to everybody and up to this point we have always
said, no, you can't do that, you have to make it yourself within your space and you
haven't done it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? I'm sorry.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I've only got one thing to say. You say -- now this little pocket park in there is
going to be given to the homeowners association and we are going to have some tot
play equipment in there and stuff. What if the kids, the older kids, at that school -- and
ththth
I'm sure it's an elementary school that's going out there. What if the 5, 6, 7 graders
get out there and start damaging that? There is a gate there they will lock it up, the
homeowners association. I sure would if I was a member of the homeowners
association and kids were getting in there and vandalizing my equipment. I don't know
why you can't find a couple -- and don't get me wrong, I know you have got a pencil to
this to make it work, but I don't know why you can't take a couple of those building lots
and make an open space there and give us the five percent. It's like Councilman Nary
said, if we grant this, then, we are starting a precedence that -- it's like at the park, they
can come and say, well, you know, we -- you have got a 56 acre park there. We will
use that as green space and that's -- no, you're basically -- because that property is
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 36 of 58
going to be property of Meridian School District No. 2 that you're saying is part of your
five percent.
Amar: But we are providing them the opportunity to purchase that. We are providing
them the opportunity to have it --
Bird: Well, you just told us you were donating that part.
Amar: Well, this school in here. This could all be houses, I provide my five percent,
and this could all be houses in here.
Bird: That's fine. If you want to do that, that's fine with me, but I'll bet you as a
businessman you're not going to do that.
Amar: Well, I went to the school district initially and said, look, we want an opportunity
to work here together. If we can make this work with the school district and ourselves,
would that be open to you and the school district said, yes, that would be great, we
need another in this area and we'd like to acquire it.
Bird: By the same token, if you can sell that big lot to the school district for a sum of
money, it's much -- it's much better than you going in there and developing it.
Amar: The school is paying me cost, pure cost, and I have shown the school district
numbers -- and I don't want to get into numbers here, but --
Bird: No. No. I don't -- and you don't need to.
Amar: But there is no profit -- and when I say none, zero. There is no profit being made
by the developers on this property.
Bird: As a taxpayer, I appreciate it.
Amar: It is cost to the school and that was part of the agreement that we had made with
the school.
Bird: But I just -- I want to get across to you that that L coming down there is not part of
that subdivision and cannot be counted as the five percent and if we set a precedence
here, guys, we have got to do it on everything.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess being one of the members that helped write the landscape
ordinance, I probably know a little bit more than I should, but one of the discussions --
and I believe it even came into the Public Hearing process, was if some of their open
space could towards schools if the land was donated and that -- what we found out is
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 37 of 58
you couldn't require that by -- legally, because it would be considered a taking. It would
have to come from the applicant's side of things and the benefit was -- is the applicant
would still be donating the land, they'd still be greening it up, so they would still be doing
what they would be required to do under the five percent requirement. It would be given
over to public use, donated or deeded or whatever they worked out with the school
district, to bring it over and, personally, I would much rather see that open space and a
school there, than see it all houses and see that little spot of green and that's just my
personal preference as well. Because I know those conversations went on, I guess I
have a different perspective than those that haven't heard those conversations and
knew what some of our intent in writing that ordinance was. That kind of explains the
perspective that I'm coming from, in that it's still going to be open space, it's not going to
be built on -- it's not going to be houses. You may have yet more limited access to it,
but like all the other schoolyards right now, they are not limited to access, and so I see
that this is a benefit to the taxpayers and to the idea of what open space is for.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You're going to guarantee me that they are not going to build the school up there
on that north end and that could be part of asphalt, play ground, basketball courts, could
be part of the school, because I don't know where they are going to build it. I don't think
they do. I bet they don't have the drawings for it yet.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm sorry.
Corrie: Were you through, Mr. Bird?
Bird: Yes. I was done. You bet.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, Council Member de Weerd, I mean I do recall those discussions and
the like, but they are not donating this property, they are selling it at cost. That's not --
that's not the same thing. Now, that may be what was thought of by the committee, but
if you're telling me -- if a developer comes in here and says I'm going to donate this
property to the school, I'm going to give it to them as a write-off, and that's a benefit to
the City of Meridian, that's a pretty big --
Bird: That's a donation.
Nary: That's a pretty big gift. I think that's a great thing. It does deserve consideration.
They are not giving it to the school. They are selling it to them.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 38 of 58
De Weerd: No, they are donating it.
Nary: But the rest of it they are just selling it to them. The rest of it that makes up the
park that we have been arguing about is you're selling it to them just like anybody else.
You know, and that's fine, they have a right to do that, but I'm not going to give them
credit for it. I'm not going to give them the benefit of selling it, just like they could. Yes,
you could put houses there and you would have to put five percent open space. Cedar
Springs put a school, Cedar Springs is next to the park, and we still made them put five
percent open space in it. Lochsa Falls has open space in it. Paramount Subdivision
has a school -- has two schools and a park in it and we still made them put five percent
open space in it. We have done it over and over and over and I don't see why this is
anymore compelling than the others. It's a nice design. I think -- I don't particularly like
where you put your open space. I don't think it's a good location anyway. If that wasn't
the issue, to me, the fact that it disappears is a big issue, that five percent. What will
happen is -- and I know you're not asking for it, but other people will come and want and
the same consideration and the next thing they are going to say is we want it set up on
a -- we want to consider all that to be like a park, so we want to set up our park impact
fees, because you have got a school next to it, so we don't have to pay -- we shouldn't
have to pay as much, because there is all this green space with the school and, then,
we have got to deal with that. I'd rather say no. Go redo it, get your five percent like
everybody else has to. I appreciate your providing the school ground at cost to the
school district, but everyone else had to meet the same standard and I appreciate the
creativeness you're trying, but I just don't think it makes sense.
Amar: I think the other subdivisions that you brought up, the Paramount, Cedar
Springs, those are not 35 acre sites, those were enormous, they were PUD's, they are
significantly different that this site. What we are doing, this ground --
Nary: But five percent is five percent.
Amar: This ground is dedicated and donated to the school. The school is not
purchasing where that five percent is. The school is not trying to purchase it. We are
donating that, so there is a benefit. We are providing all of this. And if I'm a
businessman and solely out for the money, I'm putting houses in here, because I'm
going to make money on the houses. I'm not making money on the school property.
I'm doing that as a benefit to the school district, because I made a commitment to Mr.
Bigham a long time ago that every time I come in with a new project I'm going to him
first and asking him if he needs property. To make good on that commitment that I
made to Mr. Bigham, I did that, and on a 35-acre site, he asked for a third of it. I feel
like this project is not like those others that you have referenced, it is providing a benefit
not only to the City of Meridian, but also to the school district, to the homeowners, and
it's a win-win situation for everyone. It does meet currently the five percent open space.
When the school goes in, the school, in fact, will go in up here. We are designing the
sewer for that right now. It can't go in back here, because it won't have the sewer depth
to do that. It needs about eight feet or nine feet of sewer depth and the school will go in
here with the parking lots up front. The balance of this property in back, about five
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 39 of 58
acres, will be open space, will be green, and based on sewerability, I can guarantee
that. It can't be any other way or the school doesn't get sewer and I know they need to
flush toilets. I don't think this is similar to what you're saying. I think this does meet the
intent of the open space ordinance. It does have five percent from the very first day we
start -- from the very first house that's sold it will have five percent and when the school
goes in, it will have, I don't know, 20 percent. The majority of that is going to be open
space. Schools do not lock off their property. I would request for approval this evening.
Corrie: They do. They did it at the Kiwanis Park.
Bird: Yes. Go out and check it out.
Corrie: They are doing it. Besides, you're -- I understand what you're saying, but
unless we have it in writing that -- what they are saying means nothing. Mr. Bigham
may not be here tomorrow and we have somebody else take his place and they won't --
they don't like this. I agree with Mr. Nary, you don't have five percent -- and you give
that over there, you don't have five percent.
Amar: I will submit just two questions, then. One, we can condition it that this does
provide permanent access to the school site and if that's not the case, then, I would
submit that we be tabled and we will look at the opportunity of not selling this property to
the school and coming back and mapping and we will still have this same -- that amount
of open space and it will be permanent and it will be owned by the homeowners
association.
Bird: Fine with me. I mean you can't take one of those lots out? What -- without that
ground that we are arguing about, how -- what is the tot lot? How big is that?
Amar: The tot lot, if you go back --
Bird: Go across there.
Amar: This portion here --
Bird: Yes.
Amar: -- is about a half an acre.
Bird: Okay. And you have got 22 acres in there?
Amar: I'm sorry?
Bird: You have got 22 acres that you're developing?
Amar: Twenty-two acres of development. Yes.
Bird: You told me 33.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 40 of 58
Amar: Correct. There is 35 acres total, but the way we have to calculate our open
space is we have to include five percent open space for the school also, because that's
a part of the Preliminary Plat. We have to have about an acre and a half of open space,
which this is.
Bird: How big is that lot next to it?
Amar: This lot?
Bird: The blue one.
Amar: It is --
Bird: My eyes aren't good enough to read the square footage.
Corrie: 7,000 square feet.
Amar: That lot is 8,000 square feet.
Bird: So, we are talking about a fifth of an acre.
Amar: Correct.
Bird: I would -- Mayor and Council, I have no problem continuing it like he asked and
give him a chance. I think he's got a very, very, very nice development here and, like
Tammy, I hope the school district -- he can work something out when the school goes
there, but I just don't feel comfortable allowing a school to be counted as the five
percent right now. So -- I could be proven wrong.
Powell: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Anna.
Powell: In my presentation I neglected to bring up the fact that they are requesting a
Variance and I just want to take just a second to explain what that Variance is for. It
was for the block length and it is just related to the school. It's this distance here to the
property line here exceeds the 1,000 feet, so we had the Eight Mile Lateral boundary
along here and, then, it -- because it was a school site it wasn't appropriate to have a
stub street at the back of that property. We were in general support of the block length
Variance on that. Could I add just a couple comments regarding the school? The
school has had -- the relationships between the school district and the city seem to have
been strained over the last few years as far as coordinating the development of these
playground areas associated with the schools and how the city can work through the
development community to have these combined uses. I do believe the school district
is ready to reconsider those things now, along with the Parks Department is ready to
consider them and I was hoping Mr. Bigham could be here tonight to perhaps open up
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 41 of 58
that conversation a little bit. The Comprehensive Plan does talk about school facilities
and trying to work with the school district. From the conversation tonight, it appears that
you really consider the school to be just like any other use, that it doesn't have this
special quality of being kind of an open space use, as well as an intense use on a
portion of the property. I was wondering if you could maybe give the applicant or me a
little better idea, if we are going to go work with the school district or work on
reconfiguring this, maybe your thoughts on how this could better serve as a dual
function or if you don't want to consider that at all. I hope that was kind of clear what I'm
trying to get from you, but --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think -- I will give you my answer, Anna, and I think I -- sure, we want to work
with them, but I can tell you -- and I think maybe at grade schools they don't lock it down
like they do a high school, but they have -- to my knowledge the Kiwanis Park has got
no access to the Mountain View High School. Now, I want to work with the schools,
because we are -- it's tax payers money there, too, and we use -- we use the school
green space probably as much as we do the park's green space, because they have got
more of it right at this point. Yes, we want to work with them, we want to, and this is -- I
would have no problem these guys go back and bring us a letter signed by Wendell that
says that this school is never going to be locked down. I don't know how they can do it
in their homeowners ordinance, because they can lock it down if it's going to be their
property. I would take a good hard look at that. I mean I like your subdivision, I like
your plan, I like the school out there, but I don't think we can start precedence here. If
we do, I think we are opening up a big, big can of worms, unless we can get something
-- we will probably have to change the ordinance, so it's more clear where schools are
involved and I think that's probably what we need to do, so --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I guess I'd echo the same comments from Councilman Bird. You know, I
guess I'm very apprehensive in borrowing from another public entity the use of that
green space to cover their requirements by our ordinance and we have not granted that
previously, so I'm not really -- I guess I don't see any compelling reason to change that
now. Again, I think it a creative way to do it and there probably is some benefit to it, but,
again, you know, the school board can change, the school's philosophy could change
and we have been talking about providing this multiple use between the school and the
park. It wasn't -- it wasn't initially -- at least my recollection was it wasn't really initially a
-- for a private development to, then, have a homeowners association park, as well as a
public park sort of connected together in this manner. That just wasn't what the
discussion was. It doesn't mean we can't do that, we just haven't really gotten there,
and we haven't seen the school district at one of our meetings in a long time. We really
don't have anything really outlined as to what we want or what they want or how we
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 42 of 58
make that function, because you have got a public school that has public access and
you have got a private park that doesn't. You know, kind of -- it doesn't mix together
very well without clearing up what those things are. Oh, here is Mr. Bigham now. On
the Variance thing, I guess I looked and saw a block length Variance, I didn't even read
it any further. I just thought we kind of just did those, but that's what I think we need to
iron out is some of those details of how do we make a public private park work together,
because, as Mr. Bird says, the homeowners can lock that park off, too, if they don't want
to allow access. You know, those people from the school are going to think that's
something that's usable to them and it isn't.
Amar: There are some things we can do within the CC&R's and make the City of
Meridian a party to them that the homeowners association cannot. According to our
attorneys, the homeowners association cannot react that way without approval by the
City of Meridian. Homeowners associations cannot go away without the approval of
various agencies within different -- within different jurisdictions and we can do the same
thing and make the City of Meridian a stipulation to that, which we can do that certainly
on this project. Mr. Bigham is here and I think he can answer some of your questions
with respect to some of the agreements that we have made. One question I did have,
this park right now is five percent of the entire 35 acres, which also is because this
school is a portion of that, so there is about a half acre of park that if it were a separate
plat would not be needed in order to accommodate five percent of the open space. I
guess my question is, is the Council looking for five percent of this area or is the Council
looking for five percent of just the homes within the subdivision? Because I believe the
way the ordinance reads, it's five percent of the entire subdivision.
Bird: We don't want any part of your CC&R’s. You got that with the homeowners. The
City of Meridian didn't want any part of that.
Corrie: Glad you said it.
Bird: Is there a reason that you guys were going to gate across there yourselves? I
mean the school wanted -- okay.
Amar: The school wants to gate that at the time, but I'm going to leave that to Mr.
Bigham. He can answer that better than I. If you would allow us -- I guess we can do
this on the fly also, but I can talk to Mr. Bigham and tell him the issues or we can, like I
say, do it on the fly, so -- whatever you'd like to do.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do you want to take a five-minute break and let him talk to Wendell?
Corrie: Yes.
Amar: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 43 of 58
Corrie: Okay.
(Recess.)
Corrie: Okay.
Amar: We are trying to figure out another way of coming up with five percent,
separating the school lot out for the subdivision, because I don't want to provide five
percent open space for the school lot. I mean I don't think that's fair on either part and
right now I'm providing five percent open space. If I cut the school lot out, my five
th
percent is going to be about one acre and right now I have 83/100’s of an acre and I'm
sure I can get it up to one acre of open space if I redesign the plat to just show the
school as a separate parcel. I can sell that parcel off to the -- I mean it's the same
benefit to the school.
Bird: I would feel more comfortable with that.
Amar: What it will do in the short term is instead of, in the short term, having an acre
and a half of open space, there is going to be a half-acre of open space with other open
areas throughout the subdivision. If we can get approval tonight on that idea, getting
five percent open space of the housing subdivision, I guess is my question, we will
redesign the plat. We can bring it before you, obviously, to show you what the redesign
looks like, but we will provide an acre's worth of open space within the subdivision and
not provide open space to that school lot.
Bird: How many acres did you say was in the subdivision? Didn't you say it was 20?
Amar: Twenty acres. Just a little over.
Bird: Twenty-two or something like that?
Amar: Yes. There is 1.1 acres for whatever the five percent is.
Bird: And I think if you -- I think you take that one lot just to the south there and you
have got your 1.2 acres, don't you?
Amar: It would take about three of those lots.
Bird: Would it take three of them? Okay.
Amar: And so what we are trying to do is -- can you go up to the other -- right now we
have got entryway landscaping on these areas and also along here that's not a -- that
we can count towards our five percent open space, so we can make that a little wider
and come up with the 1.1 acres or whatever it is that is just for this portion of the
subdivision and, then, we will develop that immediately and meet the city ordinance.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 44 of 58
Bird: And you will still donate that ground that goes into the L over there to the school?
Amar: Well, no.
Bird: Is the school and Mr. Bigham -- we can ask him, but is the school going to leave
that east side of their property open, so we have access to that open ground? There will
be no fences up there?
Amar: You can talk to him. There will be a fence, but there will be an opening in the
fence and I think he can address that better than I can.
Bird: And they won't be locked down or anything?
Amar: I'll defer.
Bird: Okay.
Amar: I don't want to speak on behalf of the school.
Bird: I don't want you to. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And that all sounds well and good. I mean really -- I mean certainly you can do
that. You can redesign it, you can separate that out, you have the right to do it, but we
can't approve it. I mean we can't approve -- I mean we can certainly approve the
concept, because you can do that, you can redesign your property if you choose, but
there is nothing we can approve tonight.
Amar: I understand that. I guess what I'm saying is approve the concept. I don't want
to come back in two weeks and you guys say, well, no, we really didn't like that two
weeks ago, we just didn't tell you that.
Nary: Well, I already told you I didn't like it where it's at anyway, so I'm saying I'm going
to vote for it anyway. If you just redesign it and you just take a couple of lots off of the
backside there, I don't know that that's better. You have the right to do that.
Amar: I don't think it is better. I think what we have right now we are providing a lot of
open space, but I guess what I'm saying is I'm trying to meet the ordinance, I'm still
trying to provide -- because I've committed to the school to provide them property, so
I'm trying to provide to the school property, I'm trying to meet the city ordinances, and I
can do that and in the short term it will be a --
Nary: Well, I can only speak for me, but we have been here before and made
conceptual approval of people's ideas and really regretted that, so I won't agree to that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 45 of 58
You can redesign it if you want to. If you want us to vote on it tonight, I think you kind of
saw where we are going. If you'd like us to continue it, bring back a different design,
have the staff review it, we may need to send it back to Planning and Zoning. If it's a
significantly revised Preliminary Plat, we may need to send it back, wouldn't we, Mrs.
Powell?
Powell: If all that happens is that lots get converted from residential to open space, I'm
not sure that we would, but yes, if there is a major redesign of roads and -- then, it
maybe necessary.
Nary: It just depends on how material the change is, is, really, all it is. If you want us to
continue it a couple of weeks, you can redesign it, you can bring it back, that's the best I
would commit to. I don't know about the rest of the Council.
Amar: The redesign would -- the subdivision is going to look the same, short of it will be
minus one lot, this lot, that will be separated out from the subdivision and we will work
out negotiations with the school to do that. Then, we will provide about an acre's worth
of open space within this portion of subdivision. Based on Mrs. Powell's definition, I
don't believe it would be a significant redesign.
Corrie: You will still have the tot lot?
Amar: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would continue -- and if he meets the ordinance, I have no problem going for it,
as long as you meet the ordinance.
Amar: I will meet the ordinance.
Mrs. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, would you be -- I'm not sure that he
can just make that school lot go away out of the subdivision. Would you be opposed to
him including it as a lot in the subdivision, but not being required to provide the five
percent open space for that lot?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Well, how do we do that? We haven't done that before. We have always
included it as part of the plat. If it's part of the plat --
Powell: The landscaping ordinance, I believe, allows for alternative compliance and you
could you -- you could make a decision that that lot, because of the open space
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 46 of 58
generally associated with a school, that they will maintain in of themselves the minimum
of five percent and I think that that would be fairly reasonable that the school would
never develop all of that property.
Nary: Wouldn't we need the Planning and Zoning Commission, then, to hear that to
make that recommendation that it be allowed as alternative compliance, rather than us
just doing it?
Powell: Well, no, actually, just I can do it. For some reason the authority rests with me.
I'm never quite sure why that is, but it does say that the administrator can approve an
alternative landscape requirement. If these are going before you, obviously, we want to
get your feedback on that, but in this case I'm not sure that you would have to take it
back to P&Z just for that reason. If there are other reasons, then, that would be --
Nary: As long as there is findings that comply with the ordinance, I think -- I mean I
don't -- at least for me I don't have a big problem, other than I just don't like where it is,
and that's not going to change. I don't think my mind is going to change.
Amar: I guess we would still meet -- we would meet the ordinance with five percent and
that's what I can guarantee you, I guess.
Bird: That's all we can ask you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess in my opinion we are going to get less and I like the fact that when
we brought the landscape ordinance -- and I know it was a concern that the school
district also asked us to consider -- this is finally a step in that direction, that that land
would have been donated, deeded, or whatever, but I liked that, it was the right direction
to go in, and making up an open space and some of the setbacks and other landscape
or drainage areas is not going to make that green space any bigger and so -- but I
guess I'm in the minority right now, so do what you need to do.
Corrie: I would hate for it to come down to two and two, a tie.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And I'll try to make this my final word, but I don't see how we are going to get
less. The school is still going to be there -- unless the school is going to get smaller.
The ground isn't going to change it's still going to be 35 acres. We are requiring the five
percent be contained within the homes. We are not going to get less it's just going to be
different. Again, I personally don't like where you're putting it. If that's where it is in two
weeks it probably won't change my mind very much, but if everybody else likes it, I have
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 47 of 58
been on the losing side before. I can live with that. We are not going to get less, the
school is still going to be there, we're still going to have green space, we are just not
letting them borrow it to use it as the percent that's required for this housing
development. I don't see why that's a loss. How you choose to redesign it may be the
reason we may approve or deny it. If it looks like you just took a lot out and all it is, is a
little bit more grass, we have turned those down, too. You know, you can be creative or
not, that's your call. I agree you tried to do that with this one, I don't think that sells very
well. If you bring it back and it's just a piece of grass that may not sell very well, either.
Amar: I think we will probably just agree to disagree, but what you will get is the same -
- in my redesign -- and I may as well be up front, because I usually am -- you will get the
same -- we will cut off this portion of the open space, you will get this same area, it will
be a tot lot. This open area or entrance area, whatever you want to call it, will be
widened by 10 feet or 20 feet or whatever it takes. This will be widened ten or 20 feet.
This will be widened ten or 20 feet, so all your areas will be widened ten or 20 feet, so
there will probably be some sort of landscape medium in through here and this pathway,
instead of being a part of the school lot, will be a part of the subdivision and made a little
wider. What you're going to get and what I'm going to bring back to you and propose to
you is what I have here tonight, with the exception of the medians being wider. The
school is still going to be there and the subdivision is still going to look the same, but I
will be able to comply with your ordinance. What you won't get is an immediate
improvement of all this green space. Even though the subdivision is going to have the
required five percent per ordinance and will meet ordinance, it's going to be a -- in my
opinion, not as good of an opportunity as we have now. The school won't get the land
donated to them, they will be purchasing that land, and so the taxpayers also --
Corrie: Wait a minute. One time you said you were giving it away and, then, you say
they are going to purchase it. Which is it?
Amar: Well, if I can't -- if I am not allowed to do what I'm proposing tonight, then, they
will purchase it. It's a benefit to me to be allowed what I'm going to do tonight and so I
think I should give a benefit back to the school and I think that's what Mr. Bigham is also
trying to do is let's cooperate as schools and developers in the city.
Corrie: Well, you can take a chance. I mean if it's still two and two, you probably won't
get it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess one more point is to move that open space into another location -- I
guess I like it there, because we have always had this vision, expectation, that as our
Police Department drives through here there is vision into the school lots. I would hate
to see them move it and I thought that's what you were kind of suggesting, you don't like
where open space is, and that you would like to see it move. I would hope that it wasn't
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 48 of 58
moved, because you do need that vision into the schoolyard and if -- I just wanted
clarity on what you were saying.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: When we have had that discussion, though, we have found that would require a
redesign, but we certainly have other alternatives than just having a blank space there.
It's not centrally located, the people that are in the front end of that subdivision that are
up adjacent to Ustick, really, won't be able to use this at all and, you know, you can
design it any way you want, it's your development, do it any way you want, but if you
come in here with another piece of grass, it's not going to be very popular, and, you
know, you can choose to be creative or not -- I'm sorry that we disagree, but it isn't very
central, it doesn't allow access to other people, you can redesign it to allow some
visibility to the back of the school if you want to, you don't have to. You can do a lot of
different things with this ground. It may be limited, but it is 22 acres, that's a pretty good
piece of ground. You know, telling, you know, we could have made it better, but you
guys didn't want it, you know, that doesn't sell very well with me, you know.
Amar: I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- I'm trying to meet the ordinance.
Nary: And that's okay. We can disagree and that's fine, I don't care. Design it anyway
you want to design it, we get to choose whether or not we like it, but I just don't think
you're providing adequate -- it's supposed to be usable open space. I don't think it's
usable open space when it's really accessible by about a quarter of your subdivision
and the other three-quarters of it really can't use it. That doesn't appear to be usable
open space to me. You can use it some fashion and you can design it anyway you
choose, you just take your chances. I would hope you would be more creative than
that, but you can do whatever you want to do.
Amar: Okay. Well, one question. When you say another piece of grass, what are you
referring to, just so I know what not to do.
Nary: Well, it sounds to me like you were going to have a tot lot and take one of those
residential lots out and just put grass on it. That doesn't sound like much of anything
more than what you got there. That's not being very creative, that's not providing much
of an amenity, that, to me, isn't much of any significant change and I just think you could
be more creative than just taking one lot out and putting grass on it, so -- that's all.
Amar: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 49 of 58
Bird: Before we continue this to another -- a later date, as the applicant has asked, this
is a Public Hearing, you know, Mr. Bigham is a busy person and there is some
questions I'd like to ask him and there might be some people here from the public that
wants to testify that can't make it in a couple of weeks, so let's continue on this,
because we could sit here and we can sit here and argue for an hour and a half and not
get anything accomplished, so I would move that we move on with the Public Hearing
and see if anybody else would like to testify.
Amar: I would like to say we did have a neighborhood meeting on this and there were
three different families that showed up. The Quenzers were -- showed up and Mr.
Langley were all the families that showed up and they came to the Planning and Zoning
meeting, but they had no concerns. We do have an irrigation ditch, a feed ditch up in
the front, that we will have to tile in order to provide the Quenzers their --
Bird: You got to tile it?
Amar: Yes.
Bird: Do you have to tile it?
Amar: It's a 12-inch private irrigation line that we can't or can leave as on open ditch.
Right now it's a concrete ditch. We just have to tile it, because it will provide the
Quenzers their water so, yes, thank you.
Corrie: Okay. This is a Public Hearing, so, Mr. Bigham, anybody like to testify that
won't be able to come back in two weeks or next week. Yes, Wendell. Is the testimony
you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God?
Bigham: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address.
Bigham: Wendell Bigham, representing the Joint School District No. 2. I wasn't here for
the earlier part of the discussion. I apologize. We have now moved our board meetings
from Monday to Tuesday nights, so I'm here at the tail end of for hours of board
meetings for me, so I will try to remain succinct. I want to try to reiterate just a little
history of what we are conceptually trying to do. The school district is finding it
somewhat difficult to deal with the small acreage developers, difficult in a structural
sense, not in a personality sense. How do we work with the 35-acre lot where we are
going to impact 40 percent of the land use for 10 or 12 acres for the elementary schools
and one of the things I have always maintained all along is trying to avoid the
loggerheads. Is this development better with the elementary school in it, than the
loggerheads of fighting over -- disagreeing over a percentage of landscaping where Mr.
Amar comes to the school district and says we are just not selling you the land and,
then, we are confronted with the, well, we are just not going to approve your subdivision
position. That's adversarial. What's the greater good? The greater good is to get
green space into the smaller subdivisions and we can talk about where it should go is
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 50 of 58
certainly point of interest. Philosophically, what I'm trying to do is say this amount of
landscaping, whatever it is, while it is on the school district's property, serves the
neighborhood better than trying to just deal with the five percent requirement of this.
We like going in as a lot and block within the subdivision, it makes our future application
a lot easier. This elementary school site is out ten years, 12 years. It's a long ways out
there. The subdivision will be built out. Is there a way to get the grass space into here?
From an organizational standpoint -- I don't know if you told them, Kevin. The parking
lot is down here the circulation is in and out of here. Our X-shaped building is kind of
sitting in here like -- well, I can't draw tonight. You know, sitting in this vicinity. This
access provides potential -- well, this would probably be the secondary emergency
vehicle access. The supervision by the Police Department is of interest, because this is
the green open area that creates the noise at night and there will probably be a
playground structure in this vicinity and I think one right about there, you know, how we
separate the playground structures in the back of a school. This is going to be grass in
our plans. If we want it today, perhaps not in the most attractive, you know, it's just a
sea of grass, or do we want to wait 12 years for it to come. Again, my personal
thoughts are the grass on the school district's property cannot be in lieu of the five
percent requirement, but the other side of that coin is to bring the developer and the
school district cooperatively. Can it accommodate some percentage of that five
percent? Half of it 30 percent of it 40 percent of it? Because we could be confronted
with five percent of this or five percent of this and no school, if we come to loggerheads.
Our thought was what could we do cooperatively to entice the developers to work with
the school district? Do we get a better price on the land? Who knows? You know, we
go through the land negotiations. It's how do we philosophically work, because we are
not always going to see these 200 acres, 400 acre subdivisions. Now, this school
geographically is very important to us. It's fortunate that Kevin came to us. It's
unfortunate that he came to us. It's kind of at the tail end of the sewer in that part of the
world. That's very critical to us so, we will play it pretty straight up. We have tried to
make cooperative efforts and we are certainly not trying to dissuade any of your
concerns, but I think at a minimum we would like the school there. If it turns out that it's
five percent of this -- I can't speak for Kevin, you know, that's his concern that works.
The greater good is to get the school here in this larger area and that's what we are
trying to participate in. We have not dealt with our attorney in terms of the purchase
agreement of the property as to how we legally carve that out. If he donates that little
one acre, half acre, whatever that is, two acres, whatever that chunk is to us that is
excellent. If it turns out he has to put the five percent in there, then, we would expect to
pay something approaching fair market value for that property. Again, it's very hard to
leverage a real good deal when you're only taking half of their land. With that I would
stand for any questions. I just wanted you to understand where -- the background of
how we came to kind of the solution.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Wendell, as I take it, then, even though we have a fence up there along the east
border and probably around the whole school property, it's still going to be open for
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 51 of 58
children, adults, everybody to play after hours, stuff like that. That's the concern. I hope
you understand that the concern is our ordinance says you have to have five percent
within the deal. If we make -- if every school or every park is built -- subdivisions are
built by and they want to use -- you know, we didn't let the Cedar Springs use the
Settler's Park for their green space, you know, we can't let that green space there for
that deal. Also -- and maybe it's just that the secondary schools, but as I understood,
there will be no openings to our Kiwanis Park out at Mountain View. No way to come
through that.
Bigham: I can address that.
Bird: Would you -- you know about it or is that true?
Bigham: Yes. Yes and sort of yes.
Bird: Okay.
Bigham: I can speak to that if you like.
Bird: You bet. I would like.
Bigham: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, briefly, what we would do -- certainly, we fence
our entire property, we get a little nervous when we lose children. What will happen in
this -- initially, I would advocate that the developer be required, if this is acceptable, to
fence that area off, so the grass doesn't just run out into our sea of weeds, that we will
have to maintain there. The permanent fence will be -- down to here there will be a
break in it for a walking path, which would come into the front of the school in the
parking lot area here, it will be fenced solid down along here. Our desire would be to
have a six foot high chain link fence or a solid slat vinyl fence, which we are going to
give that a try, that's at the developer's expense, trying to avoid that six foot cedar
fence, six foot high chain link fence, and that no man's land of who maintains it between
there. Solid fencing along here and we would, then, fence to this point and we would
fence -- I would probably say diagonally across there, with an unobstructed opening --
five foot -- four foot opening with a bollard, so you can't drive your four wheelers through
it. It's to provide limited access and easy supervision. We can't totally lock off the
perimeter, but we don't like really big holes in it and with a small opening there it would
define this area as, if you will, as a tot lot for the underage children in the neighborhood
to come to a place and play and, yet, provide playground structures and grass in this
area for the older kids in the neighborhood, knowing full well that it's from 8:00 until 3:30
that, you know, we kind of keep track of who comes onto our property and that was the
concept behind this and, then, the offset was -- and I understand the ordinances and I'm
not advocating that we violate the ordinances, I'm just advocating that if we have an
alternative landscape solution or a little different way to think about the greater good --
and I'm worried about the greater good being whether there is a school there or not.
Bird: I agree with you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 52 of 58
Bigham: That's my concern.
Bird: Thank you.
Bigham: The second one, Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Bird, if you'd like to give me a call I
can talk to you about the Kiwanis Park.
Bird: You bet. I'd love to.
Bigham: I don't want to take up the time tonight. Or if any of you are interested, I'll let
you know kind of what our concerns are.
Bird: I know you got something.
De Weerd: Oh, we'd love to hear about it.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. Mr. Bigham, you know, I think it was probably a year, year and a half ago
that we had a discussion at our work sessions that we used to do about having some
more cooperative agreements between the school district and the city and using some
of the school property as some public open space and trying to define that, because the
school had concerns about access and use during school hours and the like and we
don't seem to be anywhere on that and that sort cropped up before you came in regards
to this, because we really don't have anything particularly defined between this public
space that's going to be used by everyone versus that tot lot, which is not usable by
everyone and we don't have any real definition between this partnership, which I agree
with you is a good thing ultimately and, hopefully, we either have, you know, some
alternative means to address that in our ordinance, so we aren't simply throwing it out
the window, but we don't have anything, we don't have an agreement with the school
district, we don't have any relationship or agreement established between the school
district and the city or the school district and what do we do, what protocols exist in
dealing with private developments. I guess -- I agree with what your concept is, but we
don't have anything really on paper to really address that as to how we go forward on
that.
Bigham: Councilman Nary, you're right, we need to look at it -- and it's kind of -- there
are two different components. One is the school district public park joint use
cooperative effort, which, I believe, Anna is aware all of my concerns about that.
Operationally, on a structural level, it is exceedingly difficult to meet both of our
missions. It's absolutely a worthwhile discussion to continue to have. The other side of
this discussion is public open space, but not a city park. This is a developer provided
park and the school district. To be perfectly honest, we don't want anything to do with
homeowners association, irrigation systems, we don't want to share maintenance, we
don't want anything to do with the homeowners association.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 53 of 58
Bird: We don't either.
Bigham: So, what we are trying to look at is what's the stop gap, the inner in-fill, what's
gets this area a place to play catch the mustard, soccer, until we get around to building
this thing in ten or 12 years. I don't have the answer to it. This simply represents our
attempt at throwing an option out there -- and it may not fit any of the rules, in which
case if it doesn't fit any of the rules, we will certainly -- I'm certainly not asking that you
break them, but in the back of our minds we need to be conscious of how do we acquire
three and a half to four percent of all land in every square mile for school district use
when you can't always deal with -- the big developments bring a whole other set of
problems, you know, and how do we deal with the 35 acres. This is an option we are
certainly willing to try to work with it out with Mr. Amar, we are desirous to have a school
site there. Could we live on a little less land? Yes, we could, but I'm not sure how that --
us giving up the land would contribute to more of his ability to comply the ordinance.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public like to testify? Okay. Do you want to continue this,
then?
Bird: I'd make a motion, Mr. Mayor, if you will accept. I make a motion that we -- oh,
did you want to --
Amar: Kevin Amar, for the record. I think we have a compromise that we can -- without
a redesign we can still meet the five percent. I have been sitting down here scratching
my head trying to figure this out. Still provide the school with what they want and make
everybody happy in the end. We can still meet ordinances, so there isn't any concern of
setting precedent to revise ordinances or to revise anything else. And that compromise
would be this: We do have some opportunity to make this park -- this portion of the park
slightly larger and add about 8,000 square feet, which would increase that open space.
Based on Mrs. Powell's testimony, we can exclude this from the required open space.
Now, if we do that, we need, like I said, about 1.1 acres. My compromise would be this
we provide with this park and with other landscaping amenities and buffers and
widening entryways, we provide that permanent 1.1 acres of open space for this
subdivision, but we also improve this area, so there is going to be an acre and a half of
immediate open space of immediate use. Obviously -- I mean we are not counting as
the open space, but it's beneficial to the subdivision. So, the compromise would be
allow landscaping, more open space than would be required by the ordinance, but still
putting five percent of open space for this -- still leaving 1.2 acres or one point --
whatever it is -- 1.1 acres worth of open space within that subdivision. We can still
leave the school here, it requires no redesign, really -- I mean we have to widen --
narrow some lots or whatever, but it's easily done and there is no redesign and we still
provide our five percent open space, there is no precedent set, the school still gets what
they want, and there is still a large play area. I would submit that that be a compromise
or a working solution or whatever you may want to call it, but I think in the end
everybody wins.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 54 of 58
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, I know we disagree tonight, but I knew you could come up with
something that would be much more workable and that does sound very workable. I
think what, I guess, I would like to see is I kind of want to see it -- I mean I really don't
want to approve what you just said without seeing it. I think there may be -- I guess like
Mrs. Powell said, we have the opportunity to provide whatever appropriate conditions
may be necessary to make sure we kind of get all of those things taken care of. One of
the things that I think is probably going to be necessary, though, at least to me, we put
lots of sign on streets saying at some point in the future this is going to be a street. We
may want to put something there that at some point this is going to be a school, so that
people know that that green space exists now, but it may change in some complexion in
the future. Can we continue this a week or two to make sure we get all of the -- to kind
of get your pencil and paper done, get conditions that may fit, as well as some findings
or some staff report that indicates, you know, why this alternative compliance is
appropriate and why it complies with our ordinance, so that we aren't setting precedent.
Is that going to work?
Amar: Ultimately, it's your decision, but, no, I'd rather -- we want to build this yet this
year and so two weeks if -- it's two weeks at the end of November when it plays out at
the end through construction and, then, don't --
Nary: How about one week, so we can kind of see it?
Amar: I don't mind showing it to you. I guess my -- I'm happy to show it to you. I'm
very open and I'd much rather you know what I'm doing than not, because I don't like
surprises, I like them twice a year, on my birthday and Christmas, short of that, no
surprises. Yes, we can -- one week on Tuesday; right? I've got to --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nary, you know, if we -- if we understand his conception, he's doing basically
what he said he would, even though it's not counting in the existing sub, he's still going
to give us that and, then, he's going to do the extra on the other deal, and who is -- this
piece that you're giving that's going to be part of the school property, whose name is it
going to be in until -- I mean are we going to -- is the school district going to have it and
it be in their -- under their deed?
Amar: Are you thinking of this piece?
Bird: Yes. Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 55 of 58
Amar: It would be -- we'd have to work out -- Mark Freeman is not here. I think he's
going to have to answer that question, but in my mind that would be owned by the
school immediately.
Bird: And you guys would --
Amar: And we would have an easement.
Bird: And you would have an easement and take care -- and get it planted in and stuff?
Amar: Correct.
Bird: I think Wendell would like to see that.
Amar: And we can fence around that. That's fine.
Bird: Why can't -- I would be in favor of passing it tonight on the condition --
Corrie: On the concept? You're --
Bird: Go ahead.
Corrie: Excuse me for interrupting, but --
Bird: No. No. You go ahead.
Corrie: -- you don't approve anything on a concept before, why would you do it now?
Bird: Well, it isn't really a concept, it's drawn out. It's -- we are just going back to the --
we are going back to the old plat with a promise.
De Weerd: No.
Bird: And I have no problem -- what do you mean? That's exactly what you've got there
is just what he said. The only thing he's going to do is widen -- well, yes, you are going
to widen some --
Amar: We will widen this lot by --
Bird: You're widening some entries. I'm sorry. You're right. I have never approved
anything on a concept before yet.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I was going to mention, Mr. Bird, I heard him say that last week and I
heard him say it again.
Bird: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 56 of 58
Nary: I know we don't -- I know it seems like a delay that -- but I really think we need
to --
Amar: If we wait a week, that's fine.
Nary: And I think that leaves the staff some adequate time to make sure that whatever
conditions they feel may be additionally necessary, to give them an opportunity to sign
on the -- so I think -- I guess I'd feel safer, I think we might also be safer. I think you
have come up with a very good compromise and I appreciate that. Thank you.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think because that ownership is
changing, I'd like to see the applicant provide that open space in two different lots.
Amar: When we come back there will be a line drawn here, basically. This will be
dashed with an easement. It will still be there, but it will be dashed as an easement.
This will be another lot, so we are adding a common lot. That will really be the -- could
it be wider? That will be wider in these little areas and in here will be wider, but that's the
changes that will be back before you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that, I would move that we continue the Public Hearings AZ 03-008, and PP
03-008, and VAR 03-013, to July 15, 2003.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on
Items 15, 16, and 17, request for annexation and zoning, request for Preliminary Plat,
th
and a request for Variance on Birchstone Creek Subdivision until July 15. Any further
comments? All those in favor say eye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. We will have a
continued Public Hearing.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: With that, I have nothing else on the agenda, so I will entertain --
De Weerd: Oh.
Corrie: You forgot.
De Weerd: I forgot to add this --
Corrie: Well, let's see. You will be -- okay. Say what you want.
Item 18. Fire Station No. 3.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 57 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I apologize that when we approved the agenda that I failed to
remember to add it on the agenda, but I had wanted to bring up the issue of the Fire
Station No. 3. When we originally talked to the rural fire commission about Station 3,
we had mentioned that we would do what we could to waive the Building Permit fees
and that sort of thing. They are at that stage where they to need pick up their Building
Permit fees -- or Building Permits and they are being charged and so I would like to see
Council's opinion on that, so that the Mayor can work with the Building Department
tomorrow to get that Building Permit out.
Corrie: I think that's good. I think we have to make sure that we are not giving them --
we can't do anything for ACHD and some those people, but the Public Works building
guy, Daunt, has a -- he said he would give his part, but he has another one that reads to
-- The blueprints and you might have to pick me up.
De Weerd: Well, if he had a way to waive the ACHD fee that would be great. They
weren't asking for that, they were just asking on the city side of things.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes.
Nary: I guess it is a fairly unique situation. I don't see us really having to cross that with
anybody else, when we have had -- the Chamber built a building on property. I'm
assuming they made them take Building Permits, but --
De Weerd: No. They were waived.
Nary: Oh, they were wave there? It all seems reasonable to me, then.
Bird: I think the Mayor and -- you have not only got Daunt, we have got those other --
Ron and the other guys that --
Corrie: They sometimes work that they will get the credit for it, but they would donate
their --
Bird: Donate to -- you bet.
Corrie: And, then, that way they get a tax break.
Nary: Do we need to do a motion?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: It might be a good idea. Just give me a little more leeway.
Nary: Go ahead.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 8, 2003
Page 58 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we authorize the Mayor to work with the Building
Department to waive the appropriate fee or fees where appropriate in regards to Fire
Station No. 3.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye.
All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Thank you. I move that we adjourn.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: At five minutes to 10:00.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK