HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 01-16
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 16. 2007
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday,
January 16, 2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Charlie Rountree
and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, John Overton, Ron
Anderson, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
RolI~call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I will go ahead and start tonight's meeting. It is Tuesday,
January 16th. It's 7:00 p.m. We'd like to welcome you here tonight. We will start with
roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Tonight we will be led in the pledge by Troop 173. Now, who is your
sponsor, guys? Okay. Well, thank you. And thank you for joining us tonight. We will
- be led by Peter, Donny and Brady. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: If I could I would like to present you boys -- boys. I know you never know
where that voice is coming from. I'd like to present you with a City of Meridian pin to
thank you for leading us tonight and wish you luck on your merit badge. There you go.
Thank you.
Item 3:
Gospel:
Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn with Meridian
De Weerd: Okay. Item NO.3 is our invocation. If you will all join us in our community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Tonight we will be led
by Pastor Bud Henthorn with the Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Welcome.
Henthorn: Heavenly Father, we welcome your presence into this place and we pause
for a moment amid all of the business of the day to open our hearts and to open our
minds to the realization of your closeness and of your grace and of your love. We pray
tonight that you would guide these proceedings, that you would guide our hearts. And,
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 2 of 63
God, we ask that you would give us the courage tonight to pray the prayer that Jesus
prayed when he said not my will but thine be done. God, we want what's best for our
country, we want what's best for our city, and we want to be led by you. So, we ask,
Lord God, that you would grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
grant us the courage to change the things we can and grant us the wisdom to know the
difference, in Jesus' name, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item NO.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the agenda in the Consent, Item N has been asked to be pulled, because
there is no agreement. H, resolution number is 07-545. I is 07-546. And item -- under
the Department Reports, Item B-1, has been asked to be continued to the 23rd of
January, 2007. Resolution number on No. 12, Item No. 12, in the regular agenda is 07-
547 and Items 13 and 14, the ordinances on the regular agenda is 07-1288 and 07-
1289. And with that I move we approve the agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as noted. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of December 19, 2006 City Council Regular
Meeting:
B. SHP 06~011 Request for a Short Plat for 12 units within 1 office
building, on 1 building lot on 7.68 acres in an L-O zone for
Touchmark Medical Condo Subdivision by TBID-MOB1-SL, LLC
- 3525 East Louise Drive:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06~
055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to
an R-4 zone for Gene and Freda Babbitt by the City of Meridian
Public Works Department - 2570 South Locust Grove Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06~
053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.0 acres from RUT to a
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 3 of 63
L-O zone for Ada County Highway District Locust Grove Road
Pond by Ada County Highway District - 1280 North Locust Grove
Road:
E. Development Agreement: AZ 06..044 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark
Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road:
F. Approval of New Beer and liQuor License for Blue Ribbon
Artisan's Bistro by Artisans Properties, LLC, at 1441 N. Eagle
Road:
G. Water Main Easement Agreement for Bridgetower Retail
Buildings by Primeland Investment Group:
H. Resolution No. 07..545 Appointments for Board
Members and Alternates to the Valley Regional Transportation
Authority:
I. Resolution No. 07..546 : For Review and Comment on
the proposed addition of a New Public Works Fee of $25.00 for
the Floodplain Development Permit Application to offset the
cost of staff time and materials in processing an application for a
floodplain development permit:
J. Agreement to Transfer Property for 1986 Pierce/Ford Suburban
Pumper Fire Engine from the Meridian Rural Fire Protection
District to Boise County:
K. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreement for Doris
Subdivision (lots 1..3, block 2) by Seagle Three, LLC:
L. Water Main Easement Agreement for Exceed Learning Center
by Exceed, Inc.:
M. License Agreement with Nampa Meridian Irriaation District for
Pathway for Cabella Creek Subdivision:
o. Water Main Easement Agreement for Candlewood Suites by
TQ Silverstone Way, LLC:
De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 4 of 63
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda, which includes Item H, Resolution 07-
545 and Item No. I, which is resolution 07-546, and Item N has been asked to be pulled.
And with that I move that we approve the revised agenda and for the Mayor to sign and
the Clerk to attest on all papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this item? Mr.
Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A. Parks Department
1. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation of
Name of Park in Bainbridge Subdivision:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6 under Department Reports, I'll start with the Parks
Department, approval of the park direction signs for roadways.
Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. In our January parks and
recreation commission meeting the commission reviewed a request from the developer
at Bainbridge Subdivision to change the name of the park that will be constructed in that
subdivision to William Watson Park. The reason this came about is that the developer,
because of the amount of the donation toward that park has naming rights to the park
and was requested to look at a name that wouldn't be confusing with the subdivision
name and so this is the proposed name. It was reviewed by the commission and
recommended for your approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Strong. Any questions by Council? Okay. Hearing
none -- Mr. Strong, are you looking for a motion to accept these signs or --
Strong: There was some discussion about whether further action is needed. I brought
this item forward, I think certainly approval by the Council kind of cements the name
change. We are looking at naming policy right now for parks and what needs to take
place, since it's already in policy and developers that make significant donations to a
park have the naming rights to the park, it's a requested name change from the
developer. So, with your approval we would make that official name change in
documents and at this point it's budged items and reference to the park, since there is
not any development going on there currently.
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 5 of 63
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Doug, repeat the name that you're going to name it.
Strong: Excuse me?
Bird: What's the name you're naming it?
Strong: The name that's requested is William Watson Park.
Bird: William Watson?
Strong: Yes.
Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I would move that we rename Bainbridge -- the park in Bainbridge Subdivision to
the William Watson Park.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the name of William
Watson Park for the Bainbridge Subdivision Park. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just very briefly. Anytime we get a chance to acknowledge and recognize a
developer who makes the efforts in contribution to donate park land, I know Mr. Strong
and parks and rec commission are greatly appreciative each and every time that
opportunity comes around and to the extent that we can to take the opportunity to allow
those who make such donations naming rights to the park, I am a hundred percent in
favor of that, in favor of the name change, and anytime there is an opportunity to
publicly express the city's thanks for that type of donation and generosity towards the
city, we will take that opportunity.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Borton. I also might note that Mr. Turnbull -- this is, like Mr.
Strong said, after his father. These are his father's first name and middle name. When
I -- I was asked by the commission to talk with him, because of their concern that
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 6 of 63
Bainbridge would feel that it's their private park and we have had similar situations at
parks in subdivisions that are named after the subdivision and so he was very interested
and in looking at this as an opportunity for carrying on a legacy for heritage and,
certainly, I appreciate that. I know we talked at length about his father and what this
means. So, I appreciate this motion. I will ask Mr. Berg to call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Strong: Great. Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just as one further
clarification, Mr. Baird is going to do some language drafting in our park commission
naming policy that when we have significant donations like this in the future that it's
clear in the naming policy that the name brought forward would not be confused with the
name of the subdivision, so that we have that clearly stated in naming policy. So, that
when we set out to name a park when there is a significant donation, that the developer,
the person that makes the donation, understands that right up front. So, it should help
with future naming issues like this.
2. Approval of Park Direction Signs for Roadways:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Next item.
Strong: Next item is an action from our park commission naming and signing sub
committee and a recommendation for a layout for directional signs that would direct
public to primarily our neighborhood parks that tend to be in -- located in
neighborhoods, rather than on main thoroughfares. The sample sign that you see in
your paCket is what is required by ACHD for road signage. We would be required to
produce the signs and, then, ACHD would place the signs and help direct people to the
park. And the sample for Seasons Park that you see, just so that you have a visual
reference, if you're driving on Black Cat now toward the Lake View Golf Course, you will
see a directional sign that directs you to Lake View Golf Course. A sign would be
located in a similar location to direct you the other way to Seasons Park and, then, once
you're in the neighborhood another sign that would point the way into where the
neighborhood park is. We plan to have these signs put together for all of our current
neighborhood parks that are open for the public. So, with your approval we will go
ahead and get the signs made and request that ACHD place them.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a process or question about maintenance. Do we have
an agreement with ACHD to maintain these signs once they are placed or they are just
going to install them and if they happen to get run rover we have to bring forth a new
sign and will they work with us when we know that happens, so --
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 7 of 63
Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, Members of the Council, you know, I'm
not sure of the process for that. That's a question I have not thought to ask. I know that
our investment up front for the signs is fairly important, because they are about a
hundred dollars a sign, because they are on a fairly thick aluminum stock and there is a
reflective vinyl adhesive surface that's put on the sign. So, I can certainly find that out.
I'm not -- I'm not sure what -~ I know that they say that they place the signs, that we
can't place the signs, so I don't know whether that means that they also maintain them
or not. I don't have an answer for that. Somebody from ACHD here might have an
answer, but --
De Weerd: Yeah. We will ask -- he doesn't know.
Strong: Okay.
De Weerd: But maybe he can get information back to us. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I guess, Doug, if there is information coming back, is it -- is this the design, the
one and only size and shape and dimension that is placed by ACHD or if you had your
druthers would you have a different design or size, more visibility or something
different?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, Members of the Council, I believe this is --
this is the standard that's being established by ACHD. I have questioned the color and,
apparently, there has been some adjustment at ACHD for directional signs in the color
and it's my understanding that this bright green is the color for directional signs as well.
So, we are trying to follow -- and they have actually worked with Signs Etc. that does
our signs to present them with the standards that the signs would have to be produced
to, so that we know the cost and what we are looking at.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I guess my question is only directed toward if you wanted to have a sign that
was twice the size, does ACHD, then, say if it's any different than these dimensions we
will not place it? Do you have those types of restrictions?
Strong: I don't know about that. I have only worked to try and meet their standard and
one of the concerns -- and the reason I bring the sign forward is it also has our city logo
on the sign, so I -- it's my feeling that whenever we are using the city logo on anything
we should -- there should be some approval at a Council level for the placement of
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 8 of 63
anything that uses the city logo. And I assume the logo is not changing and stays the
same and, you know, all that kind of thing, so if there is anything different with that or if
you don't want -- but I think the city logo helps identify it as a city park, rather than say a
homeowners park in that neighborhood. So, those are the kinds of considerations that I
was looking at so far. I think certainly ACHD would want some consistency in the size
of the signs that provide direction either to the golf course or a park and when you look
at signs being side by side -- and I used the Black Cat Road as an example, because
there is a directional sign to Lake View Golf Course there already, so I think they would
want to keep them consistent, but I don't know that for sure.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Strong, then, when we had our city limits and population signs updated
they brought back -- or Steve Siddoway had brought back a map of where those signs
would be located. Would you be able to do that and have Council look at that before
those signs are placed?
Strong: I could.
De Weerd: Okay. Let's plan that.
Strong: I know that in talking to the individual at ACHD that if our signs, the placement,
he's looking at what -- the directions that are on our city website to get you to a
neighborhood park and obvious intersections and corners where you would need to
make a turn. So, that's how they are deciding on where the signs should go and,
obviously, how many we would need to get you to a particular park. Certainly I think
Kiwanis Park's going to be our most difficult park to sign.
De Weerd: Oh, my gosh, no kidding.
Rountree: Paint a line.
Strong: We haven't quite settled on that yet.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: That one needs an orange stripe down the center of the road that just
meanders.
De Weerd: And that's for dummies like me. If you could bring that back, that might
have more eyes looking at it to make sure if those aren't placed in logical places, maybe
it's also the directions that don't make a lot of sense.
Strong: Okay. And do you want an answer about the size of the sign as well at that
time?
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 9 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Borton?
Borton: Madam Mayor, I think you're asking ACHD about maintenance expenses, might
as well get the information on a size option if there are any.
Strong: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Strong: Thank you.
B. Planning Department
1. Discussion I Follow Up of ACHD Five Year Work
Program:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6-B is our planning department. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it was -- this item was continued. It
was our understanding that we would send you a letter and it would be put on the
Consent Agenda, if you all were agreeable, or I could bring back a planning department
report.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
FP 06..055 Final Plat approval for 70 single-family residential building lots
and 4 common lots on 18.21 acres in an R-8 zone for Ventana
Subdivision No.2 by Ventana, LLC - north of McMillan Road on
Meridian Road:
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8, which is FP 06-055.
Canning: Madam Mayor, we do have a letter from the applicant stating they are in
agreement with the conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I move we approve FP 06-055, final plat.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 10 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8. Mr. Berg, will you
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.65
acres), R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) (50.17 acres), TN-R
(Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (65.60 acres), TN-C (Traditional
Neighborhood Center) (20.71 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential)
(35.21 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.48 acres) for South Ridge
Subdivision by James L. Jewett - south side of Overland Road between
Linder Road and Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: PP 06..031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 224
lots including: 189 residential lots, 11 commercial/ other lots and 8 Mega
lots (to be developed in the future) and 16 common/open space lots on
290.87 acres in the proposed TN-C, TN-R, L-O, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones
for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett - south side of
Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 9 and 10 are public hearings on AZ 06-031 and PP 06-
031. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the South Ridge project. It's
located on the south side of Overland Road, extending the entire mile between Ten Mile
and Linder. The applications include annexation and zoning with a concept plan and a
preliminary plat for a portion of the property. This is the aerial. As you can see it's
largely undeveloped at this time. This is a revised preliminary plat. And this is the
concept plan with zoning and I will leave it on this diagram as I explain a little bit more
the details. Now, the applicant has a very detailed presentation and he will get into
more of the design aspects of the subdivision. I'm going to hit the highlights of the staff
report, which Mr. Hood was proud to say beat all previous records for length and
complexity of staff reports previous to this item, so it is rather substantial. One of the
applications is for preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat approval is for 189
residential lots, 11 commercial or other building lots, and 31 common lots. The
commercial lots are primarily in the northeast comer of the property and along --
extending along Overland Road. Of the 239 total lots, eight are mega lots that are
going to be re-platted. So, as you see the preliminary plat, you will see large lots that
are defined by the road system that's proposed, but these are not -- they are proposed
for -- as a single lot at this time will be re-platted. Of the 11 commercial or other building
lots, nine are for retail, office, or other commercial uses; one is designated for an
elementary school site, and one is designated for a library site -- publiC library. One of
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 11 of 63
the common lots is also proposed for a city park and I have lost the city park. There we
go. And a portion of one of the mega lots is also proposed to contain a future fire
station and that will be near Ten Mile Road. It's located there. The average residential
lot size, including the mega lots, 6,614 square feet. In this case there is a wide variety,
so that is just truly an average. Approximately 13 percent of the site or 38 acres in total
is being set aside for open space and the applicant, as he goes through the -- his
presentation, you will note that they are proposing larger lots along the south where
they border the rural estates. The gross residential density, again, not including the
mega lots, is 3.22 dwelling units per acre and a net of 6.58 dwelling units per acre.
Those are two -- the reason they are so different is that a lot of the public dedicated
amenities are in the first plat. Now, I'm going to go through some of the highlights of the
annexation and the proposed development agreement. The request for annexation and
zoning is for 290.87 acres and they are proposing a mix of zones, including R-8, R-4, R-
2, TN-C, L-O, and TN-R. As part of the submittal the applicant provided a master
concept plan for the entire 290 acres and this is that one shown with the zoning,
including how the mega lots will be developed in the future. So, you can see them
sketched in here, but he is not asking for preliminary approval of those at this time. The
applicant anticipates 1,252 total residential units on this property, 737 of those would be
single family and 515 would be multi-family. Consistent with the draft Ten Mile area
plan -- and I can get into that in a moment -- the applicant is proposing to relocate
Overland Road. Instead of the straight alignment it will dip down to the south, to
intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 2,100 feet south of its current intersection. And
this was done and discussed during the Ten Mile charrette process to avoid the site
constraints and development constraints associated at that intersection. It also helps to
avoid some of the issues associated with the historic elements on the Ross property,
which is in the -- just to the north and west corner of the -- so, it would be the -- sorry. It
would be the southeast corner of the intersection or the overpass. The applicant is also
proposing to construct streets from Overland and Linder Road through the site and as
you can see there is an integrated system or network of streets. There are two public
street intersections proposed with Linder Road on the east side of the property and
there are four public street intersections and one driveway proposed with Overland
Road. There is also one public street, the realigned Overland Road, and no driveways
proposed to intersect Ten Mile Road. So, that would be the only intersection with Ten
Mile Road. And the applicant is proposing to construct Overland Road from Linder
Road to Ten Mile and Southern Way and South Ridge Drive and American Frontier
Drive. So, those are the streets proposed with this subdivision. I did want to mention a
little bit about the landscaping, because this was kind of a different policy. Generally,
when a preliminary plat comes forward we do require street buffers along the arterial
streets. In this case, because the preliminary plat is so large and includes the mega
lots, the applicant has asked to tie the construction of those landscape buffers more
with the redevelopment of the mega lots. So, we are platting the landscape lots now,
but they will be constructing or installing the vegetation in phases. And that was kind of
a new thing for the city to do, but staff agrees that it's the best thing to do, rather than
have the landscaping all installed at once before we can get the systems in place.
Property is currently designated mixed use community and medium density residential
and that's on the current Comprehensive Plan future land use map and this proposal is
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 12 of 63
consistent with that current Comprehensive Plan and I can show you the current comp
plan. Oops. Wrong place. This is the current -- the future land use map. You will
notice the neighborhood center. The applicant has shifted the neighborhood center to
Linder Road to better -- to provide better offset from the proposed interchange. So, this
is the general area and the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Okay.
As you know, though, we are working on the Ten Mile area specific plan and we have
been working with the applicant -- or the applicant was willing to work with us at the
charrette to incorporate and modify his design to be consistent with the Ten Mile
charrette. So, this is the draft area plan. I just wanted to show it to you. It does show
the Overland Road realignment and you will be considering this in the future. But this is
consistent with that draft plan. The draft amendment at this time proposes a mix of
mixed use commercial near the Linder Road - Overland Road intersection, medium high
density along the south side of Overland Road, medium and low density further south,
civic for the area shown as the elementary school site near Linder, and the fire station
near Ten Mile and, then, open space and parks along the Ridenbaugh and the natural
gas pipeline. This is the natural gas pipeline. And mixed use employment area on the
north side of Overland Road. So, staff's assessment is that the proposed plan is
generally consistent with both the current future land use map and the map amendment
that's in draft form. I'd like now to go through some of the site specific development
agreement provisions that are listed in the staff report. The first one is that all future
development of the TN-C and TN-R zoned lots with frontage on Overland Road and
Linder Road be subject to design review. And that all TN-C zoned lots contain
structures that are at least two stories tall and that all commercial buildings in the TN-C
zone be located between the public street and the parking lots as shown on the original
master concept plan. The second one is that all TN-R zoned lots -- here we have TN-R.
This was the TN-C area. And uses will comply with the recently adopted TN-R
standards. The TN-C zone area along Overland Road will include at least 20 multi-
family dwelling units and the dwelling units being located primarily between Overland
Road and any surface parking area. That there only be one -- the one public street
access to Ten Mile and no other, not including the fire station and it's subject to ACHD
approval. And, then, that a maximum of two public street accesses and no direct lot
access or driveways to Linder Road will be allowed on the site. Public street frontage
as shown on the revised master concept plan is a cross-access ingress-egress will be
provided to the out parcels located on Linder Road. So, that's that one. There are a
couple of private lanes. Windy Ridge Lane and Old Thorn Lane, staff has worked with
the applicant to make sure that those can go away over time. We believe we have
solved those issues, but we are asking that the applicant release any interest in those
lanes. Did ask that the city park be located in the first final plat for the development.
We asked that any future build-able lot not be encumbered by the existing northwest
pipeline easement, so we are basically asking for that to be a lot of its own. We are
asking -- we are acknowledging the requested alternative schedule for construction of
the required landscaping adjacent to Overland Road, Linder Road, and Ten Mile Road.
We are also asking that the elementary school site and the library lot be within the first
phase of the development. We are asking that the pathway along the Ridenbaugh be
constructed with the first development up to the city park and, then, it will get continued
after that. And that the applicant will provide the following amenities: A community
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 13 of 63
clubhouse, pool area, and tot lot on mega lot four. Those are adjoining the public park.
That the applicant construct the Black Cat trunk through this development from the
intersection of South Linder Road and American Frontier Drive with the first phase of
this project. And also and finally -- long list. Sorry. We have asked that the -- or the
applicant has agreed to limit the height of homes on the southern shared boundary with
Val Vista Subdivision and Aspen Cove to a single story. He's also agreed to provide a
greater than 15-foot setback along that southern boundary. I do have elevations.
Several. They follow patterns or typologies, so here we have the American Farmhouse.
These are the Craftsman. American Frontier. Pacific Northwest. Tuscan Farmhouse.
These are some of the alley lots and the zipper lots with the offset garages. Some
elevations for the Hillside lots. And the landscape plan of the northeast corner. The
Planning and Zoning Commission heard these items on July 20th, October 19th, and
December 7th. At the December 7th Public Hearing they moved to recommend
approval. At that hearing Jim Jewett, Phil Hull, Dan Thompson, Jason Densmer, and
Joe Atalla all spoke in favor of the application. There was a very long list of folks that
spoke in opposition and those are detailed in your staff report. Commenting was
Wayne Amend and we also received written testimony from a number of people,
including the Majestic View homeowners association. The key issues of discussion by
the Commission were density and transition to the existing lots to the south. The
interconnectivity and stub streets to the Val Vista Subdivision to the south. A question
of what happens to the existing Overland - Ten Mile Road intersection if Overland Road
is realigned to the south. The fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ten Mile
interchange design and timing and restricting the height of homes to single story and
increasing the rear setback on the south side of the project. The key Commission
changes to staffs initial recommendation were to limit the height of homes on the
southern boundary that is shared with Val Vista Subdivision and Aspen Cove
Subdivision to a single story and to consider a larger than 15 foot setback. To also
require some L-O zoning along Overland Road to make it a little bit more consistent with
the Ten Mile draft plan. To require the city park site to be done with the first phase.
And to require at least one future -- at least one future stub to one of the lots within Val
Vista Subdivision when Mega Lot 2 develops. The staff report lists three outstanding
issues before City Council and, then, I have added a fourth just as an informative item.
The first issue is that the Commission did recommend a larger than 15 foot setback for
the future homes on the south side of the development. Staff asked that they define
what larger than 15 meant and that was not included in their motion, so it is up to
Council to provide some definition of that. Staff is proposing the following: That lots
adjoining Val Vista Subdivision and Aspen Cove Subdivision shall have a minimum
southern setback of 20 feet. So, if that's a side yard, then, it's still 20 feet, if it's a rear
yard it's 20 feet. The second item was that as part of the revised master plan for the
entire 290 acres, the applicant anticipates 1,252 total residential units on the property,
as I mentioned earlier. Staff is requesting that Council add a development agreement
provision that limits the maximum number of residents and requires a minimum number
of residences. Not residents, residences, excuse me -- for the property. With regard to
that, staff is proposing the following language: A maximum of 1,252 residential dwelling
units shall be allowed on the property, unless otherwise approved by City Council
through subsequent applications. Future development shall include a minimum of 1,000
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 14 of 63
dwelling units and that was about a 20 percent reduction on the property, unless
othelWise approved by City Council through subsequent applications. Third, during the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing the applicant showed several housing types,
as you have seen tonight also. Staff has included these in the development agreement
and we just wanted to make sure we had a process in place to make sure that those are
consistent. So, we are proposing the following: Each residential structure shall be
subject to design review. All residential structures shall be generally consistent with the
elevations and pictures presented by the applicant on the hearing date 1/16/07 as
determined by staff. Staff will insure that such structures are generally consistent with
the elevations and pictures presented by the applicant, while providing flexibility and
design to allow variety and avoid monotony. And, finally, I just want to -- there was a lot
of written testimony about the stub street to the south and I wanted to take just a second
to talk about that. You will see Val Vista is a dead end street that goes nearly 2,250
feet, so it's just shy of a half mile. What staff has said is that we need at least one stub
street to here. The hope would be that we can eventually connect to Val Vista, which is
a public street, to improve the emergency access to those homes on that street and to
also allow for future -- the ability of these residents to get out to Ten Mile to a light, as
traffic increases on that and if they need to make a left they will be able to do that at the
light or to get to the realigned Overland. So, I just wanted to point out that it is a big
issue for the neighbors, but staff feels it's very important for the future of the
development of the city that we do have that access or that stub street to that property.
And with that I will answer any questions or you may want to wait until after the
applicant has done their presentation.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. That was a lot of information.
Canning: Yes. And my eyes are going, so next week you get 14 font, instead of 11, so
De Weerd: Sounds good to me. Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Okay. Is
the applicant here? We have ten minutes for you. If you will, please, state your name
and address for the record.
Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is Jim Jewett.
De Weerd: Fifteen minutes. We changed it. Just for you.
Jewett: My address is 1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. With me tonight I have
Jason Densmer and Dan Thompson, my structural and -- my design engineer and my
traffic engineer for support for any questions that the Council may have. So, they won't
be actually providing any testimony unless it's needed to hopefully shorten the process.
I'm happy to --
De Weerd: Jim, just to let you know, that's part of your 15 minutes, so --
Jewett: Okay.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 15 of 63
De Weerd: Unless it's questions from Council.
Jewett: Okay. I'm pleased to be here tonight to present to you South Ridge that myself
and all the team has been working on and are very excited about. I'm going to go
through just kind of how we have got to where we are in this process and point out
some of the features that we have. As you look at the original -- the existing conceptual
plan, it shows a neighborhood commercial in this central area. The reason we relocated
it over here was mainly topography. If any of the Council is aware of what this site looks
like, it has a flat spot at the corner, it slowly slopes up to the Ridenbaugh Canal and,
then, there is a bluff or plateau that sits above the Ridenbaugh. For everybody's
information, this is the Ridenbaugh right through here. And everything above here sits
on a bluff and it gradually slopes down. So, this area provided the flattest area, which
most of Meridian is used to flat -- it proVides the flattest area for that commercial
development. The school district, which we made a commitment to very early on in the
process, needed a very flat area for their school and the second flattest area was right
in here and we thought it was important in our design that we incorporate the school,
the library, and our retail together, so people coming and going from the school and the
library could also use those facilities in the retail commercial, instead of having to pass
through a subdivision, it all would be right there, so if they are bringing their kids to an
event and they are there for two hours, there is other things they can do, as well as
being there, trying to capture more traffic. So, that was the first component of why we
brought it over here. And, then, we looked at bringing that traditional neighborhood, the
TN-R design, as close to those facilities as possible to incorporate walking to those
facilities. So, that's why you see our most densest product along these two roads along
the school and the commercial, trying to promote walking and trying to make that -- we
call it the village center -- very viable. As we move away from that up the slope, we go
to a larger lot, offering a more -- different product type, offering a different design, until
we reach up on top where we consider our estate lots. Within our first preliminary plat
we gave a little bit of everything, so that we could start the subdivision off and as we
move into our other phases we can offer a little bit more of everything and so that's why
you see kind of an odd shape for our first preliminary plat and that was to accommodate
a mixture of all the home types to really get this subdivision kicked off in the right
direction. Also, as far as the recreational components of this, we located the park on --
we wanted to locate it on the bluff and let me scroll ahead to the park. This is the
Ridenbaugh and this is up on top of the bluff. These are all bluff lots that would be
considered to be a high end view lot. This is a vista point. As you come into this road in
here the vista of the valley and what you see of Meridian and the foothills and beyond,
will offer a different environment than your typical park. It will offer the ability to sit there
and just ponder, to be able to read, to be able to just go out there and paint and to do
other activities, other than just going and playing sports. And so it gives them that
opportunity. Obviously, as well, it ties into our pathway system that goes along the
Ridenbaugh. So, people can come to the park, they can take off and they can jog and
they can walk and they can get exercise going up and down these paths. We also did a
multi-level, we put a lower park and we have a street coming in here to another little
parking lot and this is the lower park and, then, the upper park, which crosses the
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 16 of 63
Ridenbaugh with a foot bridge, again, enabling some multiple uses. We offer the lakes
or the ponds in there to offer, again, more of a setting or a feeling of place. Another
component we did for the park is we located our pool and clubhouse with a common
shared parking lot. It's hard to see here, but there is a property line that goes about
through here. This parking lot is for a pool and clubhouse. This parking lot is for the
park facilities. So, we kind of -- we want to bring that clubhouse into the whole mix, not
to make it feel like a neighborhood park or a park for that subdivision, but just so that
there is a cohesiveness so that both uses can coexist. So, that's what drove us putting
the park there. Down in the school -- if you notice here in the school we have drawn in
two what would be soccer fields. What our thinking was there, we gave about a two
acre extra property to the school district, we donated two extra acres to them, for them
to have those extra recreational facilities, so we have some more recreational facilities
here, some more passive uses here that connect all the way through this pathway
system. Off the map a half mile away, of course, is the Bear Creek Park, which offers
baseball diamonds and across the street from that is the new middle school site, which
will offer some other recreational facilities. So, I think what we have tried to look at is
throughout this area how can we address everybody's needs and that's what we have
tried to do. That's kind of how we drove our recreational facilities. As was mentioned
by Anna, we do have the library site here. The library was a very important component
of our village center. We wanted to have a tenant there that would bring people there to
make that village center vibrant, that people would want to come to the library, then, go
to a coffee shop or cafe or to a little boutique for clothing or a small restaurant. So, it's
very important for us that we negotiate early on with the library to make the library a
very viable part of our plan and that's located right here. It's kind of a focal point of our
entrance into that village center. The reason I want -- okay. There has been some
question before in the previous hearings on why the mega lots and I want to explain
why we did the mega lots. The purpose of the mega lots was so that we could construct
all the infrastructure needed -- that we thought was needed for not only our subdivision,
but for the area as a whole, because it's been one of our conditions early on with ACHD
that we would construct Overland for them under an impact fee agreement and they
have moved forward and gotten Overland put into their work plans, so that we can
accomplish that. But to do that we had to have platted lots to be able to do public right
of way. So, that's why the mega lots. It enables us to build that infrastructure under
policy and gives us the flexibility to design those future preliminary plats based on a
master plan, but according to what the market is driving us to and what the conditions
are needed two, three, five years from now when those mega lots may be replatted.
We don't look at this as a two or three year project, but more like a seven to ten year
project and we all can see how the market has changed over the last two years and
three years. So, by doing the mega lots it gives us the ability to tweak those plats, as
long as they are in accordance with those master plans, to adjust to what the exact
needs are of the public. So, that's really why the mega lots are there to accomplish that
goal. But, again, the master plan is, basically, laid out showing how the density could
flow, how the roads that we are proposing to build would tie into the other roads. It also
shows how we are providing diversity in this plat. You know, not in the first phase do
we show any condos or townhomes, but those will be a component of these larger
areas here will be the condos and townhomes. But within the first phase we show alley
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 17 of 63
loaded lots down to 35 feet and we show estate lots up to 120 foot frontages up to one
half acre. The value of that and the benefit of that is a family or an individual or a
couple can start at one part of this subdivision and through their years migrate up to
whatever level they want to and, then, migrate back down to whatever level they want
within the same subdivision and with the desired business center or employment
opportunities that would lie along Overland Road between Overland and the freeway,
especially with the new Ten Mile interchange, I think it's important that we offer that
diversity of housing close to those employment centers to really be able to help attract
the top end employers that will want to relocate there, knowing that the housing
necessary for all of their employees exists almost within walking distance or I would say
within walking distance. So, I think that's important to note in the plat. Let me go to the
pathway. I want to touch on the pathway. Do we have a -- this just shows, basically, a
pathway plan and the red indicates what would be your all purpose pathway and it does
deviate from the Ridenbaugh on a couple of cases and I want to discuss that. Along
Ridenbaugh here we only own the downhill side of Ridenbaugh and through
Ridenbaugh we propose putting the canal on the uphill side, which would be the safer
side of the canal. But where we don't own it we propose bringing it down through a
common area through the site and, then, back up to the Ridenbaugh, so we propose
this alignment off the Ridenbaugh through the site, back along Ridenbaugh and, then,
through this proposed realignment, instead of trying to cross Overland here, we want to
bring it up here to where we have an intersection and at this point I think what we'd like
to propose for that pathway is a bridge that would cross over Overland Road. Right at
this location there is a -- to make Overland fit in here we had to do a fairly large fill in
here and, then, a very large cut right in here. So, we are making this V cut in the road --
in the ground that would naturally accept a foot bridge that will go over top of it. So, I
think that that -- by bringing it away from the Ridenbaugh in this location and, then, we
bring it over to the gas line until we come back to Ridenbaugh. Then, we are utilizing
the natural terrain, we are utilizing some different components, instead of just the
Ridenbaugh. We come in and out and I think it will just offer a lot more variety to the
citizens. Also, it would help tie in this section of the gas line into the pathway system,
because we connect right here. And, then, all these blue ones are just interconnecting
pathways that would be able to allow people to choose different varieties of ways of
getting to and from the multi-use back over to the park system, to the common area and
back to the school and to the village center, which, again, we think is very important that
we find -- to make it easy for people to walk out their door and walk to those uses,
instead of driving. So, I want to -- I would like -- I would ask for the consideration in
looking at the pathway system as we have proposed it and not strictly being on the
Ridenbaugh for its entire location. Now, you know, I will kind of discuss Overland. The
original plan that we submitted back last spring did not include Overland where it exists
today, but through the charrette planning, which I thought was a tremendous asset to
the city and the public as a whole, this -- a realignment was proposed and I worked with
the city staff to come up with what I thought would be a suitable solution, because there
is a lot of physical constraints out there and what there is is -- the Ridenbaugh Canal is
a very -- very difficult physical structure to pass and, obviously, anybody who drives Ten
Mile can see that. So, there is a draw right here and there is a draw right here, so
coming out that draw was the only option. So, choosing this location, that's what's
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 18 of 63
driving this and, then, curving back over. The constraints of how the ground lies is what
drove the location. I was very supportive to the point where I amended my plat and
resubmitted it to the city, in which P&Z made a recommendation of approval, which
included the realignment. What I'd like to ask the City Council today is that if they are
supportive of that realignment, that they, obviously, give an endorsement for the
subdivision, but also a special endorsement and a recommendation to ACHD that they
move forward on approval of the relocation, because ACHD is kind of stuck until this
body gives them a direction, because what my offer is -- is like Anna spoke of earlier, is
I will construct Overland in its entirety from Linder to where the limits of where ACHD
has started their work today, I will construct it from here to here under an impact fee
agreement, which will put a missing component of the public infrastructure that's needed
out there in place in the shortest time frame possible. With that I think I'm running out. I
would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for Mr. Jewett?
Bird: Not at this time.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I do have one. To clarify the elevations that have been shown, are those
plans -- just to pick some of the names: Tuscan. Craftsman. Frontier. There were a
couple others. American Farmhouse. Is the plan that all of the Tuscans would be
clustered in one neighborhood and all the Craftsmans would be in another or are these
mixed among each other?
Jewett: And I apologize that I wasn't able to touch on that, but what our idea is is to
create a set of design guidelines that would address the entire plat that would set out
architectural guidelines that would be the American Farmhouse or the Craftsman and
set design guidelines throughout the entire plat that would cover the commercial or
residential and the townhouses that would allow multiple builders to build under one
umbrella saying that this is design guidelines that you would have to meet and there
would be certain specifics. If they want to build -- if they want to build -- let me get a
blow up. Let's say we had one specific builder that wanted to build this block, they
could choose four different types within that block, but they have to maintain those
guidelines. There would be certain architectural features that will have to be consistent.
Now -- and I believe that those set of guidelines would be broad enough to allow three
different sets of those styles in one block, but greater than one. I don't believe that one
is appropriate. And with that I'd like to offer one other comment. In Anna's report it's
recommending that these designs be somehow incorporated into a design review and I
agree with that, but I would go a step further and ask that our entirety design guidelines
booklet come back for design review approval and that way the entire plat is covered
under that plan. So, instead of seeing it on some individual basis, that I be allowed to
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 19 of 63
bring back an entire design review guidelines for the entire plat and that it be adopted.
Did that answer your question?
Zaremba: I think it does.
De Weerd: It answered mine, too. You mentioned a bridge over the Ridenbaugh.
Have you been working with the irrigation company and had those discussions?
Jewett: Yes. Yes, we have. We met with John Anderson on both our two public
crossings here and here and our one pedestrian crossing at this location.
De Weerd: And?
Jewett: My recollection of the meeting was there was no objection to that.
De Weerd: Do you have it in writing? I'm not skeptical, but--
Jewett: I understand some of the issues that have been with that particular irrigation
district on, but I find them to be -- on this particular project to be workable. They also
have an irrigation facility that's going to be located within that same location and I think it
would provide them some level of access to their own facilities, so maybe there was
some underlying benefit to them that drove them to not having too much of an objection
to us putting that bridge in. We already have an existing bridge that's located down, so
this would be replacing one with another.
De Weerd: Okay. I also understand that the parks -- the parks commission is favorable
and this park is a city park. What is the benefit of the community a large, outside of
what the residents that would be using it within this subdivision, what would be the
benefit to the general public?
Jewett: Well, that was a -- that was a question that came up in our first parks meeting
of what would the benefit be for the public as a whole, not just the subdivision, and as
we worked with the parks department we made some changes to add some things that
they wanted in the sports court and some other facilities. But I think overall what you're
looking at is a different type of park that people can utilize and I think that the parks
department has talked about doing some other sport facility at this park -- not your
conventional sports facilities, I think that the parks department could probably answer
that easier than me, but what it does it gives you the passive park, not the active. So, it
brings the people who don't want to be next to the soccer or next to some activity that's
a large scale, that's a small scale, the picnics, the social events that they want to hold
outside, because the vistas from this are going to be very tremendous. It's going to
offer the citizen who lives in the north side of town to come over who wants to get a
workout, who wants to be able to go up and down these pathways because of the
terrain and be able to not only experience the outdoors in an active walking or jogging,
but be able to have the vistas to go along with it, so -- and what we also talked about
with the parks department is -- and he bought the signage, because he wants to put
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 20 of 63
signage at this location and we did redesign the roads a little bit to accommodate more
of a straight shot into this park system, so that people can get to it, they know it's there.
So, he had talked about signage at this location, so people could come right into the
park and identify where it is, so it doesn't feel as much like a neighborhood park. I hope
that answers your question. But I really see that -- that there would be a lot of people
that come there that would bike, that would walk, that would jog, they would walk their
dog, that would come there just for those activities, because they can use the pathways
and still come back to the park. It has a restroom, it has other amenities. It allows them
to drive, park their vehicle off the road, and be able to enjoy a wide range, because they
can even walk down to the village center, they can make their way down to the village
center and, then, back, since there is so many options.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You heard the discussion from the planning administrator in terms of what
their concerns were, issues were, or general comments were. Any of those in particular
you have agreement or disagreement with?
Jewett: There is only -- and I apologize, it was a very large packet and I did miss one
item that Anna had spoke about and that is in the TN-C I believe that she has stated
there would be a requirement for two stories in the TN-C. My only objection to that is
the library, which as far as I know is the design of the library is a single story. It actually
is on a sloped lot, so there is a basement, but it is a single story and, then, with the
library we have proposed a day care in the corner and the day cares are generally
single story. So, outside of those I believe the design review component of that would
be appropriate, but I guess I would object to a two story on those particular uses and I
may suggest that instead of just saying two story, recommend two story, but make it a
requirement that we come back for design review. That gives the city the opportunity to
look at everything. But I know the library design is done and I don't believe it's two
story.
Rountree: You mentioned that you want to develop design guidelines and you want that
to be reviewed by the city. Can I take that to mean that you will do that and the city will
have an opportunity to review that?
Jewett: Absolutely.
Rountree: And, further, can I understand that that will be done before any lot or phase
of this subdivision is sold?
Jewett: That is correct.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 21 of 63
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council?
Bird: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Jewett: Thank you. I'm going to leave my presenter here, so that they can scroll back
and forth if they need to -- if anybody testifying wants to --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, can I comment on a couple things before the public speaks?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: With regard to the design review guidelines, since we don't have them, one
option would also be that they could just come in and modify the development
agreement once we do have those guidelines in place. Also, I was remiss in not
explaining what happened at ACHD regarding this project and I think I can get this right,
but it's a little confusing. The applicant's original application did show Overland in its
current alignment and we did receive a staff report from ACHD on that alignment.
When through the Ten Mile charrette process it was proposed that the realignment of
Overland be changed, the applicant was willing to go forward with that. We took it back
to ACHD. ACHD was uncomfortable making a recommendation on that until the City
Council had given some acknowledgment that they were in favor of relocating Overland.
And that's why the applicant has asked that your motion include a specific
recommendation on Overland, because they did not want to move forward with such a
-- kind of a major change unless the city was comfortable with that change. So, they will
go back and review it once they hear from Council with regard to your general thoughts
on that alignment.
De Weerd: And I realize that during that charrette we had our staff and our departments
take a look at that. Any concerns of note from Chief Anderson or Lieutenant Overton in
the concerns?
Anderson: Mayor de Weerd, Council Members, our biggest concern is the realignment
does not necessarily line up with the next road to the south on Ten Mile and I believe
that's Lamont and this road is going to be -- I don't know how many feet, but a few
hundred feet to the north of that. So, it's really going to create two intersections that
don't line up there and that -- and I understand that the property owners to the south of
there just were unwilling to sell the property. So, there is a little bit of an alignment
problem with the intersections where the road does curb up and, then, meet back up
with Ten Mile and that would be our only concern with that.
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 22 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. Lieutenant?
Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I participated in the charrette
program as well and our main objective from the police department was the moving of
traffic on Ten Mile with the new Ten Mile interchange and the realignment of Overland
Road, moving it farther away from that interchange, was by far better advantage to
moving traffic through that interstate. I do share the one minor concern, which is how
close it is to Lamont. You have got now two intersections to the south so close
together. Other than that I think it's a great advantage to what we had before.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I have got a question for Anna and, then, one for Len, actually. Anna, in
reference to our comments on ACHD, is it sort of a chicken or the egg situation that we
are in? I mean to the extent that Council could very well approve a planned road
alignment, but, then, ACHD might not be in agreement with, versus -- do you see what I
mean? Then it's perhaps too late when the entire design is premised upon a
realignment.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, my
understanding of the commission hearing was more that they were just waiting to hear
from you on your general thoughts. I think that the applicant has worked hard with
ACHD staff with -- to make sure that it meets their design criteria, so I don't think it's a
chicken and egg. They didn't say, no, we don't want Overland realigned, they said, no,
we want to hear from city council before we make any recommendation on the
realignment. So, it wasn't -- it wasn't that they were opposed to it, they just wanted to
hear from you all.
Borton: Okay. Thank you, Anna.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Oh.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton has one more question.
Zaremba: I'm sorry.
Borton: One question for Len and it's on page six of the staff report. It makes reference
to issues and concerns and addresses the sewer main sizing and routing. I guess could
you give us an update of what those concerns and statuses are with the sewer in this
area?
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 23 of 63
Grady: The best I can tell of what they are concerned about there is we have a lift
station to the south, which we are finalizing design on, which will pump into this
subdivision. So, until we get all that figured out there will be some variability in that -- in
that sewer size. Otherwise, we have no concerns over the sewer, provided we can get
our easement through the access road there.
Borton: Okay. Thanks, Len.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If I may, I just wanted to perhaps add a philosophy to a point from ACHD. In
the past ACHD has been viewed as big foot and being non-responsive. In the last
several years, maybe even a few more, ACHD and the City of Meridian had an
extremely cooperative and I think positive relationship. ACHD commissioners and staff
are trying to be sensitive to Meridian's need to set the land use before ACHD, so that
ACHD is not making the roadways set the land use and my instinct of the
commissioners asking not to make a ruling is that they are deferring to Meridian to
make the land use decisions first. They did participate in the charrette. They were on
board with the realignment. I think they are just trying to be sensitive and not put
themselves in a position of telling us what to do. They are asking us to make the
decision first.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I do have a number of people that have signed
up. If, when I read your name, you would like to provide testimony, if you will, please,
come forward at that time. And I will preface this by if I say your name really badly, I
apologize. Susan Stone signed up against as is. Good evening. If you will, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Stone: Susan Stone. 2530 South Del Rey Lane.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stone: And my concern is -- my major concern -- and I came to the parks department
about it, to their meeting -- was that to put a public park next to a private pool is
discriminatory to the people -- to the public that comes and cannot use the pool, so I
expect it to be like the park in downtown Meridian where you come to the park or the
pool and, then, to have it -- I think it shows segregation and we are better than you, this
is our pool, and you can't use it. So, for people who don't live there I think that is unfair.
De Weerd: Can you -- and maybe I should ask the director this, but did the commission
discuss that and form a -- if the city would be willing to partner to expand that as a
public pool? Was there any kind of discussion like that?
Stone: They -- you know, it was the second meeting that I didn't attend. The first
meeting I did bring it up and they added a few more parking spots, I think was their
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 24 of 63
solution, and, then, my other question was who maintains the entire parking lot, the
parks department or the homeowners association.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm sorry, Mrs. Stone.
Borton: Mrs. Stone? You bring up a point -- and I appreciate you bringing that point up
and I was at that parks and rec commission meeting and that topic was addressed by
you and several others. That will be one of the questions that I'll ask the applicant to
address.
Stone: Well -- and I --
Borton: That would invite that confusion where people who want to utilize the city park
and, then, want to go take a dip, I don't know how you control that.
Stone: Well -- and I have a severely autistic son that's 19, developmentally a two year
old. He's bigger than any of you and you're not gOing to keep him out of the pool,
whether he scratches out eyeballs or pulls hair and he -- and there is several special
needs children on Lamont as well that will want to use the park and they are
developmentally, you know, two year olds as well, so I think that it's not just one issue,
there is several in the surrounding area. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. I should have asked my question, because I was going to ask
that, but I didn't think I should drop a bomb. You know, I thought it was bomb, so --
okay. Scott Nichols signed up for with modification. Welcome. If you will, please, state
your name and address.
Nichols: My name is Scott Nichols. I live on 2730 West Val Vista Court.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I think there was a clarification
with regard to Ada County Highway District in their process of hearing additional public
testimony or their decision on the city. I'm not sure if that was -- if you wanted to enter
that into the record or not. Was that the case, Anna? We had several people at the
Ada County Highway District and they wanted to make sure it was clear on the record
that Ada County Highway District, they understood, was going to seek additional public
input, not just City of Meridian input. So, for the record, but -- real quick. As I said, my
name is Scott Nichols. I also represent the Val Vista Homeowners and Water Users
Association. There are 14 residences on Val Vista Court and if I can figure out how to
use this -- probably -- the interconnectivity plan is probably the best map to use here.
Val Vista Court --
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 25 of 63
De Weerd: There is a little pointer on there as well.
Nichols: I have got it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: Val Vista Court, as they said, is 2,200 feet long. It was designed as a rural
residential street from Ten Mile, comes down here and dead ends on a circle. This is
an unimproved county road. It has no sidewalks. Bare dirt on the sides. Well crowned.
Well drained. The owners in this area all have five acre or better lots along Val Vista.
We all have stock. Everybody rides horses. Has dogs. Farm fields. The acreage right
here I still pasture that in alfalfa. Had a number of comments about this. First of all, we
don't object to the subdivision and we think Jim's done a good job, really, in putting up
with us and listening to everything that we have had to say. We sort of chided each
other there. It was Ten Mile torrid in some cases, but our primary concern is how those
lots right there will affect Val Vista -- ingress and egress from Val Vista. We felt so
strongly about that that we actually went through the neighborhood and we signed --
when we organized the homeowners association we all established the couple of items
for ourselves and that was that we wanted to form the homeowners association. We
oppose further development of individual lots within the Val Vista Subdivision. Those
lots were not designed and our covenants were never intended to allow redevelopment
of any individual five acre lots. They were designed as estate residential. They were
sold as view lots. And they do have a great view. Now, we can put up with the
development, but we would really like to ask you to take a look at that development
again and work with us just a little bit, so that this whole process can go forward.
Because after you see the master plan it really does look like a pretty good plan for all
that acreage. I can't fault Jim on that. So, the second thing we ask as noted in our sort
of declaration is that we oppose extension or connection to Val Vista Court to other
adjacent residential areas. We like the fact that it's quiet, that it's a cul-de-sac. That's
why people moved there, because there wasn't any interconnectivity. It was all by itself.
We really saw that area as an area where people will look out in the future and say,
wow, those are five acre truly estate lots, multi-million dollar homes, that was really
preserved and, you know, for walking paths, fine. If we want to put a walking path in
there and have interconnectivity for walking dogs or whatever, the pipeline is probably a
good opportunity for that. But last -- I shouldn't say lastly. We are opposed to any stub
street, like I said, and we wanted to insure our covenants were strong and that we
opposed any redevelopment of our subdivision into high density. The thing that really, I
think, was very disconcerting is that there are a couple of lots that have changed hands
and not only did the stub street appear on the very narrowest lot in our subdivision, but
it also has already been platted. Or at least put on there by the engineer. And I
understand Jim -- you know, he had an interest in the property at one time, I don't know
what his interest is now, but we really took exception to have that laid out and the
engineer probably said, oh, this is what you might be able to do with it. But that's
exactly what we don't want in our five acre subdivision that is not incorporated into the
city. It's still in the county. A couple things we would recommend. First of all, it's
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 26 of 63
important to us that the requirements for the master are set now, because we don't want
to be back in two or three or four years wondering what's going to happen. And we feel
like the issues that we brought up here really focused on the issue of the connectivity --
the connectivity I think that the Council is seeking -- and the protection that we are really
looking for in terms of the preliminary and, then, in the final plat. So, here are the things
that we'd like to address. First, as the final plat -- or I guess this is the preliminary;
correct? As the final plat is established we'd like to make sure that the final plat moves
that stub street off of that narrow lot. Whether you want to put it on a 900 foot section of
lot over here or my lot to the west or the next lot to the west, doesn't really matter. But it
doesn't make sense to put that little stub on that little 250 foot section right there. It's--
we are about the two closest houses in the entire neighborhood and it virtually aims all
of the car lights right in my bedroom window. So, I'm definitely not in favor of that. But
there is lots of room over here. Now, Del Rey comes right here and that would be a
straight shot right to this subdivision over here. Likewise, you could align a road down
here if you ever had to in the future or you could align one out here onto Val Vista here.
The further west you put it, the less impact there is to our community. The second thing
we would like to address is fencing. We would really like to have some sort of solid
fence. A vinyl fence we really didn't feel was acceptable. We'd like to really go to a
solid concrete stamped fence. Is it okay if I finish?
De Weerd: If you will -- yes. We gave you an extended time as the spokes person for
your subdivision.
Nichols: I will finish up in one minute.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: Okay. We agree with the setbacks. We would request that a 50 foot minimum
setback, not a 20 foot minimum setback as suggested by staff, with a 22 foot maximum
height on the houses. The houses that have been proposed may do that now, but we'd
like to set a height limit, not just one story, because there could be differences in that
story -- the height -- the elevation of the house. I want to summarize just by saying the
stub street -- oh, the stub street was critical. It needs to be moved to one of the other
lots. Lastly, if that stub street is ever put in is there a commitment to rebuild Val Vista,
because Val Vista is not constructed to the standards that the rest of those streets are.
And I have been in situations before where a street is connected and the street that it's
connected to is never upgraded, the street lights aren't put in, the sidewalks aren't put
in, so there should be a requirement there that if it -- if it is ever connected -- and the
best thing to do would be actually just to put a foot path in with an emergency access,
like we have seen in other areas. That would make us the happiest, so to speak. But,
again, I want to thank Jim for a good proposal and you all for listening to my testimony.
Thanks.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, I guess I have a question in terms of your subdivision and the
five acre lots preserved.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 27 of 63
Nichols: Right.
De Weerd: Can those five acre lots redevelop? And I guess since I see some of that,
looks like it possibly can if that owner were to sell his five acres.
Nichols: As the homeowners association we have adopted the bylaws. We have had
an attorney look at our bylaws and the attorney has suggested changes to those bylaws
to -- I want to say improve or strengthen the language that already exists in our
homeowners covenants and our CC&Rs that says they are not to be redeveloped. At
the point right now our CC&Rs currently say that there shall be only one building lot on
each of those five acres and we have talked with him extensively about that and his
intent was they were not to be re-divided. Our intent -- in fact, all of the owners in our
subdivision have agreed it is not our intent to re-divide. We don't want to re-divide.
Now, we have made an out clause, because we recognize that in the future you can't --
you can't predict the future. If someone were to walk in and say, yeah, we will give you
two million dollars apiece for every one of those lots, we'd probably all pick up and
move. But it takes the majority. It is either all or none. But not one. And that's really
what we are opposed to, so -- and that's why we really want that, because that lot is for
sale right now, it's been for sale twice in the last four months, it's an attractive sort of
nuisance to us. It's a headache. We have to worry about it. It's like, now, man, what
are they going to do to it? Are we going to have to fight this and for how long? We
don't want to fight it. There is several people in our subdivision and we have talked
about this, that we would really like to dress this up, we'd like to work with the irrigation
district. It needs to be landscaped. It's needs to be improved considerably. The weed
control needs to be done out here, so that we have a much nicer entryway into Val Vista
than what we have now, because there is some limitations because of the irrigation
easements, but, you know, that right there is the attractive nuisance and we don't want
to have to deal with that and we will insure through our covenants that there is no
subdivision of an individual lot.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: Sorry for the lengthy explanation.
De Weerd: No. I appreciate that. Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Mr. Nichols, you have confused me as to what is part of
your subdivision and what is not. You have indicated that all of your subdivision has
entered into an agreement to modify your CC&Rs or your covenants to not allow re-
platting of your five acre parcels. Is that one lot that's been for sale most of the times in
your subdivision?
Nichols: It is.
Rountree: Is that one lot in your terms of all the subdivision?
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 28 of 63
Nichols: The homeowners on this side -- that one house that is not -- that is for sale,
he's the only hold out. He has not been willing to sign that agreement. That agreement
is not part of our CC&Rs. That was a separate -- just intent. We wanted to issue to you
a -- a consistent front, I would say, you know, to be consistent and Mr. Ballard said,
well, he says, if Mr. Van Hess signs the agreement he said I will think about it. Mr. Van
Hess was kind enough to say, Scott -- he didn't talk to me about it, but he would sign --
Mr. Van Hess signed last night and I did not get a chance to go back to Mr. Ballard and
say, Sid, we have got everybody, you know, rallied around this. We all -- none of us
bought these lots -- you know, it really is just a statement that none of us bought these
lots to divide them up and the situation changed in his life, the lot's for sale, you know,
we don't want to have to fight potential development in our own subdivision. This has
really rallied our subdivision to come together and make sure our CC&Rs are strong
and that we all agree on where we want to go as a subdivision.
De Weerd: You know -- and I think we appreciate that. But more often than not we
make modifications and concessions and work with those that are affected and, then,
two months later we see the five acre lot back in front of us subdivided and it's like, oh,
wow, this is -- so, I guess I appreciate what you're doing as a neighborhood in trying to
be on a unified front.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, could I respond to that?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Nichols: That's why we understand your position. You understand -- I understand the
history you have seen and that's why we simply ask that that stub be relocated off the
narrowest lot in the whole front. Locate it on a larger lot. We are not going to object to
the stub, just move it to a larger lot.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, you --
Rountree: You followed up with what I was going to say.
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry.
Rountree: Just to point out we see these almost on a weekly basis.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Presbus. And I look forward to you stating
your name and address.
Presbus: Presbus.
De Weerd: Presbus.
Presbus: I live at 2530 South Del Rey Lane.
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 29 of 63
De Weenj: Thank you.
Presbus: And I concur just about with everything Scott said. There is one thing I want
to touch on, the 22 foot height, because you can have a single story and have a game
room, which is not considered a second story, and they can get pretty tall. They can go
up quite a ways, especially like a 12 and 12 pitch. That's why we are setting a -- ask to
set a 22 foot height limit and on this proposed road -- I don't know if you -- ACHD has --
if you have heard anything from ACHD. One of the concerns was who is going to build
a road from where Overland ties into Ten Mile back down to the interchange. Right now
it's only slated up so far from the interchange and it's not in their plan for ten, 12, 15
years they said. And they want to know where the money is going to come from for that
and who is going to do it, because if they put this big road in and this interchange in,
then, you're going to come from four lanes to two lanes to four lanes and it's just going
to be nothing but a big bottleneck. Okay. I also ask for 50 foot backyards. We have --
we have to be at a hundred feet and, you know, we don't mind -- I agree with their
subdivision one hundred percent. I mean I think it should go through. But with a few
conditions. The stamped wall -- the concrete wall, we burn -- we burn our fields
sometimes, we burn ditches, and I think it's a safety feature for one thing that if it was a
wood fence, a vinyl fence, it would go up in smoke real quick. I mean there has been
fires -- a couple fires there that got out of hand and they move very quickly, if you see
five acres of weeds before they are plowed. Also, if there is to be a solid concrete
fence, I'd like to see it put in before construction starts, that way it will keep some of the
dust down, because that place is very windy -- I mean it could be calm as heck over
here and the wind's blowing 15, 20 miles an hour up there. And all that dust is going to
be blowing right in -- there is, actually, four, five houses that's really going to take the
brunt of this subdivision and that's on the north side of the -- the south, but the north
side of the subdivision and if these few things are put into place -- I know we will
probably have to come back, because it's in one of the mega lots where we are at and if
they are going to be redesigned again we are going to have to come back again and
again, so -- but I ask if you put in the record now or put into place these few conditions
that we ask. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wayne Amend signed up against.
Amend: My name is Wayne Amend. I live at 2155 West Overland. Right there, the
little out-parcel. Nobody seems to want to mention all the roads and stuff. Where is my
egress going? Is the city planning on taking it? Is that what we are proposing here?
We are not talking about it. How about the drain water? Where is all the storm water
going? It drains right down to my place. I don't see any plans. In fact, I came -- me
and my attorney showed up Wednesday down at Planning and Zoning to go over these
plans -- we couldn't, because the staff is going over it. So, how can we even protect my
property rights? By the way, Ada County Highway District at those meetings was
concerned about property damage with the realignment. Have we studied that yet? No.
Maybe we better look at this real close, because this has really affected me a lot and I
am going to protect my property. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 30 of 63
De Weerd: Sir, could you point out where your property is?
Amend: Right there. Nobody has even tried to work with me about this. I haven't even
been questioned.
De Weerd: Okay. We will ask the developer. Thank you. Lyle Brainer. Briner.
Briner: Lyle Briner. 3050 Val Vista Court.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Briner: I wouldn't want to take up anymore of your time, because I agree with the two
other gentlemen and fully in support of their comments.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. And Bonnie Briner as well. Thank you. Ken
Fawcett. Okay. And Sherry Fawcett as well.
Fawcett: I'm Sherry Fawcett. I live at 2755 West Val Vista Court and it's across the
street from the property that is for sale. Scott has done a wonderful job of commenting
on our concerns. However, I stated at the city Planning and Zoning that there seemed
to be some confusion as to the Ada County decision on Overland Road. I got an e-mail
from Mindy Wallace stating that the design of the interchange had to be done first
before they would approach the realignment of Ten Mile Road and that they felt
additional public comment was needed. If that document exists and it's here, I would
like somebody to read it, because at both meetings there has been I feel
misrepresentation about what Ada County said at that meeting. People who were there
also felt there has been great misrepresentation to the City Council and Planning and
Zoning as to what was stated. I also commented about the elementary school. It's
wonderful that they are providing that elementary site, but those of us that live south of
the freeway and have children at Mountain View High School, recognize the elementary
school is not where the problem lies and I know that with every one of these big
developments there is a statement on record from the school district saying you can
build this density, but we do not have places to put these children. My children keep
getting moved from schools every time there is a development like this put in. Bear
Creek, we got moved. Bear Creek went in, everything started getting a little bit more
balanced, more development up north of the freeway, we got moved again. As a
Meridian School District patron we are a little tired of getting moved every time
somebody decides to put a new development in. This is not planning for our children's
future.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fawcett: That's all the comments I have.
De Weerd: Mel Shoemaker signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state
your name and address.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 31 of 63
Shoemaker: Mel Shoemaker. 1620 South Ten Mile.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Shoemaker: The corner of Overland and Ten Mile. I have a letter on record --
De Weerd: Yes.
Shoemaker: -- with a number of issues and I'm sure you have probably read it. The
other -- I'm not going to take my three minutes to go into those issues. They are in the
letter. One of the items that I think has not been addressed is when Mr. Jewett, he's
going to dump these 1,252 homes out onto Ten Mile, which will now go north on Ten
Mile and I don't think there has been any discussion that I have really heard of, number
one, those of us on Ten Mile, I imagine you're probably thinking in the back of your mind
that, my, my, you're going to be a victim that is going to take the gaff here, but there is
also Tasa -- there is nothing been ever discussed about Tasa and Davis Drive. And if
Ten Mile is widened to the extent that it looks like Eagle Road, which it will, both of
those places will -- in other words, Mr. Jewett's kind of representing that he is building a
Shangri-La up there and is taking everything into consideration, but I don't think those of
us that have lived there -- we have lived there 31 years -- have really been taken into
consideration. So, I think in my mind there is kind of a preliminary jump here on the
whole interchange process and J think if somebody was really doing some good
thinking, they'd look at moving that interchange to the east and going up over to the east
of Mrs. Weist's house, which she sold to the developer, and take that interchange
across the Ross property and, then, drift it back to Ten Mile and I think that would clear
up problems at Tasa, clear up problems with Davis, and a number of issues there. And
certainly clear up my problem. And I think -- I think that really sincerely and truly needs
to be looked at. And I think it's been skipped over and I think it could even -- if that was
the case -- if that was the case and it was taken up to the east of the -- Mrs. Weist's
house -- which she no longer lives in -- and, then, ties back into Ten Mile, this Overland
thing wouldn't even have to happen. You could still come down Overland and tie into
that interchange road -- I mean it's a possibility and, then, tie back into Ten Mile. And it
would take you away from all that existing -- those existing neighborhoods and -- I
guess I'm done. Am I making any kind of sense here?
De Weerd: Can you show us, Mr. Shoemaker, where you live?
Shoemaker: I live on this -- I live on this piece of property right here. I live right here.
This is our property. And I think the opportunity that's being missed is if the freeway
interchange was put in here -- actually right here would be a good alignment point right
in the middle of these two fields and come up across here and, then, drift around back
to Ten Mile. And I think -- I think if somebody was to go out there and look at that and
study it, they would see an opportunity that's being overlooked and I think -- I think when
this thing is insisted upon going right down through here, it creates a Tasa problem, it
creates a Davis problem. It certainly creates my problem. But I don't think -- I think this
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 32 of 63
Shangri-La that's being developed over here is not a Shangri-La for the rest of us here.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Shoemaker: And I hope somebody looks at that a little further.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Shoemaker?
Shoemaker: Yes.
De Weerd: Did you participate in some of the public open houses --
Shoemaker: Yes, I did.
De Weerd: -~ on the Ten Mile interchange?
Shoemaker: Yes, I did.
De Weerd: And you submitted your comments for their consideration?
Shoemaker: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Shoemaker: And I'm still not done talking.
De Weerd: Okay. Those are the names that signed up on the sign-up sheet. It is a
Public Hearing. If there is anyone who would like to provide public testimony that did
not sign up, if you would like to come forward at this time. And state your name and
address.
Van Hess: My name is Larry Van Hess. I live at 2540 South Del Rey, just off of Val
Vista.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Van Hess: Meridian is growing and there is nothing that gets us all gathered together
and gets our talk going than the effect of development around us. We live on the lots
that Scott's discussing that are all over five acres. Scott, you did a great job. I just want
to tell you I think you really presented the feeling of the community. The one thing it's
really done is we as neighbors are talking to each other right now, discussing how to
make our subdivision better. We kind of like it the way it is. We like the fact that we
have a rural setting in close to the community of the City of Meridian. The one thing that
does concern us is we like the road without a lot traffic on it. It's been there for some
time and I know your concerns and I have watched you a little bit when people said we
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 33 of 63
are not going to break up our place and we have all agreed to do that and I saw the
grins on your face and I know -- and the one thing being a builder-developer that I have
always maintained with the ownership of property, the right is there to do with it what
you want to do. However, I told them I would be the last one to sign and I waited until
pretty much everybody stepped up and said, hey, this is what we want to maintain and I
threw my hat in the ring and I agree if there is any way possible to maintain the integrity
of that road without traffic and to -- if there has to be a street that goes into it, that it be
at the least intrusive way to get there and if it could be just an emergency path with
breakaway gates and whatever and maybe walk paths to go to the walking path, that
would be really great and we could all go with that in a very good fashion. I thank you
very much, Mayor and Council, for listening to my say. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: It's always good to know where you live, Larry. I marked it down. Okay, sir.
Elton: I'm Curtis Elton. I live at 2906 West Val Vista, which is right on the corner of the
subdivision that's being planned. I am not naturally against development of the
subdivision, but, again, Scott covered a lot of the things that I had -- would like to see
changed on it. A couple of things that I would really like you to think about is the traffic
patterns. Right now on Overland sometimes it's backed up all the way down to the -- all
the way down to the RV center down there. It takes two, three, four lights to get through
it now. You put another 900 homes in there and even adding another lane, what a lot of
those people are going to do, they are going to take an alternate route. If there is any
road into our subdivision we are going to have a tremendous amount of traffic there.
And to reroute Overland up or, in other words, to the south and come out up by Lamont
is going to take and detour a lot of that traffic to the south, then -- which is going to have
to go back to the north again, which is an illogical way to route all that traffic and there is
no traffic pattern set up. I haven't heard anything set up as far as a traffic light or so
forth, which would be two busy intersections just a matter of a few feet apart. Our road
in our subdivision is strictly a blacktop road. It has no sidewalks, as it was mentioned,
and to route or allow more traffic to come through there would be just a disaster. There
is no street lights. Kids are walking -- use this for riding bicycles, horses on it. It's
strictly a rural -- a rural road and to bring any amount of traffic through there would just
totally disrupt the character of our subdivision. We purchased in the subdivision just
because it had a little bit of a privacy and a larger acre lot and now to see any of them
developed and start to develop just totally destroys what we bought it for and the stub
road, if you ever are going to put a stub road out of there, I would like to see it more
toward the -- toward the west and -- because, then, it could go directly out to Ten Mile
without going down through the road that is now there, which is Val Vista, and it could
go through -- basically through my pasture. I'll just point it out.
De Weerd: Sir? Sir? If you can use this microphone. Thank you.
Elton: Okay. Instead of bringing all that traffic in down here and running it all the way
out through Val Vista, which would ruin the integrity of our subdivision, if we come out
through -- if it come out through like say even here through my pasture and possibly
through the Brenner's pasture, it could go out through Ten Mile and not disrupt most of
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 34 of 63
the residents of Val Vista. And any other lots I would rather see it than the one it is,
because the one -- being it has already been planned to subdivide that lot, the
intentions are already there is to split it up and put in nine houses right in the middle of
our subdivision. And I think that's ridiculous to break up a subdivision -- a subdivision
putting nine houses right in the middle of it and destroying the whole integrity and
character of our subdivision. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide
testimony?
Canning: Madam Mayor? Oh.
Grubaugh: My name is Suzanne Grubaugh and I live at 3475 West Tasa.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Grubaugh: And I'd just like to say that Mel did a very good job of explaining how he
feels about what's going on there and I may not own a multi-million dollar home, but I do
own a little piece of heaven and our feeling is that our little piece of heaven probably
isn't going to be there very much longer and we will probably have to move. But I would
like to thank the developer, he's done a very good job of putting a school in, which most
developers don't, they put in a subdivision and they don't plan for schools and I think
that's -- I think that's a nice thing for him to do and the library and all the rest of that and
it encompasses a lot of things, but I would like you to look at the flow of traffic with the
interchange going in and Ten Mile cutting across there -- or Overland cutting across
over onto Ten Mile. I think you're going to have the same problem that you have with
Tasa now, because Overland comes down and, then, cuts across and sometimes
getting across Tasa onto Ten Mile during rush hour, you know, is really hard, especially
if there is an accident on the freeway and everybody gets off and jogs over that way.
So, you know, what -- I think what Mel said was -- was a good thing to look at. I think
we need to look more at planning of the traffic and the flow of the traffic and that sort of
thing. I think I told you once that I didn't think our old piece of heaven was going to be
there at a meeting at one of the elementary schools. But I certainly feel like if there are
-- if that's going to happen, I don't want to see what happened on Eagle and Meridian
and -- you know, with the traffic and all the rest of it. I'd like to see a better flow of traffic
and if most of it went this way it would be better for everybody.
De Weerd: Thank you. I wasn't going to ask you if you went, because I knew you did.
Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you.
Grubaugh: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony? Okay. Would -- oh, Anna, before I ask the
developer to come and summarize and respond to the questions --
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 35 of 63
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, several of the public raised
questions about various transportation issues and I feel it's probably my responsibility to
address those more than the applicant, so let me take a stab. First of all, I will read the
paragraph from Lori Den Hartog at Ada County Highway District regarding the
commission's action. It says: The commission heard testimony from district staff, the
applicant, adjacent and nearby property owners and City of Meridian planning staff.
Based on the testimony presented, the commissioners determined that a different public
involvement process would be necessary for such a major realignment of a principal
arterial roadway. The ACHD commission also determined that acting on the proposed
application would be premature due to the fact the City of Meridian has not completed
the public process for the Ten Mile area plan and has not yet formally adopted the plan.
In addition, the commission determined that it would be critical to know the interchange
design selection for Ten Mile prior to acting on a realignment of Overland Road. The
reviewed South Ridge Subdivision proposed was remanded back to district staff with no
definitive date to reschedule the item back on the commission agenda. So -- and I
explained this before. What they said was this is a big change and they weren't willing
to act on that change, because the Ten Mile plan is not officially adopted. So, there is
no officially adopted plan that has that alignment of Overland Road on it. So, they
wanted to get your take. They also talked about additional public involvement. Well, as
part of the south Meridian area plan, the -- there was a concurrent effort underway by
ACHD for a transportation plan for that south Meridian area and this is one of those
areas where those two plans overlap. So, we do have in our possession -- we picked
this up last week. It is still in draft form, so the public would not have heard of it yet, but
it's the Draft South Meridian Transportation Plan, Overland Road Connection Memo.
And this was prepared by Washington Group with funds from -- or as a consultant to the
Ada County Highway District. And the first bullet -- recommendations on the last page
say Washington Group recommends including the realigned Overland Road connection
from Black Cat Road to Ten Mile and future transportation plans based on our analysis
and, then, it lists some reasons. Ten Mile interchange design and specific area study
both recommend the removal or relocation of the Overland Road and Ten Mile
intersections provide better traffic signal spacing and access management on Ten Mile
Road, as it leads to the proposed interchange. The environmental impacts are minimal
with this alignment. Historic area will not be disturbed. The Ridenbaugh will only be
crossed one time at an existing crossing. Topography of the area is fairly consistent
from Ten Mile Road to Black Cat Road. The portion from Ten Mile Road to the east will
be constructed by the developer. The roadway can be designed to make a smoother
transition by regarding the developer's side. Right of way will be provided by the
developer. And, then, it also has some reasons for not following the straight alignment.
So, they have done some additional studies since that commission hearing. They have
new documents, they have new studies that they will be considering for that area.
De Weerd: Anna, can you give those to the clerk and get copies, so Council can have
those in front of them?
Canning: Right now?
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 36 of 63
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Canning: Okay. I do need to state, once again, that that's a draft document. With
regard to the realigned interchange, we did consider it for a day, a full day at the
charrette, which one out of four days is a lot of time. We had a whole alternative set of
land uses and roadway connections based on a different interchange alignment and the
general thoughts from the transportation agencies were that that was not appropriate,
so ultimately we shifted it back to its current location. So, that was considered during
the charrette process and it didn't seem to work as well as we had hoped. I mean we
did it because we had hoped it would work, but, unfortunately, it didn't solve as many
problems as it needed to.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Anna, I got lost in which worked and which didn't?
Canning: The shifting to the east did not work for the interchange.
Zaremba: Shifting Ten Mile.
De Weerd: Shifting the interchange to the east did not work.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: Okay. Sorry I wasn't clear. My understanding -- there was questions about
who would do the improvements on Ten Mile and from our meetings with Lochner, who
is the consultant hired by the state to do the interchange project -~ the list of consultants
on these projects is enormous and difficult to keep straight, but my understanding from
Lochner was that the interchange project would need to come all the way to the
Ridenbaugh, because of the elevation differences that they -- and challenges that they
had in this area. So, the interchange project will come to this corner of the Ridenbaugh
and, then, the applicant's project picks up after that. So, we would get the necessary
Ten Mile improvements, because ITO would, basically, do them to the Ridenbaugh and,
then, the applicant would be responsible for the remainder of that business. So, that's --
oh. And there would be a light at the realigned Overland. All the concepts have talked
about having a light at that facility, not a stop sign. And I think those were the roadway
ones -- the questions that I heard come up with regard to the larger roadway issues and
the interchange. Because of the elevation difference -- you know, just for the Tasa
neighbors that took the time to testify tonight, there is some opportunity with the
realigned Overland, because of the elevation differences here there may be an
opportunity to actually bring rasa underneath the Ten Mile and back onto this property
up here. And, again, it's just -. it may be an opportunity. They have been working --
talked to Jim about possibly redirecting that, so they can get those folks so that they can
still get in and out of their neighborhood. That was all I had. Thank you, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for Anna?
Bird: I have none.
UICll~ fJ'O\.l:t:iU VI' U~""'1 loll,"", '-I'VUIIVII. '1 "'.""I'-"V~II'" - --..- .-..--, ...- _~I~-------..- .
up. My personal opinion is it just doesn't create the right atmosphere. As far as moving
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 38 of 63
the stub street, there is some good points. If you move the stub street to the farthest
west it will impact Val Vista at a minimum to the future, if it ever does extend to -- down
onto Val Vista. The impact from there back to Ten Mile will be minimal. Obviously,
there will still be some people affected, but it would preserve the majority of Val Vista to
be still in that rural environment. So, again, if this Council wants to say move it as far
west, it's completely okay with me. Mr. Amend talked about access, drain water, and
property damage. With our agreement with ACHD, our proposed agreement with
ACHD, is that right now without an approval of the realignment of Overland we would
construct Overland from here back to their existing construction limits they are going,
which is about a hundred and eighty or ninety feet west of Linder Road. And that
crosses in front of Mr. Amend's property. With our proposed agreement with ACHD,
ACHD would have to go acquire that easement access from Mr. Amend. That is not
something that I would do, that's something that ACHD would have to step forward, like
they would do on any project that they would build, they would have to acquire that right
of way. I think that ACHD and ourselves are just waiting for this approval, then, we can
finish up our agreements and that process will move forward, just like it has from Linder
on back to Meridian Road. All those properties have been acquired through the normal
process of ACHD. As far as drain water, as far as storm drain, that's a process of our
construction drawings. Again, my engineer is here if there is a specific question that
Council would have, they are more than -- I can call them up, but I think we are all
aware that we have to meet the Public Works approval and that is a process that has to
go through. This is the first process and that's the next process. I believe Mr. Amend's
property will be well protected by both my engineer and the city engineer and their
review process of any construction drawings. So, I believe that his ~- the issues will be
answered. Schools. Obviously, we have an elementary site that was identified in the
comp plan and we worked with the city. I was directly involved in negotiating the middle
school site for the city -~ for the school district next to the Bear Creek park and I have
been working with the school district in trying to identify a high school site south of this
location and I believe they are pretty close to getting there. So, I think that we all know
that the high schools do need to be addressed south of town and I believe the school
district is committed towards moving towards that. As a developer I think I have done
my part and I have continued to do my part in helping the school. I have three kids in
school, one in Mountain View and two at Lake Hazel. So, I'm very aware of the schools
out in that area and my kids have been moved twice, too. So, I think we are moving
towards having more consistency with the new schools that we are getting. I addressed
Tasa and Davis. I guess the last thing that ~- the rear setbacks. We have on our lots
adjacent here we have set a design guideline of a minimum of 130 feet deep. So, if we
look at that, we have a 20 foot setback on the front and if they propose a 50 foot rear
setback, that would leave us a 60 foot building envelope and that's probably adequate,
even though that 50 feet seems a little extreme on a setback, I think anything -- I think
20 feet can be enlarged. I think 30 feet might be appropriate. I just wanted to give you
the design criteria that we have. We have 130 foot deep lots, so if you did want a 50
foot setback, it would leave a 50 foot building envelope for any home on those lots. So,
there was talk about a height restriction and the height restriction might be a better
avenue than the single story. It actually sets a permanent number. I think that may be
easier and I'm not objectionable to the 22 feet. The last thing to talk about will be the
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 39 of 63
park. Oh, one other thing. I'm sorry. One other thing. There was talk about how
Lamont would tie into our relocation of Overland. And during the charrette that was
addressed and how it was addressed was that -- oops. Sorry. Lamont in some way ~-
it's showing on this map, but it's right in here. That this connection off Lamont back to
the future realignment of Overland would relieve that and we would, eventually, take the
Lamont connection to Ten Mile away in the future. Albeit it might be a way future, that's
how you would eventually deal with that traffic issue. So, down the road that has been
addressed through the process, so -- these are yours, Anna. Can you go to mine?
Okay. Okay. On the park. At the first meeting there was a discussion of how the pool
would intermix with the park and the conflicts that could potentially exist. Well, we
would -- what our proposal -- which may not adequately be depicted here, was to move
the pool completely behind our clubhouse, so it's not visible, and so that this parking lot
-- and there would be good signage right as you enter the parking lot identifying the
parking lot for the clubhouse. The pool would be identified clearly behind. You would
enter through some type of security gate. So, that's our proposal and I believe that's
what was accepted as an answer to the Parks Department. Now, the idea of having
some joint use pool is another idea that -- that could be looked at. I think that's one
facility that Meridian is still probably lacking in is a pool. How we look at that -- I'm wide
open. But we need to address the issue of trying to not appear as if the pool is part of
the park. So, if I missed anything that the Council would like me to address, I certainly
would try to do so, but I believe -- the last thing is the flow of traffic. I think that we have
done -- and I got my traffic engineer. I think we have done an excellent job addressing
the flow of traffic and how it could work. I'm happy to see that there is a report by
another body that supports relocation of Ten Mile, how that it will help traffic. I think
there has been a lot of process in looking at how the interchange will work and how
locating them to one -- and one of the plans that is existing of the six plans on the
interchange was relocating it to the east and it is the most expensive and the least
favorable and has the worst level of service. So, I think it has been addressed and I
think the answer is that it simply isn't the best for the public as a whole. With that I
would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You indicated that on your reconstruction of Overland Road that you would
be working in concert with ACHD and in acquiring any -- or ACHD would be acquiring
any property rights to expand the width of the road, which is what they will be doing
anyway with or without this project. But you said that you would be buying access and
I'm not sure that -~ that's a controlled access facility, so you'd probably not be buying
access from Mr. Amend, he'd still have access to his property from Overland Road; am
I correct?
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 40 of 63
Jewett: Let me address that. Yeah. I may have stated that wrong. Mr. Amend's
property is right here. What ACHD would be -- would acquire the additional right of way
and I'm assuming -- and what we have done and what we tried to do with this master
plan is to provide Mr. Amend's property with superior access in the future. So, he would
still have access all along this proposed road and these proposed stub streets. So, his
access -- his access will be protected in the future. Now, if ACHD allows him a
temporary access while he lives and enjoys his property the way it is, that is what ACHD
must determine. Well, all we are saying is we are planning for it in the future and it has
been addressed.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, additional questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: You had indicated in your comments -~ I have a couple of questions. The first
one that struck me when you were -- one of your earlier comments about the mega lots
and I wrote down what you said and I might have wrote it down wrong, because it
doesn't make much sense. You indicated that the mega lots will allow you to change
your plat and design in the future to meet future market demand at that time, yet you're
representing now that you're not going to be varying this master plan and those seem to
be inconsistent.
Jewett: Yeah. So, let me clarify that. The master plan is intended to show how the
transportation -- how the roads would work and how the roads would tie into the lotting
that's proposed on the master plan. What the mega lots allow us to do now is to plat
this infrastructure you see. These series of roads are out platted in the mega lots, it
provides all the utilities to those mega lots and proVides transportation, but what the
master planning and the mega lots also allow us to do is when we come in for the
particular preliminary plat on this area right here, we have a couple things. The
development agreement said, for example, along the south boundary you have to
maintain this, this, and this. So, those are set. But right in here if we want to put in a 72
foot wide lot, instead of a 76 foot wide lot, because the product type that we are using,
that's what drives that. So, it enables us to tweak the intricacies within that subdivision
with the particular preliminary plat, not change the -. the staff has already stated we'd
have a minimum and a maximum density, so I don't think it changes that, it just changes
the way -- because within our design guidelines we are specifically going to lay houses
out to maximize the properties, to maximize the way the driveways and garages are a
work in concert. For example, if you go to some of the architectural designs -- and let
me get to one here and specifically show you -- did I go past the zipper lots? Okay.
Zipper lots. What this does here -- what the zipper lot -- you can see the zipper lot -- we
call it zipper, because it goes like that and what it allows us to do is pull one driveway
back and one driveway forward. So, how we design this frontage -- for example, this is
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 41 of 63
a 45 foot wide product, but this lot's 50 and this one's 40. So, what it does it allows us
to line these driveways ~- these garages up, because of the zipper and that's the type of
flexibility we are looking for, so we can create some architectural design, seeing that
this garage will be pulled forward and this one will be pulled back and we are offering
that variety through design guidelines. So, when we develop the design guidelines,
whatever particular product that we would use within each preliminary plat as they move
forward, we would identify that from our design guidelines. Does that, hopefully, clarify
it?
Borton: It does.
Jewett: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: One of the suggestions that staff has proposed is that you agree to both a
maximum and a minimum, since the mega lots are not subdivided yet and that's
something you will be doing in the future, they have set the maximum at what you're
asking for, what you have proposed, and the minimum a thousand residential lots on
this entire property. Is that acceptable to you? You haven't stated a --
Jewett: Yes. I did not see the numbers until tonight, but I think they are appropriate. I
believe that as we move forward in urban development that we need to look at more
minimums than maximums, because one benefit that this subdivision has -- and when
we talk about the people south of us -- let me go to that. When you look at what's
developed south of it, we looked at Aspen Cove, we looked at Val Vista, we looked at
Majestic View, and we looked at the potential for redevelopment as being unlikely
probably in my lifetime and because of the transportation that's being built there you
want the density next to transportation, because if we don't we are just going to leap
frog beyond these people must faster. So, the more density that we put closer to the
infrastructure, the more these people are going to be protected long term. So, having a
minimum is an agreeable situation. It most likely could be higher than that, but it is
acceptable.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. We don't have a streetscape or a typical section on the
roads. Have you considered when you have looked at those to provide for transit, you
have got a fairly extensive parkway system, does that correspond to possibly a park and
ride area or possibly a bus pull out with benches and covers and that sort of thing, at
some point in time we might get the buses in the valley?
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 42 of 63
Jewett: That has been discussed a few times -- it was discussed through the charrette
and it's a very good question and we have an area over here next to the library that
potentially could be a park and ride, some sort of bus pick up, especially with what we
are looking at north of Ten Mile or north of the freeway on Ten Mile with some of the rail
possibilities. Having some sort of a transit from this area down to that is a possibility,
but incorporating bus turnouts anywhere down in the village area is an excellent idea
and any suggestions or conditions that you could place on us that would drive us
towards making sure that a bus system can be accommodated is certainly something
that we would support.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I think you made reference to the library earlier, but you actually indicated
the fire station area.
Jewett: I'm sorry. I indicated -- the fire station is where I was referring to.
Rountree: Thank you.
Jewett: If I said library, I apologize. But having a bus system going to the library is a
definite plus.
Rountree Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess I just want -- I know you touched on you would be willing to consider
expanding your recreational area with your pool to be maybe a public facility. That
would change that quite significantly and needing more parking, then, and a larger spot
for a pool. You are willing to go into discussions and see if that's something that the city
would be interested in doing?
Jewett: Absolutely.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, would that be a significant change?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't believe so. The Parks and
Rec. Commission would have -- they probably have more to say on that issue than the
planning department.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 43 of 63
Borton: From my perspective, for what it's worth, it would be a massive change to the
extent the city would ever be involved in providing a public pool within a subdivision and
that impact on the parking and clubhouse, in order to make it useful for the public would
be traumatic. I mean if it doesn't make each of those amenities four or five times as
large as they presently are in order to actually do it right for the benefit of the public. If
you're talking about venturing down that path, that's what I would have in mind to even
begin a second discussion.
Jewett: So, you would be talking a very large scale facility.
Borton: If it's a city pool, yeah.
Jewett: Okay. Yes, I would agree with you. I would agree that it's an undertaking. I
agree there is need. I don't know if that size is maybe appropriate right here and I can
go on and on about the public recreation, having three children and looking for more
avenues for them within the city. So, maybe it's not a discussion for this, but a
discussion for some other day, but I do agree that having public -- more public facilities
is a good thing. Whether this is the right place for a large facility, I will defer to your
decision on that.
De Weerd: But you're at least open for discussion on both sides?
Jewett: I think that my commitment to the library -- to the library, to the school, to the
fire station, it shows that my public involvement here is steadfast.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Follow up on that comment with regard to those amenities. Have you
completed either a donation or a sale of those parcels to the library district or the school
district?
Jewett: The school district transaction is all signed and the closing is soon. The library
just needs to finalize the contract. I think we are all aware that their bond failed in
November, but they are going to redo the bond and they think they have learned from
their mistakes and they are going to redo the bond in May, but they are committed to
close on the property now. They want to commit and we want to commit. The fire
department is waiting for the approval of the relocation of Overland for them to finish up
any negotiations with us. In both the transaction with the library and the school district,
there was a partial charitable donation and a partial cash. Basically, we sold it to them
for 50 cents on the dollar.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this point, Council? Anything from staff?
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 44 of 63
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to the pool, one option
may be -- or we have had developers in the past offer to make the homeowners
association facility available to some of the surrounding rural subdivisions. So, that may
be an opportunity, rather than making it a large scale public facility just to have -- open
up that opportunity maybe to some of the surrounding subdivisions.
De Weerd: I think it's just worth pursuing at least having the discussion and seeing -- I
would agree that if it were to stay as is, there needs to be better shielding or screening
type thing. Okay. If there is nothing further from Council --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I found another question that I had written down. I'm unclear as to what the
amenity is with the irrigation canal remaining uncovered. They would normally be tiled
north of the school site and I don't see a --
Jewett: This area right here?
Borton: Correct. It appears to be an attractive nuisance.
Jewett: Okay. What our vision was there -- first of all, its primary use right now is as a
drain ditch from the farming that's upstream and those farming operations upstream
were Bear Creek and Sear Creek West. You know, Bear Creek West -- Bear Creek is,
obviously, done and the church -- it starts with the Nazarene church, then, Bear Creek,
then, Bear Creek West. So, with all those projects being approved or completed or
moving forward, the amount of drain water will be minimized. So, what our vision was
to make it a riparian area that would still accept whatever drain water did come down,
but have some natural vegetation to have a more esthetic appeal than just tiling it over.
That's what our vision was. And I don't have a blow up of that and I apologize. Maybe,
Anna, one of your drawings that blew up the area for the school. Let me just touch on
that first. Oh. Back one. Okay. This was a -- just a drawing of what the library would
be. It's a lot different configuration. But one component that we did want to tie in with
the school and the library is this outdoor amphitheater and another pedestrian crossing
of this drain way. We want to bring the school into the library and the library into the
school. One of the things you notice at most elementary events -- you can't find a place
to park. Having this parking lot here now when you come to an event at the elementary
school, you can park here and come across the pedestrian, but, then, you can have
teachers within the school go over to the amphitheater during the day and do book
readings, plays -- there is options there. So, a component we tried to bring to this whole
thing is an open air feeling and I think that what we want to do is this riparian area here
just adds to that. I don't think we intended to make it a nuisance. I think we intend to
make it something that possibly some wildlife, some water fowl could still inhabit,
because there is a lot of duck, geese, quail in this area and this still would give them
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 45 of 63
some area to live and give something for kids and teachers to talk about. That's what
our vision was. We don't really think it's a nuisance.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. Thank you.
Jewett: Thank you.
De Weerd: Len, I guess we had several of the neighbors that surrounded this had
some concern about storm water and maybe also what this might have to do with their
drinking water. Could you address those concerns?
Grady: Madam Mayor, as far as storm water, we certainly could take a look at their
drainage plan. If you want to -- I mean if there is a concern, we can require a drainage
plan and review that as part of the final plat process.
De Weerd: I think if you can just kind of -- what is our process of review.
Grady: Well, in a case where we do have concerns we require a drainage plan and we
review it just to make sure that things are draining properly.
De Weerd: And the primary review, though, is through Ada County Highway District?
Grady: As far as any of the roads, you're correct. So, any of the normal storm drainage
would go through Ada County.
De Weerd: And do those take into consideration runoff and flow, so it doesn't affect
personal wells -- into individual wells?
Grady: Yeah. There shouldn't be any drain ditches or any of that type of stuff near any
of the wells. I think -- I don't believe there is going to be any problem there. And as far
as the quality of people's wells, I'm not sure what the depths of those wells are, but I'm
going to guess they are in the 100 to 200 foot range and to my knowledge nothing in
this area will affect that. There is no -- there is no conduit available that would get down
to that aquifer and affect it, to my knowledge.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, I would like to ask Mr. Nichols to come forward. I just
wanted to get a response on the fencing type. I know that you had mentioned vinyl.
We had another suggest a concrete masonry -- stamp concrete type of thing and the
developer's preference of wrought iron.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we were just discussing fencing in the
back of the room and we -- the difference in land use on Val Vista and the rest of the
subdivision I think is substantial enough that you need a solid fence. I mean a solid
fence of some sort. And I'm sure there is give and take there. You know, what will
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 46 of 63
happen next is that we need to pipe the irrigation ditch along our property, along the
north side of Val Vista, our property, there that borders South Ridge. But whether that
be vinyl or concrete, you know, cedar or whatever, you know, I think we are all emphatic
it needs to be -- should be solid. I think we all agree that, you know, if there is going to
be a walking path, an emergency way, or something through there, you know, that's
reasonable, if it ever connects. I don't want to speak for the rest of the residents. I
certainly -- you know, I understand my neighbors' perspective on the concrete wall, the
stamped concrete wall, but I also understand the cost and I have lived with cedar fences
before and I have had vinyl before, so I don't really have a preference, as long as it's
solid. So, from that perspective does that answer your question?
De Weerd: Well, yes, but, then, it creates another one. Then, how do you maintain the
property up against the fence? You know, I guess I'm envisioning this five acre parcel
and you have probably a lot of property up against that fence. Do you use a weed
whacker? Do you burn it? I mean --
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would use a weed whacker. I mean,
obviously, you're not going to burn it anymore. You know, that's just not going to
happen. We happen to have horses up against that property line. Curtis Elton to the
west has horses up against that property line. My neighbor to the east is an open
space. Quite park like. But, yeah, you would use a weed whacker on it. And I would
need to, you know, obviously, pipe the rest of my irrigation ditch. It's the very end of the
line. Curtis and I are on the end of the line there. So, that's what we would do, I think.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nichols: Okay.
De Weerd: Council, does that -- I know you didn't have the question, I did, but does that
create anymore questions for you? No? Thank you.
Nichols: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Jewett, I guess I have one more question for you. While I appreciate
your desire to include design criteria into the development agreement. I agree with that.
Because what we are also seeing a lot of is not just the redevelopment of these five
acre lots, we see a lot of developers flipping their property. And so the nice pretty
pictures we always see up on the screen, you drive by the subdivision and they don't
look like the pretty pictures that you thought they were building. So, if we were to tie
those pretty pictures into the development agreement until something is submitted to
change that, are you okay with that?
Jewett: Yes.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 47 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is no further questions or
information needed from staff, I would look for your direction on how you would like to
proceed.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no further comments, I would move to close the
Public Hearing on Items -- it's been so long I forgot the numbers.
De Weerd: Nine and ten.
Rountree: Nine and ten.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 9
and 10. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion? If no discussion--
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment about the transportation issue. It is an issue
and it's an issue with me and certainly an issue with some of the folks out there, as well
as the developer. It seems to me that the answer or the solution is going to come once
the transportation entities recognize what's going to happen in the immediate area
around Ten Mile. So, if you want to term it in the classic chicken and egg argument,
that's probably where it is. But I think we have an opportunity here, either way we go, to
send a message on what the transportation mayor may not look like in that area. In
addition, there has been some information provided this evening that sounds as if it
might be final. I think the question as it relates to transportation are not final and won't
be final for some time. Any land use that is progressing will to some degree dictate
what those final solutions are going to be, however. So, there is, no matter which way
we go, a bit of known here. I'm a bit uneasy with the mega lots, but, on the other side of
the coin, it's a pleasure to see something done in a master plan scale, as opposed to
five acres at a time, which we do get, and we have all kinds of issues with, many the
same as this large parcel and some of them even more difficult to solve. My inclination,
based on what I have heard this evening, is to probably lean towards approval with the
conditions that there are unknowns and that approval may have to be retracted. There
are some conditions that need to be added to staff comments. There is a significant
amount of work that needs to be done on a development agreement to cover all the
issues and concerns that I have seen. So, any approval that we would move forward
with I would suggest that those kinds of things need to be addressed in the motion. If,
on the other hand, it's determined that we deny the application, we certainly need to
move forward with the Ten Mile master plan for the city Comp Plan amendment in order
to have some idea for the transportation entities to plan to -- to ultimately get to a Ten
Mile interchange, which we all have been desirous of for a number of years. So, those
are my fence sitting comments, if you will.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 48 of 63
Bird: Mr. President?
Borton: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'll get in the middle of the fence, too. First of all, I'd like to -- Mr. Jewett, you have
got a nice design. I like it. I'm like Councilman Rountree, I like you coming in with
everything. I have some real concerns over the mega lots. This is one Councilman that
you can keep your swimming pool and your recreation center for the subdivision. I don't
want the city having to own a swimming pool. I think it's just great the subdivision has
one. My real concern on traffic is -- I like the restructure of Overland Road, but I wished
-- we don't know when west of Ten Mile, Overland, though, takes off, so we are creating
quite a bottleneck between Lamont and the new Overland Road. How many wrecks,
deaths, or something before they start that, we never know. And you might never have
a wreck there, I foresee -- I think that I'm like Mr. Rountree and the development
agreement, we need to put some -- tie some stuff up that we feel is necessary, so that
this does stay a number one development and we don't affect the people around it. Mr.
Shoemaker had some very good points about the traffic, about the runoff and all that
stuff, which we can take care of in the development agreement, but while we don't want
to hinder any of the existing subdivisions and stuff, we will -- you know, we should allow
you to go forward with a nice development, which I think you have got planned. So,
that's my fence sitting.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If I may throw in some additional comments. I have appreciated all the public
testimony and everybody'S time to come and make suggestions and offer things. I'm
not as uncomfortable with the mega lots, perhaps, as some of the others. We have had
other projects that have come through where there were several large lots reserved for
future re-subdivision. In this case they are probably bigger in size than any of the
previous issues, but the applicant has supplied a concept plan for them. When they are
re-subdivided or re-platted they will have to come back through I would assume for
public hearings -- I'm getting a nod from Director Canning. So, it isn't that we are just
saying, okay, the mega lots can be anything. They will come through again. I would
comment on the mega lot closest to Val Vista and the subject of the stub street down
there. I am actually pleased to hear that the Val Vista people are getting together and
attempting to strengthen their subdivision ordinance, so that -- one of the things that's
difficult is having a five acre lot in the middle of a subdivision like that get redeveloped.
I'm in favor of your move to prevent that. I think that's a good idea. Years and years
and years in the future that -- what makes that even better for the City of Meridian is
instead of having five acre redevelopments, if your entire subdivision has to agree to
change the nature of your subdivision, then, you're talking about all of you getting
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 49 of 63
together on what would be, what, a 70 acre parcel -- that to me is more attractive to the
City of Meridian and that could be 50 years from now, it could be, you know, two months
as the Mayor says. I suspect it's not going to be, but it could be 40, 50 years from now,
and, then, the opportunity to look at it as a 70 acre parcel to me is attractive, however
long from now that is. The issue with the mega lot next to it and where the stub street
goes, I agree that it mayor may not be the right alignment to have it focused on your
current narrowest lot. The purpose of having it there is that some day, 50 or 70 years
from now when that develops, that there is an alternate circulation pattern that's
available and as with many other subdivisions around the city, for a long time the stub
streets don't go anywhere. It does not -- it is not going to connect to Val Vista until all
14 of you agree that you're going to re-subdivide your lot. It will be a stub street that
ends somewhere. I agree with moving it when that mega lot is finally determined where
it's location is. It doesn't need to be where it's currently depicted as far as I'm
concerned. But to me I'm in favor of Val Vista strengthening your CC&Rs. I think there
is a much future benefit to that a long way down. I do agree with having a stub street
there somewhere, but I also want to say that doesn't mean it connects to Val Vista. It
stops at the property line that currently exists. The other parts of the transportation
aspects are actually exciting to me. I know there is issues that need to be worked out
and they are not all going to be final until the conjunction of the Ten Mile area plan and
the south Meridian area plan and the interchange -- there are going to be some things
that perhaps need to be flexible until it's actually put into concrete. But my feeling is on
whole this is a project that would be of benefit to the City of Meridian.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Borton.
Borton: Madam Mayor -- and I agree with and echo many of the comments the other
Council members have shared and some, you know, of the specific concerns. You
know, I asked questions about -- with regards to the park. I agree with Councilman
Bird, I'm not -- not only am I not necessarily in favor of this pool area becoming any
particular city amenity. I, for one, am not in favor of the park itself becoming a city park,
as opposed to being a neighborhood park. I think the comments -- I think it was Mrs.
Stone who articulated it very well about the problems created by having a private park
next to a -- excuse me -- a private pool and a clubhouse next to a public park. It's not a
problem I would want to take on for the city. I think a lot of the discussion about setback
requirements and road alignments -- Chief Anderson made reference to the alignment
with the Ten Mile and the lighted intersection very close to a secondary intersection with
Lamont. The vast unknowns which come with what could take place with an Overland
realignment as you head west and the gravel pit and the implications of that, versus an
Overland realignment, which I am in favor of, but perhaps one that extends further
south, perhaps providing temporary access onto Ten Mile until it can connect further
south at the intersection of Ten Mile and Lamont. There is opportunities to do things
that should we proceed forward with some of these questions that we are all a little
uncomfortable with. We are very impressed and pleased with what the developer has
done to try to master plan it. It sort of sets some things in stone which I'm
uncomfortable with. And in light of -- I think I made earlier remarks, if I recall, at the -- I
think it was the Bear Creek West discussion, I made some general comments about
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 50 of 63
concern with infrastructure from transportation, to school capacity, there is a variety of
sewer capacity and things Mr. Grady made reference to. There is a variety of things
that make me not particularly rushed to approve a project like this. My inclination is to
not proceed forward with it in light of the concerns and in saying that I'm not expressing
dissatisfaction with the entire project by any means, but all in all the questions are too
great for me to proceed forward with approval.
De Weerd: Council, I guess I hear a couple of questions and it might be worthy of
continuing this to allow the developer time to maybe bring back why connecting to
Lamont -- I know it's been discussed. It was discussed during the charrette, it's been
discussed during the Ten Mile interchange design, and so I do think that he needs a
chance to maybe bring some of that back and we probably need a response from Ada
County Highway District, too. A little bit more specific than we have gotten to this point.
I would also like staff to maybe bring back language on that stub road that we want to
move westward that impacts Val Vista. I believe that in -- it was Redfeather that had a
impact on a private lane and it was suggested if that were ever to redevelop, that stub
street would, then, go forth and that it addressed the road improvements that would be
needed to that rural built roadway. So, maybe we could reference that development
and some of the things that were brought forth on that, because we do know when
roads are connected, rural and lack of sidewalks and all of that is a major concern, if
that ever were to happen. We have asked our community to develop larger, so we start
seeing greater -- bigger picture things. Too often we get five acres here and 20 there
and 60 there and we never see a picture and so I appreciate the neighbors working with
this developer in trying to find something that -- they know it will eventually happen,
because you can't run out and buy every field behind you. I know. I tried. My kids have
moved schools -- my 13 year old I don't think has ever gone to a school her siblings
have gone to, because of the boundary changes. But that's -- that's kind of the growth
pattern that we are in. I was amazed when I found out that Mountain View a couple
years ago, 40 percent of the kids in that school were from Meridian, the rest were from
Boise. So, it's not just Meridian that's filling these schools, it's everyone, and that's why
it always shifts and has an ebb and flow to the attendance districts. It concerns me, but
it is -- it is part of the aspect. I would ask staff that if Council decides to move forward
with this, to put in something a little greater on the dust abatement and I think it's a
standard comment that we need to knew put in all of our subdivisions and maybe that
the developer were to hand out his personal phone number, because I have been one
of those houses that gets inundated with dust and it's not pleasant and it may be
temporary for six month, but it certainly effects your quality of life during construction.
Council, I guess I would ask for your direction, if some of these questions are pressing
enough to continue for a week to get further information or if you are at a point where
you can make a decision.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 51 of 63
Bird: On whether we want to go forward or do it now -- but my main concern is if we go
forward, would the clerk get the minutes from all the ACHD meetings, because we have
heard two or three different testimonies on what was said and what was implied and
stuff, so we can read them. I would like to see that. Right now I don't know if I'm
prepared to make a motion and get everything in the development agreement that
needs to get there, if we go ahead with it. I would be in favor right now of reopening the
public hearings, continuing it for a week, unless we are filled up next week, if -- so we
will go two weeks or three weeks and just come back with the certain ideas that we
want to hear, not the whole public that we have already heard. I'd like to see the
minutes from ACHD, because we got three or four different views on what transpired at
the ACHD hearings and what was said and what wasn't said, so I'd like to hear them
and I have got some other questions I'd like to be able to look into.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg and Dean, maybe we can get a copy of the Council portion of the
discussion and staff can bring back information for -- that helps address the concerns
that have been expressed and maybe bring back further information from Ada County
Highway District on some of the discussions they have had and perhaps we can ask
Gary to be prepared to testify and give us an update as well.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was unclear on the first thing you
said about getting --
De Weerd: Getting a copy of the minutes, so you know what all the comments or issues
have been expressed by Council. That might help you in preparing for when this is
brought back.
Canning: So, you -- I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what -- the
request I heard of staff was to bring back language on moving the stub west, to provide
what will become a standard condition regarding dust abatement and Jim Jewett's
phone number. I have that. And to get -- the clerk was going to get minutes from the
ACHD meeting, but if there are other items I would prefer you -- if you could tell me
what they are, because I'm not sure what I would be looking for in the minutes.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I was going to kind of go this direction in support of
Councilman Bird as well to perhaps reopen the hearing and continue it. And my thought
was that what I would like to see would be a more final version of what the development
agreement is going to be, the items that Director Canning has already mentioned and
what I was going to do was add things to them. An agreement on what the minimum
setback would be. I -- we haven't discussed that, but my personal opinion is that we
already have an ordinance that defines the setbacks. The applicant is offering out of his
own goodness to increase that to help satisfy the neighbors. My personal feeling is that
50 feet may be a little excessive. The applicant's compromise of 35 or 40 sounds better
to me. Same thing in the development agreement about the heights. If 22 feet is the
agreed amount, then, we -- I guess what I'm looking for is a final version of the
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 52 of 63
development agreement. It would include in it the statements the staff has asked for
about the design review and about the maximum of 1,252 and a minimum of 1,000
residential units through the whole thing. I assume the eventual decision about the
fence needs to be in the development agreement. Am I missing anything? I'm just
trying to make the list and support the idea of seeing the development agreement
before we make the final decision.
De Weerd: And that would include the language that we had -- and I pulled the
subdivision out of my head, so -- I think it was Redfeather. If you could bring that and if
the stub were ever to connect, who would be responsible for the road improvements
and those kind of questions, because we did have this discussion a couple years ago
on that. Fencing type, Council, that's something that would have to be stated as well.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Just a comment on if Val Vista ever redevelops, they may have an entirely
different road alignment that would satisfy that redevelopment. I wouldn't -- normally,
whoever does the subdivision, it's their responsibility to connect to the old stub road and
whatever improvement they need.
De Weerd: Well, I have already been sold on Mr. Nichols vision that those will be
preserved to a five acre paradise in the middle of an area that -- and that sold me. If I
had the money I would buy a lot, the one that needs to be sold.
Zaremba: Well, Madam Mayor, that being true, the stub street --
De Weerd: But, then, you would have to annex it, because I have to live in the city
limits.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, that being true, then, the stub street would never connect, so
it doesn't become an issue until all the property owners agree they want to re-divide the
whole 70 acres and, then, it would connect to probably a totally new street.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: What's the consensus of the Council? What do you want to do? I mean I'll vote.
I'll continue, whatever you want to do. I can vote tonight if somebody can make a
motion to get all the points in.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, my preference would be to not see a final development
agreement by any sense of the word, but at least an array of the things we have talked
about tonight, to commitments that have been made by the developer in testimony. A
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 53 of 63
couple things I would add to Councilman Zaremba's list is that there be solid fencing. I
would be inclined to agree with vinyl. In terms of a setback, I believe 30 feet would
probably be adequate. I would like just to explore the opportunity to provide a stub --
and it could be one or two lots to the west of where it's proposed on the current map. A
22 foot home height I'm okay with, but we need to establish the base line. Is that from
the center line of the road? Is that the highest grade of the lot? You know, what's the
point of reference? And I think we have some standard language that will address that
in Public Works. I would like to see the streets accommodate to the public transit in
terms of bus stops, benches, possibility of some park and ride near or at major
intersections within the development. I'm inclined to agree that it probably ought to be a
private park and pool. I have the same issues that Mrs. Stone has about you have one
or the other. Having been in the park business and still in the park business
occasionally, it's very difficult. If this does come to pass, the folks that live out there are
going to have extreme ownership in that, so I think probably that might be the best thing
and not have the city involved in it. Speak specifically about the architectural guidelines
and when they will be done and the city will have input in those and a say in them and
that they will be done before any land transactions take place. I want it made clear in
the development agreement that on the mega lots that at some point in time in the
future if there is variances required in order to make it fit the particular zoning
designation that might be assigned, don't bother coming back. Going to make it work.
And, then, on the other side of the coin, take a look at the public interest for the City of
Meridian on whether or not this is the right thing and the right time to do it. So. I'm not
precluding the possibility of a motion that would deny the request.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can help you on all of them but the
last one there.
De Weerd: And that's the chicken and the egg question. He just wanted you to bring
that one back.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: In light of the list, which I do think would be extremely valuable, additional
information for all of us, the choices, Anna, to proVide that response appear to be one
week or three. It looks like agendas and things to be opened are January 23rd or
February 16th. I'm curious how much time do you think you would like?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the items that you have included I
think could be -- with the help of the city attorney's office we can get a draft
development agreement to you. Usually, we just give you the provisions of that
development agreement in your staff report, but we can go ahead and do a draft
development agreement. Most of them, from what I'm seeing, shouldn't take us long to
prepare, it's just a matter of adding language to that document. So, I think we could
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 54 of 63
shoot for next week. To get that in your packet we have to have it to you by Friday. So,
it is a short turnaround, but I think it would be doable.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, the thing is, though, even getting it to us would be nice and sooner would
probably be better. But we got to get it to the developer so he can have any -- his
responses to it. And we need to get that all back by -- you know, his responses should
show up here by Monday.
De Weerd: I'll bet he will be right there when she has it done. I just suspect that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have to confess, I made a
commitment to Mr. Jewett when he agreed to realign Overland Road at our request, I
said I would help to keep this on track and if -- because he did that at our request. So, I
would like to shoot for a week. If we don't hit that target, we could continue it, but I
would like to shoot for the one week, if possible.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just to clarify -- maybe I'm not getting the semantics right. I'm not sure that I,
myself, or other of us are actually asking to see the finished development agreement.
The normal list that goes into the report cleaned up is what I'm looking for.
Canning: Okay.
Zaremba: And I think that can be even faster.
De Weerd: Appreciate that clarification. And in regard to the chicken and the egg, I still
think that we do need to have that information on why the alignment did not work with
Lamont and a response from ACHD. I think that would help perhaps with some of the
discussion that we have had. I certainly know on both sides of me that it would have
been.
Canning: And the response from ACHD is just with regard to Lamont; correct?
De Weerd: Lamont and the public process--
Canning: Okay.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 55 of 63
De Weerd: -- of this realignment. And perhaps -- I think it was -- oh, we have that in
front of us. So, give Council a chance to look through what Lochner and Washington
Group have put together, too.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment that I don't believe anybody who testified has left the room
and I would, therefore, offer a motion to reopen the Public Hearing and continue it to
January 23rd, 2007.
Bird: I would second that and, then, I want discussion.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second with discussion. Well, I usually -- you
don't have discussion on --
Bird: No. Just open it and, then, we will talk.
De Weerd: All those in--
Zaremba: Other than to clarify I meant the Public Hearing on AZ 06-031 and PP 06-
031.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On voting aye on reopening this, I don't want anybody to think that this one
Councilman is not still open-minded and it is definitely not a slam dunk or a denial,
either one. I'm here to listen and -- but by reopening it it is not guaranteed favorable to
the applicant.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Are you opening it for limited -- for what you --
Bird: Well, I hope we are just limiting it. That's up to the maker of the motion.
Zaremba: That was my intent. I perhaps didn't phrase it carefully, but it would be to
basically review the elements of the development agreement, I believe.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 56 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in your motion to continue this matter
you can certainly limit the testimony that you want to receive at the next hearing and
maybe -- I think what I have heard and Mrs. Canning has heard is you want at least a
rough list of the conditions that you have discussed and placed on the record and the
developer has agreed to in regards to some of the limitations on this project, you
wanted information from the highway district in regards to the reasons that they had or
concerns their staff may have had regarding the alignment of Overland with Lamont, as
well as what future steps they wish to take in regards to that discussion and how that's
going to be done in regard to the Lamont-Overland with the connections in that area, as
well as the intersections. I think if those are the areas I thought I heard, then, you can
just include that in your motion.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: With great appreciation to Mr.' Nary for having expressed exactly what I was
thinking without clarifying it --
Nary: Lucky guess.
Zaremba: -- the maker of the motion incorporates what he said.
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. And is that what we all voted on? Oh, we didn't vote. Okay. If there
is nothing further, we do have open a Public Hearing and direction to come back next
week. Thank you. Thank you all for coming this evening. Okay. Item 11 is a Public
Hearing on Proposed Fees for the Mayor's State of the City Address. Council, I'm going
to break for five minutes.
(Recess. )
Item 11:
Public Hearing: Proposed Fees for Mayor's State of the City Address
to offset costs for the event:
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open tonight's City Council meeting again. The
next item is Item 11 with the Public Hearing and I would like to start this discussion,
since I saw the headlines in the newspaper and just about freaked out, but -- so, it
seems that we need a little bit better education process here. Since I became Mayor
we have really tried hard to make the State of the City more of a community event and
open it up for not just chamber members. The first year we had 200 people and we
don't have very many venues in the City of Meridian that allows 200 people to come to a
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 57 of 63
State of the City and sit down and eat lunch. The next time we had it we had 500
people and we had the Jabil building and that was a temporary fix and they even had
cut it off and were turning people away. So, that necessitated a different venue.
Certainly, we do not have a facility in the city that will accommodate more than 500
people for a sit down meal and I will not bring it to Nampa or Boise and I will not turn
people away. The State of the City is our opportunity to let the community know the
good things that our city employees are doing to the common interest and the common
good and so last year the venue had to change, we couldn't have a sit down meal, and
because it was different there were issues or issues to work out and it was the chamber
board who said I think the city needs to do this and I agreed. So, that is why we are
here today. During the budget process we did have this discussion. Ten thousand
dollars was -- was contrived by a thousand people being able to fit in the Meridian
Middle School times ten. So, you got a 10,000 dollar figure and that was an estimate.
Until we put this on it's really hard to guess on what the attendance will be, but as the
article pointed out, I think the major expense is food and you will find that with this, too.
Even though we are having a Taste of Meridian that will have the tasting of the best of
Meridian is what we are calling it and we are inviting the participants in the State of the
City to partake and get a Taste of Meridian in several different ways. So, that in front of
you is a sketch budget of -- that Stacy and Ron worked together to try and look at what
hard costs would be. Variable costs are certainly those on -- depending on how many
people will be participating or be -- yeah, participating in attending the event. So,
Council, I had shared you some of the information that -- previous we did get comments
back and incorporated them into the information that is in front of you. We do want this
to be available to all businesses and all citizens in the city to participate and don't get
me wrong, the chamber did not exclude, but I do know that if you weren't a chamber
member you couldn't be a food vendor and, you know, again this is for the community of
Meridian and we wanted our statement as open to all and we did not want to limit that
and the chamber is a partner to this, they are working together with our staff and
promoting the event. They have a member on our planning committee and so this
wasn't the end of a partnership, it's just a different partnership. And I would open this
up to any of the public who is out there who would like to testify. Thank you for your self
restraint, Chief Anderson. And I know that the article writer has nothing to do with what
headliners write, but the 10,000 dollars was certainly something that -- it's money in,
money out, and it's not any taxpayer dollars. This is an event that is planned as break
even and if we are fortunate to have more than that break even, we have stated to our
sponsors that any proceeds would go into our MIAC scholarship funds. So, Council, do
you have questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I see we have got a projected income of pretty dad gum good. How many of our
sponsors and stuff do we feel we have got in place?
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 58 of 63
De Weerd: We have a number of commitments. Until we have your approval tonight
we did not want to solidify any of those prior to your -- but we have had so much, you
know, interest from our businesses and -- both large and small, that have -- it's been
very heartening to see the community really get behind this and say we want to make it
our event. Businesses and citizens alike. So, we can share that, Mr. Bird, as those are
solidified. Okay. We do have commitment from -- I believe St. Luke's and we are
moving forward, because they are the title sponsor and they do need to be put on any
material that goes on. So, we have been placing their logo, but, certainly, that is not
concrete either.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for the purposes of the record to Council, because this is a little unique for
us with this type of Public Hearing. We do lots of public hearings on fees. These are
sponsorships and we felt it was the safest route to make sure that there is no question
in the public's mind that these are sponsorships and that are being charged and if
anybody perceives them to be a fee, that we follow the correct process to institute that.
So, that's why it's in front of you. I know you haven't seen something like this before.
Most of the fees are normally pretty routine and related to licenses and services and
those types of things. but just for the purpose of the record, we just want to make it clear
that if anyone were to perceive that this is some sort of fee that the city was charging
that that's why we are holding a Public Hearing to make sure that's all up front and open
with everyone and that the amounts that are being charged and what they relate to and
what they are for is very clear and up front, so --
De Weerd: And, Council, one other thing is an expense that is being sponsored and I
would imagine several will be sponsoring it, is we will be producing an annual report that
will be printed and available at the event and so that is a cost that because it would
have -- it was never figured into the event, would have been absorbed by our taxpayers,
that this is an event that will cover those -- those costs to put out that form of
information.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If this is an opportunity to comment, my comments, actually, aren't directed
at this year, they would be directed to perhaps future years. I have wondered in the
past if there really had to be a meal served and I wonder if there might be consideration
in future years of perhaps setting up half the hall for meals and the rest of it just with
chairs and charging people a dollar, instead of charging the people for meals, whatever
that fee is, but other people a dollar. And the second piece of that, as the city grows
and grows, might there not be some opportunity to bend the arm of one of the local TV
stations to broadcast it live?
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 59 of 63
De Weerd: It is being broadcast live. Channel 7 is using their 24/7 channel and it will
be televised and replayed as well and so, you know, that happened last year and I think
the year before. So, they have had real commitment to all of the communities and the
mayor's state of the city to provide 24/7 type of coverage. So, that is available. Again,
as even the Marriott opens up I believe they will have seating capacity for maybe 300.
But, again, it's hard to fit those that would be seated only and I just have an issue with
turning people away. And we have a great relationship with the school district. This
venue, we will see if it works. We learned from last year and we have fine tuned it and,
hopefully, the fine tuning that we have done this year will show a successful model and
if it doesn't, it will be tweaked again and we will see how we can make it work to the
benefit of the community as a whole. And this is not exclusive of an entity partnering
with us, it's just ours right now.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: In light of what you presented, it appears to me to be consistent with what I see
from the city as a whole and your leadership in the Meridian lead to the extent you're
providing a masterpiece in the making, which includes our local dining facilities, musical
demonstrations, theater demonstrations, all encompassing your efforts to display the
great things that the City of Meridian has done. I think it's fantastic. Your efforts I think
are trying to think outside the box and present a bigger and better State of the City and
if these sponsorship opportunities help provide that to our citizens, I have no problem
with it. And we haven't tried this before. Hopefully it works. I know the reason that it's
being presented Is to provide more information and a better product to our citizens and
the participants. I think it's fantastic. I think if anyone else is asking why we are
including all of these different aspects into the State of the City, I would ask why not. I
think you probably asked that and I applaud you for doing so and I'm anxious to see
how this goes forward. So, the proposed fees are -- I have no objection to.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Seeing the spin that was in the newspaper this past week versus what my
knowledge of what was actually happening here, they are two different things and it
seems to me that this event is for the Meridian community and anybody who wants to
participate and it's by the Meridian community and anybody who wishes to participate.
It's not a taxpayer activity per se. The items in the budget, in order for the city to be
able to spend those sponsorship fees that people voluntarily bring forward, without it
being in the budget, the city couldn't spend those volunteer dollars. So, to me there was
an erroneous message sent to the public. I question why we are calling these fees. I
think these are volunteer efforts, people out of their own desire to be recognized as part
of our community and willing to contribute to the betterment of our community and
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 60 of 63
spreading this message, as opposed to a fee, but if we have to treat them as fees, so
be it. I don't have any particular issue with the sponsorship amounts that have been
identified and apparently quite willingly accepted within the community and given the
amount of folks that have come forward and are desirous of sponsoring this event.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. You know, as staff we weren't quite sure how to
move forward and what to call them. I do know that we as a city, when we started the
March for Parks, we had sponsorships and this kind of thing and I think, you know, with
Gatsby and different auditing processes and procedures, that things are just a little bit
different and we needed to plug the square in the round hole or peg in the round hole,
whatever, so -- I have been driving all day. If there is any concerns now is the time to
share them as we have -- staff has been very busy in pulling all of this together and are
anxious to solidify it and move forward.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: The fact, at least for this Councilman, the fact that Mr. Coulter has agreed to do
a skit I think really seals it for me.
De Weerd: I wouldn't really say that Ron is the taste of talent, but, you know, he's part
of it. It's the talent of coordination, right, Ron? Okay. Well, this is a Public Hearing. If
that's all the information that you need, I would consider a --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Unless any of you have comments. Ralph, anything?
Bird: Anybody?
De Weerd: Hillary? Frank? See, I know our public by name. That was pretty cool.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on the--
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item
11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Resolution No. 07..547
State of the City Address:
Adopting Fees for the Mayor's
De Weerd: Item 12 is resolution--
Meridian City CounCil
January 16, 2007
Page 61 of 63
Bird: Wait a minute. Oh, that's a resolution.
De Weerd: Resolution number what?
Bird: 07-547.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to adopt Resolution 07-547.
Zaremba: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Zaremba and a second by Mr. Bird. Any
discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please call roll.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, normally you will have directed us to
prepare a resolution approving the fees. Because of the time here, we have put them
on the resolution tonight. So, if you approve the resolution you have approved the fees,
so -- normally you would have had a gap and that's usually -- probably what the
question is.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, I think we are ready.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Could I ask an effective date, because it's blank on
the resolution?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, would that effective date to be effective today?
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion maker is Mr. Zaremba. Is the effective date today?
Zaremba: I accept the effective date of -- is it still the 16th? Yes, it is. January 16th,
2007.
De Weerd: Second agrees?
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
January 16, 2007
Page 62 of 63
Item 13:
Ordinance No. 07..1288 AZ 06..049 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Larkspur South
Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC - 230 & 240 Edmonds
Court:
Item 14:
Ordinance No. 07..1289 AZ 06..044 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark
Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Rountree and Mr. Bird were anxious to have a tie breaker
there. Okay. Could I have the ordinances for 13 and 14? Number.
Bird: 07-1288 and 07-1289.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these two ordinances, 13 and 14, by
title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 07-1288, an
ordinance for annexation of property being classified as Section Edmonds Subdivision,
Book 33, Page 2050, Ada County Plat Records within the northwest quarter of the
southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of
the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining
the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-8 in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required
by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 07-1289, an ordinance for annexation of property being a portion of
the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 3
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A
and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent
and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City
of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said
lands from RUT to R-4 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance
shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the
ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an
effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard these two ordinances read by title
only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none,
Council?
Meridian City Council
January 16. 2007
Page 63 of 63
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approved ordinances 07-1288 and 07-1289 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve ordinances on Items 13
and 14. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Just one thing before I seek a motion to adjourn. I know that
both Keith and Charlie have indicated an interest in attending Mayor Dale's state of the
city tomorrow. Ron, am I the only one going? Were you or Shelly going to that? I was
asking a question. If the answer is no, that's okay. But they would like tickets, so if you
can arrange that in the morning, that would be great. Thank you.
Bird: You will get us some tickets, Ron? I'll just pay for it.
De Weerd: Okay. We'd entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
\\\\\l.\i~ ~~ ii: ;f/I.:,,/
\\\\'_J Or Mtrt~I/III:'
" A , "
" ,..'\," .,---... '~""
-.::- V" ~~>Dn'" "'(. "'..
." ~""''ir", <r ~.
~ <~.~
- -
(JreJlde",,"C J;€ 1$(7l-r~ ~ TT~;M ~
- "Y
\ ~~~r- 181 . ,.....
..... .. "
"... ~ 4"1,-,'
"'/ ., "
/1111 "(. \\\\\
1///111111 1l'\I\\\\\
2- /6 / tJ7
DATE APPROVED