HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 01-23
Meridian City Council Meetina
January 23. 2007
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday,
January 23,2007, 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, Gene Trakel, Ron
Anderson, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and get tonight's meeting started. Good evening.
We appreciate you all joining us here this evening. It is Tuesday, January 23rd. For the
record it is five minutes after 7:00. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call
attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge
by Jason Ingersoll. If you will all raise and join us in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by William Nary.
De Weerd: Jason, I have a City of Meridian pin to offer you as our thanks for leading
us. Okay. Item No.3 is our community invocation and I do not see Pastor Slyter. Is he
here tonight? So, as a substitute for Pastor Gordon Slyter we have our own City
Attorney Bill Nary who will lead us in the community invocation. Please join us or take
this as an opportunity for a moment of silence.
Nary: Thank you, Mayor. Lord, thank you for bringing us all together this evening, God,
citizens and leaders alike, God, to discuss the issues of the day, the issues of our
community, the pressing needs that we have in our city. Please grant us all wisdom
and the opportunity to share these ideas in a common forum and in a common way to
be able to reach the best consensus. Please bless this opportunity for this exchange to
be both civil and worthwhile and a good sharing of ideas. Lord, we ask for these
blessings upon our city and leadership, Lord, in these names we pray, amen.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 2 of 72
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Item 4, adoption of the agenda.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Item B on the Consent Agenda has requested to be tabled to February 27th,
2007. And Items 12 and 13 on the regular agenda -- or excuse me -- on the regular
agenda have been asked to be continued -- need to be continued to February 6th and
with those amendments I move we adopt the agenda.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 2, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
056 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 acres from RUT to
R-4 zone for Clearsprinas Subdivision by Mike Hill - 1035 East
McMillan Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 residential lots and
2 common lots on 5.2 acres in the proposed R-4 zone for
Clearsprinas Subdivision by Mike Hill - 1035 East McMillan
Road:
E. Approve Doa Licensina Designee Agreement with Meridian
Veterinary Hospital at 415 W. Franklin Road:
F. Approve Dog licensing Designee Agreement with Treasure
Vallev Vet Hospital at 2600 S. Meridian Road:
G. Approve Doa licensing Designee Agreement with Pet Care
Clinic at 1151 E. Fairview Avenue:
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 3 of 72
H. Approve Doa Licensing Designee Agreement with Idaho
Humane Society at 4775 Dorman, Boise:
I. Access Easement between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and
Rosario Place Limited Partnership (Grantee) for Vehicle and
Equipment Access to Grantee's Storage Yard:
J. Public Works Change No. 1 of Contract with Civil Survey
Consultants for Design of Water and Sewer Improvements in
Coniunction with ACHD Eagle. Victory to Ridenbauah Canal
Proiect for a Cost of $3,982.75:
K. Public Works Budget Amendment for Full Time Person for
Environmental Specialist:
L. Addendum to Joint Powers Agreement for Meridian Rural Fire
Protection District Firefighter and Life Preservation Service
Contract:
M. Change Order No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Meridian and LCA Architects to Add
Commissioning and LEED Services:
De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: With Item 5-B being tabled to February 27th, 2007, I move that we approve the
Consent Agenda as amended and for the Mayor to sign -- I'm reading the bottom here.
For the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second for our Consent Agenda. 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.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 4 of 72
A. Public Works Department
1. Mutual Cooperation Agreement with United Water Idaho.
Inc. :
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. Item 6 under Department Reports. We will
start tonight's report with Public Works. Len. Oh. Brad.
Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council members. As you know, normally, these
agreements -- most agreements that the Public Works Department has are simply on
Consent Agenda and don't get a lot of discussion. This is one that we thought should
be in front of you both to provide a little background on some of the highlights of this
agreement, as well as give you the opportunity to question me, Len, or Mr. Greg Wyatt
from United Water is here in attendance to answer any questions you might have. And I
know you have a long agenda, so I will try to keep this brief and hit the high points, but
-- maybe just to back up. A little bit on the history of where this has come from. Not too
many years ago United Water and the City of Meridian weren't what you would call
amiable and this agreement, I believe, probably started the day I called Greg at his
office and said, oh, by the way, we are going to protest your latest filing with PUC and
so over the course of months in meetings and so some fairly involved discussions, we
came to the point where Council approved a stipulation that was approved by the Public
Utilities Commission, we dropped our protest, United Water changed their filing with the
PUC, and we came away with that with the understanding that we would work towards
this mutual cooperation agreement. So, Len and I met with Mr. Wyatt and I guess it's
Chief Engineer Scott Reed quite a few times and we talked about a lot of issues,
primary among those was service area. This agreement nails down as best we can at
this point in time what the other service areas are going to be both for United Water
around our perimeter and for the City of Meridian. And I guess before I get too far into
this, just to dish out the thank you's, Len did the majority of the leg work in these
negotiations. He and Scott and Greg met several times without me and went through
the mechanics, did a really good job. So, just a few highlights on this agreement. You
might reference the map at the very back and I guess my one caveat on the map is that
it shows the proposed area of impacts. That has nothing to do with sewer, that has
nothing to do with anything, but this agreement with United Water and that's what we
started with or ended with with Greg and his staff. Part of this agreement shows that
United Water will continue to serve north of Chinden. They already have facilities in
part of that area, including the area that's now in our area of impact and our
Comprehensive Plan. So, that would include I think subdivisions such as the Tree Farm
and any other applications that are coming forward. We will provide sanitary sewer to
that area. It also provides that anything that is existing within our area of impact, either
existing or proposed, would continue to be served by United Water. Now, at this point I
do want to point out that there is an existing facility south of Chinden and it's the Holy
Apostle Church and they are connected to United Water. They have their own on-site
sewer system. My recommendation as far as this agreement is that we continue to
allow that to be served by United Water. The facilities are in place and functioning. At
some point in time I do believe that those on-site sewer facilities that Holy Apostle has
Meridian City Council
January 231 2007
Page 5 of 72
could fail, .as well as the potential for them to expand southward and they would need
sanitary sewer from the City of Meridian. I just want to make that clear that that's what
this agreement entails. One of the other highlights is that we have what's called a gray
area along our -- mostly along our eastern boundary with the city of Boise and United
Water. This gray area is simply an area which -- where each utility could potentially
serve development and, really, the key to that is going to be whether Boise city sewer
can serve it or whether Meridian sewer can serve it. If Meridian sewer can serve it,
then, Meridian water will follow along. That's really what this means. If Boise city sewer
ends up taking it and we say that that's okay based on discussions between engineering
staffs, then, United Water will serve it. There is one other highlight to point out. It talks
about sewer billing and consumption data. I want to emphasize that just provides the
framework for the details that we will be putting together for not only the billing
department, but for IT and how we get that data from United Water in order to bill sewer
accounts that have United Water Service. We have to work out some of these technical
issues with IT, finance, billing, building and even plan review and engineering. So, all
I'm trying to say is this is not the end all and be all that will make this work. There is still
some leg work to do and some details to workout. I think those are the highlights that I
had keyed on. If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. As I said,
Mr. Wyatt's here to answer any questions as well and with that I will close.
De Weerd: Brad, I guess I would, first, like to start with my congratulations to both you
and to Mr. Wyatt for -- and certainly your staffs for entering into these discussions and
working on a communication that is essential in today's environment and absolutely
necessary. So, we appreciate the due diligence on both sides to find an agreement and
to find compromise and to move forward. I think that speaks well to both entities.
Watson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Brad, as it relates to billing and some of the details yet to be
identified, do you have a timeline established and agreed to with your staff, as well as
United Water that -- for instance, the consumption data and the sewer billing process
will be worked out before we have any hook-ups?
Watson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, we actually -- I
shouldn't say we. IT and billing staff actually did have a preliminary meeting with United
Water staff last fall to at least look at the details of this. I didn't want to mobilize the
troops, so to speak, until I was sure that Council was okay with this and I had a read on
it. I don't think that any of these problems -- or not problems, but any of these
coordination issues are that complicated. We certainly will get it in before any of those
properties north of Chinden are up and running. It's a matter of months to me.
Rountree: Okay.
Watson: At the most.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 6 of 72
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any other questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Wyatt, would you like to make any comments?
Wyatt: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I do appreciate the opportunity to stand
before you and join with you in this -- in what for us is a great opportunity to continue to
work together in a cooperative nature and I do thank Len and Brad and their staffs for
the work that they have put into this and their cooperative effort. It's always a give and
take, as any negotiation seems to be, and just the professionalism with which they
showed themselves I was impressed and I appreciate that. We are continuing to look
for opportunities where we can cooperate together as water providers in this valley and
so if -- as those opportunities present themselves and if we have opportunities to
present again before you, I just would just thank you for your time and ask for those
opportunities. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you.
Watson: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there was one somewhat
related item that I just wanted to bring up before we got too far into this agreement. We
are also at least looking for a little feedback on something that we have been exploring
with United Water in terms of emergency connections. Both staff have reviewed an
agreement that would provide for a facility where we could, in an emergency situation,
feed each others' systems and only in an emergency. Granted there are a lot of details
to work out and we are working through those, but I guess we are just looking for either
a raised eyebrow or an okay to proceed on that issue.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, I think that's a great idea and I -- you know, it's a -- it's something that we
can certainly use as a back up and I think both entities could and not only us, but I think
United Water would benefit from something like that and I would be very much in favor
of it.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I, too, would be in favor of it. It certainly provides an
opportunity to increase the fail safe aspect of the water system to all the customers in
both sides of the water line, so, yeah, I think that's something we need to explore.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 7 of 72
Watson: Okay.
Borton: Agreed.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would call that a stroke of genius and say at-a-boy.
Watson: We will give them -- we will give United Water credit. They approached us on
this first. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything to add, Len?
Grady: Yeah. That was pretty much it, Madam Mayor, was several months ago they
approached us for this emergency connection. I think we are down to some of the finer
details as to who can open the valves and, you know, what the procedures are, who
calls -- who calls who on a Christmas Eve at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning type of thing,
and, then, United Water has that agreement now and as they get comments back to us
we will be presenting it to you for -- ultimately for approval, so --
De Weerd: They have that agreement that they are one to call at 1 :00 a.m? Thank
you, Mr. Wyatt. You're double time; right. Thank you. Well, we appreciate this
partnership and our glad to see it moving forward, so thank you -- thank you all.
Rountree: Do you need a motion to --
De Weerd: Yes, we do.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve the mutual cooperation agreement between the City of
Meridian and United Water.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agreement before you. Mr.
Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Parks Department
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 8 of 72
1. Approval of Park Direction Signs for Roadways:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6-B is our Parks Department. Mr. Strong.
Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I handed out prior to the
meeting a packet with hopefully answers to the questions that you asked me to bring
back to you from last week's department report related to directional signage to parks
and I will just go through these an item at a time. There was a question about
maintenance and what we discovered in talking to ACHD staff is that ACHD will install
and maintain the signs; however, we have to provide the signs for them to place. The
life expectancy of the signs as designed -- as specified is around ten years, certainly,
unless they are vandalized or some other situation like that, but they are about a ten
year life span. There was a question about size of the signs and the ~ample that was
provided to you last week was a -- what we are proposing as a standard 24 inch by 30
inch sign. ACHD does place up to 30-by-30 inch signs on corridors where speeds --
higher speeds like along Eagle Road and other areas like that where cars are
approaching much faster and a larger sign is easier to see from some distance when
you1re going at speeds. So, there would be the possibility of altering assigned corridors
like Eagle Road or where speed limits are faster. All signs have at least a three inch
letter, so that they can see -- be seen from a reasonable distance, so that they can
make the turn. The color that was proposed in the packet is what's being standardized
by ACHD for directional signs to get people to parks and other similar facilities, so we
are proposing staying with that color. Also, I discussed last week that what we are
including on the sign is the city logo, so that it identifies that if you're looking for
Seasons Park that it is a city park, it's not a homeowners park or some other facility, it's
kind of the standard brand for city facilities in the way that we are looking at it. And,
then, the last question was where would the signs be located. In discussions with
ACHD currently when you look at our -- the city website and you go under parks and
you look for a specific park, you will find an icon or a place that you can click that you
can get directions to the park. We are using those directions to the park for possible
corners or suggested corners for placement of signs and you have some -- the map as
it appears in the website that's presented to you and there is a red X where we are
going to propose to ACHD that the signs go. The final decision is ACHD's decision
where they actually are placed. But we feel it's probably most practical to place signs
on the corners that are described as directions to the park in the website when people
are looking for how to get someplace. So, with that much description I will certainly
stand for questions again and, hopefully, this will satisfy your questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 9 of 72
Rountree: Just a suggestion on your sign placement. Folks are going to be coming
from multiple directions to some of these parks and your X marking the spot only
indicates one route, which is the route that's described in the website, but it seems to
me, for instance, Chateau Park there ought to be a sign on Ten Mile in the Ustick area
as well as you head south on Ten Mile so you know to turn on Chateau to get to
Chateau Park. So, just those kinds of things. It would be more signs, I would
anticipate, but I think that people are going to be coming from north Meridian as well,
possibly.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, that is, actually,
one of the considerations that we discussed and in looking at the cost of signs, they are
going to run just about a hundred dollars a sign in the first -- the first round and, of
course, we have to provide a duplicate sign if one's damaged for placement. So, we
thought a practical way to start was what's described on the website, but we have
considered the same thing that you're commenting on. For a park like Kiwanis Park to
come in from Locust Grove it is multiple signs to get to the park and I think what we
would want to encourage in that case is that if they are trying to find it for the first time
that they come from Eagle Road into the park, because it would be simpler for them to
get there. If they want to find their way out on Three Bar, then, they could probably find
their way back at some point in time. So, we have discussed those considerations and
we certainly will work with ACHD sign staff -- sign placement staff to come up with their
-- to provide signs based on their recommendations as well, because they would
probably have some similar recommendations from other points, like Ustick Road to
Seasons Park.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, another comment. You might be looking at something like
the directions to Kiwanis Park, as opposed to the 20 by 30 signs and trail blazers that
are much smaller, but could indicate park direction. They would reflect the same color
as the main sign on Eagle Road, but something less obtrusive to the neighborhood, but
still provide the direction.
Strong: Cost would probably be --
Rountree: Significantly less.
Strong: That's a good idea.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a comment that may save some money in the future and that would be
when you're having the current signs that you need manufactured would be possibly to
prepare some extra blanks that -- part of making, you know, the metal piece the right
size, you know, painting it, drilling the holes, and just not letter it until you have a place
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 10 of 72
to put it -- I don't know what your storage problem would be, then, but if one needs to be
replaced it could be replaced much faster if all it needs is lettering and that may actually
save some money as well.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, my
understanding of those signs that the color is a reflective adhesive surface, so that there
is some practicality in doing that. Now, whether that surface is all a part of a decal that's
created for a specific park I'd have to ask and it may be and the aluminum blank we
could certainly have on hand and, then, have that surfacing attached later. That may be
practical.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Strong: Madam Mayor, what I would like is just your approval that -- to go ahead with
the sign placement if the sign meets your approval, I guess, because -- and like I
mentioned last week, my concern with that is because we are incorporating the city logo
on the sign. So, certainly don't want to place signs around town displaying the city logo
without your knowledge and certainly approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: I'm fine with it. I don't know that we need a motion; just direct the Parks
Department to move forward with the signage.
Bird: I'll second that.
Rountree: Then, I will make that a motion.
Bird: I know it isn't a motion -- I know it wasn't a motion, but I agree with you.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, it is an agreement; right? Okay. It sounds like you got good
consent here.
Strong: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. There is plenty of seating in the front for those of you standing
in the back. If you would like to come on down and join us. We are fairly well behaved,
so you're safe in the front row.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council
January 2312007
Page 11 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items that were moved from the Consent Agenda to
the regular agenda.
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from January 9, 2007: PP 06-055 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 lots on 39.28 acres in existing I-L zone
and C-G zones for Seyam Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - 3660 East
Lanark Street:
De Weerd: So, I will go ahead and open the two -- the one public -- continued Public
Hearing, Item No.8 with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Sayem project. It's
located approximately 1 ,200 feet east of the intersection of Franklin Road and Eagle
Road. This is a preliminary plat application only. It is already annexed and zoned. The
preliminary plat proposes eight lots with a mix of C-G and I-L zoning. Portions of the
site have already been developed, including the Ashley Furniture building on the
southwest corner of the property, which is proposed Lot 4, and the Lanark warehouse
complex at the north end of the site, which is now proposed Lot 1, Block 1. The reason
the applicant has -- one of -- well, one of the reasons the applicant is bringing the
application before you tonight is that in 2004 they did receive approval for an
administrative lot split. One of the requirements of that lot split was that they submit a
subdivision application and include both the 3.74 acre parcel created for Ashley
Furniture and the remainder 35.55 acre parcel that the Lanark warehouse currently sits
on. So, the applicant did agree to that condition and this fulfills that condition. The
Commission heard this item and recommended approval at their December 7th, 2006,
public hearing. Brad Miller spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in
opposition or commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the
landscape buffer between uses. This property is currently zoned both I-L and C-G and
we do require a land use buffer between those two zones. So, that was an item of
discussion. And, then, the timing of constructing the landscape buffers adjacent to
Franklin Road. I believe staff has also added a number of photographs of the site. It
does have a fair amount of terrain change on it. The key Commission changes to staff's
initial recommendation was that they did decide that the 35 foot wide street landscape
buffer along Franklin Road -- so, that's toward the bottom of the screen there -- could be
built on a lot-by-Iot basis. It's already -- as you saw from the photos it was already
constructed for Ashley warehouse and, then, there is another lot there that would be
developed in a future phase. They also decided that the 25 foot landscape buffer
between uses could be reduced to ten feet. I did want to note that I'm beginning to be a
little concerned that this particular applicant has been able to get that standard reduced
a number of times, while other applicants have not requested it at this point, but I'm just
getting a little concerned with the frequency of this request and whether Council would
like to see that standard changed to be consistent. Prior to -- another key change to
staff's initial recommendation was they did require prior to submittal of the final plat
application for the property that the applicant shall receive City Council approval for a
rezone application on the property. That rezone application would adjust the zoning
boundaries so they were consistent with the lot lines as proposed in this plat. Again, if
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 12 of 72
you look at the zone map you can see how it goes along the front and, then, kind of jogs
up for Ashley Furniture. The proposed zone boundary would need to be adjusted to
accommodate those lots on the southern end of this property. The outstanding issues
before City Council -- we did just want to note on the record the applicant has agreed to
develop a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along Franklin Road, but the revised landscape
plan and preliminary plat still do not clearly show the required 35 foot wide street
landscape buffer along Franklin Road, exclusive of ACHD right of way is required with
condition 1.1.4 and 1.1.10. With that I will answer any questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Rountree: I have none right now.
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I do have a question and that's on the -- allowing the 25 foot landscape buffer
to be reduced to ten feet. I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission when this
came through there and my recollection of the discussion was that it was just not -- we
weren't waiving the extra -- I know the discussion was and I don't know if it made it into
the final motion. I thought our intent was that there be alternate compliance for the
missing 15 feet, extra trees, and I even thought that the applicant had agreed to that.
Canning: My understanding from staff -- I didn't -- 11m sorry. Madam Mayor,
Councilmember Zaremba, my understanding from staff was that they did agree to put
up a fence, but that there wasnlt much other alternative discussed and for waiving over
half the landscape buffer, I'm just beginning to get concerned that if there is a change I
need to make to the code, if Council could let me know their thoughts on that, because
this particular applicant is fortunate to be -- to be able to request the last three times
they have been up here a mix of C-G and I-L zoning, so they have always had control of
both pieces of property and I think that that's been a good reason to reduce the buffers
that it was -- it seemed reasonable given that they were still the owners of both pieces
of property, but I'm just beginning to get concerned is all I wanted to say and if I need to
look at change to the UDC, please, let me know.
Zaremba: But I'm guessing that alternate compliance didn't make it into the conditions.
Must not have.
Canning: I can look for the exact condition of approval and get back to you in just a
second.
Zaremba: Thanks.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 13 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state
your name and address for the record.
Miller: Brad Miller representing Van Auker Properties, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian.
To quickly answer the question, it did make -- the alternate compliance did make it into
the -- into the requirements and we did agree to that. Madam Mayor, I know that you
always take interest in our subdivision names and I feel that I need to point out to you
how we came up with this subdivision name. We purchased this property from Mr. and
Mrs. Carman -- Mr. Orin and Mrs. Carman Mayes about 12 years ago and I wanted to
pay respect to them and call it the Mayes Subdivision, but the county engineer would
not allow that, so we just reversed the lettering of Mayes and -- so that's Mayes spelled
backwards and they seemed to be fine with it.
De Weerd: I just thank you that it's not Porky Pig II.
Miller: Well, it's -- I'm grateful, too, because it's embarrassing for me to have to come
up and speak in those -- for those. The three issues that Anna represented -- and I
appreciate her presentation -- are, number one, the perimeter landscaping. As you
notice, I intentionally included photographs of the Ashley furniture store -- and, Anna, if
you wouldn't mind going to those. There was retaining walls that were required there
and there is a grade variation of six to eight feet at the low end and about 12 feet at the
-- on the Ashley Furniture side. So, you can see that right there. There is retaining
walls there to your left and, then, landscaping. It would be very difficult to go in and do
that landscaping right now, that 35 feet of landscaping. We are not opposed to the 35
feet. We will do that. We would like to have that within an easement, rather than as a
separate landscape lot, because there will not be a homeowners or a property owners
association with this. The second item is that 25 foot landscape buffer. Anna, I think I
have only -- this is only the second time I asked for it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't
want to seem like a bad guy, but this area here -- and I think we do need to change it,
Anna, to five feet, instead of 25 feet, but in this area -- the complexion of this area --
De Weerd: Oh, wow. Just a small change.
Miller: The complexion of this area has changed and it's not really an industrial. We
have built an industrial building to the north, which we are in the process of doubling the
size on right now. We are at 72,000 square feet and we are going to take it up close to
150,000 square feet. But the uses that we will put in here -- right now in that existing
building we have Oregon Tile and Marble, which does wholesale tile and marble. We
have Michael's of Oregon is in the far end doing strictly distribution warehousing. And,
then, on the west end we have an wholesale furniture outfit there. And so they are not
offensive uses. Some of them are closer to commercial than they are industrial. So, I
don't feel that there is an incompatibility with uses that we would put in there. You can't
afford to put a strictly industrial use in there with the land values that way they are and
the quality of buildings that we will be building there. So, I think that the reduction of the
25 feet to ten feet is reasonable and we would be more than happy to increase the
greenery or whatever that might be. The final item is on the zoning of the lots. With the
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 14 of 72
Ashley Furniture lot we were required to change the zoning there, because the lot did
have split zoning and the staff report had indicated that they wanted the property lines
moved to meet the zoning and I would rather move the zoning to meet the property
lines. So, those are the three issues I have with this application. If there is any
questions I would be more than happy to answer them.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. There doesn't seem to be--
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: A question for Brad. He indicated, yes, those conditions were put in and
you're saying those are --
Miller: Those are -- excuse me.
Rountree: -- the conditions that you see are agreeable?
Miller: Yes. Yes, they are. As they are stated in the revised staff report.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Thank you.
Miller: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none -- and there is no further comments
by the applicant? Staff?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, it is
included as a condition. It simply states that it will have increased vegetation. It doesn1t
give me much guidance. Oh, I'm sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council,
ultimately, I'm the one that approves alternative compliance. I tend to be rather hard on
folks and require quite a bit of alternative in their compliance. I guess thafs a little bit
why I'm frustrated, because if it were just me approving this type of alternative, I would
-- I would be looking for the world for that kind of reduction and I'm not sure that they
could provide anything that would satisfy my concept of what would be alternative
compliance on -- from going from a 25 foot to a ten foot reduction. But I understand the
reasons for it and I'm not saying I disagree, that's why I just wanted to bring it up. If
Council wants me to remove or change that standard, please, let me know sometime in
the near future. I'm preparing an ordinance amendment, so --
Meridian City Council
January 231 2007
Page 15 of 72
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: And, Director Canning, my recollection is that the applicant volunteered extra
trees and perhaps many extra trees. As you are in charge of alternate compliance, I'd
beat him up for anything you can get.
Canning: I'm getting a forest named after me.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, a comment that mayor may not be helpful to Anna that may
require a change in this particular language. But it seems to me the intent is a buffer
and whether that's sound or visual or whatever, it's something between uses. In my
mind that could be a combination of structure or berming or vegetation or all three and
maybe not necessarily more vegetation, but maybe an earthen mound. The thing that
concerns me about more landscaping, from what the applicant indicates, is this is not
going to have landscaped lots that are going to be managed by a property owner
organization, such as a homeowners association. So, each individual lot is going to be
responsible for it. That, then, becomes a compliance issue if the landscaping is not
maintained, as opposed to if it's simply grass and a berm and some shrubs or a fence or
a combination of fence, berm, and shrubs. I know that's not helping a lot, but the intent
is the buffer, something in this case that can and will be maintained, particularly in the
depths of the subdivision on Franklin I think our intent is not only a buffer, but it's a
visual piece for people entering the city. So, that's something that we want some
reasonable landscaping and somehow or another figure out how he can get it cared for.
And I guess that would be a question for both you and Brad to address.
Miller: Brad Miller with Van Auker properties. Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree,
we are a little bit different than the average developer in that we build and lease our
properties. In the case of Ashley Furniture we did sell that property to them, but there
are CC&Rs that they have to maintain the landscaping. But our intent is to build out all
these lots ourselves, own those properties, but that doesn't change -- I mean that
doesn't preclude us from in the future selling one of those and that would -- I mean that
would be an issue and we would, obviously, want -- we will own the -- if we do sell any
we will own the majority of them in there and we would want to have a hammer to be
able to enforce the maintenance of the landscaping, because it would affect the value
and the desirability of that subdivision. So, I mean we would want it to be well
maintained. I would be willing to include it in the CC&Rs or something to that effect.
Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Does that give you enough feedback?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 16 of 72
De Weerd: On this particular application.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe the area that the buffer will
be located is on the north side of that internal road. A nod from Mr. Miller would be
helpful. That's the current zoned boundary and where are you going to move -- you're
moving that, though. That's where the new boundary would be.
Miller: The zoning is -- is right here. So, we will adjust that zoning. So, this would be
C-G. This would -- these most likely would be I-L. I mean there is a possibility that we
may even move it all the way over and have this whole thing C-G. This one I would
imagine we will keep I-L. So, this could be a potential C-G, I-L situation. This could be
a potential C-G, I-L, but I got a gut feeling we will probably go C-G with this, but I can't
say that for sure.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else from the Council? Okay. Council, we have an open
Public Hearing. Do I have a motion? Or not. Do you need further information?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 06-055, Item 8.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no discussion, I move that we approve PP 06-055, with public -- or
applicant and staff comments.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 17 of 72
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Does the motion maker intend that the zoning be moved, as opposed to the
lot lines and --
Bird: I think that was what was agreed upon, wasn't it?
Rountree: I'm getting the vibrations that's what was agreed upon.
Bird: Yeah. That's what I took it -- that's what I -- I didn't hear it -- yeah. I took it that
way between -- I would put that in, yes.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other clarification needed for the record on this motion? Okay.
If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from January 16, 2007: 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-Q (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:
Continued Public Hearing from January 16, 2007: 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: Okay. Items 9 and 10 are continued public hearings from January 16 on AZ
06-031 and PP 06-031. I will turn this over to staff. It was limited to specific
information. Anna.
Meridian City Council
January 231 2007
Page 18 of 72
Canning: Yes, it was, Madam Mayor. Just to refresh everyone, this is the South Ridge
project. It is located on the south side of Overland Road between Linder and Ten Mile.
At the Council's last hearing you asked us to come back with more information and
revised development agreement provisions. You also asked us to come back with more
information on the realignment of Overland Road, especially with regard to whether it
should line up with Lamont and on what occurred and/or will occur with regard to the
ACHD approval. And, then, finally, President Borton requested some follow information
after our initial attempts at addressing the development agreement provisions and I'm
going to speak to those as well. And, then, finally finally, we got some additional
information from Sue Sullivan later this afternoon and from Wendell Bigham and I will
update you on those items also. They are all with regard to the specific provisions you
raised at your last hearing. Mr. Hood went through the proposed development
agreement provisions and he addressed those that Council was concerned with. In the
notes you have before you tonight I have only included those that are modified. The
first one was item number three. This one was actually -- I added it to the list as a
request from President Borton to clarify a question on the original Caleb Hood memo.
So, the question was is -- are we adding enough detail about the usable common open
space and Mr. Hood has suggested that we add the following language to specify what
that is. To say that a usable common open space area park of at least 10,000 square
feet, excluding parking area and/or drainage areas, and including some recreational
equipment, e.g., gazebo with benches, barbecue area, tot lot, swimming pool,
clubhouse, et cetera, within the open space area. So, Mr. Hood was not trying to limit it
to any particular theme to the open space, in case it went -- if it went to somewhere
where they were anticipating children, they could do a tot lot, if it went to a price
market --
De Weerd: Your time is up.
Canning: Thank you, ma'am. I really didn't want to go through all of this. If they were
anticipating a market product that wouldn't have children, they could put in perhaps a
gazebo or a barbecue area. So, he wanted to leave that flexibility open. With regard to
provision number 12, he has stricken the city park to note that it should be a private
park and we have also added information with regard to redevelopment of the mega
lots, that no variances to lot dimensions, setbacks, or block lengths shall be requested
by the applicant as part of the redevelopment of the mega lots. So, that when those
preliminary plats came in, they would not be suggesting variances to accommodate an
odd remainder piece or something like that, that they would have to stick with those
mega lots, basically, and make them work with code. That the applicant agrees to plat
the public library lot in -- or, I'm sorry, moving on to item number 16 of the provisions.
During the hearing President Borton had asked some questions about -- about the tiling
of the drainage feature that kind of separates the library and the elementary school. Mr.
Jewett addressed that, but Mr. Borton still had concerns. We did contact the school
district and just as of this afternoon we did receive word from Mr. Bigham that he would
prefer that that open water facility between the library and the elementary school be
tiled, instead of developed as a kind of natural water amenity, that that be tiled or
somehow covered. All right. Moving on to provision number 17. This one primarily
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 19 of 72
changes the city park to a private park as requested by City Council. I know that the
parks director does want to speak to this issue once I have finished my overview of
these provisions. Moving to provision number 21. This was with regard to relocating
the stub street. We are proposing to add language that states that the said stub street
shall be located near the west property line. Also, provide a public street -- a public stub
street to either parcel number -- and he gives two parcel numbers -- when Mega Lot 2
develops and I do need to note this. The request to move the stub street to the west did
come from Council. The other stub street -- because we are being very specific in that
area, we felt it was important to note that as those preliminary plats come through we
are probably going to be looking for a stub street to an adjoining property. So, we just
wanted to include that now. I don't think the -- well, the developer hasn't expressed any
concerns with that stub street, but those parcel numbers reference parcels to the -- in
that western corner, not on the southern property boundary. We added the requirement
of a maximum height of 22 feet and that would be measured between average finished
ground level of the lot to the average height of the highest roof surface. The applicant
has also agreed and shall be required to construct a solid six foot tall vinyl fence
adjacent to the lots in Val Vista Subdivision and Aspen Cove Subdivision prior to
issuance of building permits within the first phase of the development. We added a
condition stating the applicant shall be -- I'm sorry. Provision of the development
agreement stating the applicant shall be required to construct a minimum of 1 ,000
residential dwelling units and a maximum of 1 ,252. Another provision that the applicant
shall comply with all of the adopted state and federal air and dust particulate emission
standards. The applicant shall make all reasonable attempts to abate, mitigate, dust
settling on adjacent properties generated by the development of the property. The
applicant shall keep a water truck on site at all times, unless otherwise allowed by
authorized city staff, and use said truck to abate the emission of dust. Moving on to
another provision. It states that the development of the village center at Overland Road
and Linder Road -- with the development of those, the applicant shall incorporate and
build at least one transit stop, including benches and covers. The applicant shall
incorporate and construct a park and ride area near the proposed fire station and Ten
Mile Road. When that initial proposal came out of staff, President Borton did ask us for
clarification on whether transit now exists in the area. The answer is no. Overland is
also not currently in Valley Regional Transit's regional operations or capital
improvement plans for bus service. But what we have heard time and time again that is
if we can provide the kind of densities that can support transit and the kind of facilities,
that they will be able to provide that bus -- or transit facility in the future. So, staff does
recommend keeping that provision in, because we do see a lot of potential for Overland
Road serving both bus and park and ride uses in the future. It acts as a natural kind of
frontage street to the freeway. Finally, the last provision of the development agreement
would be that prior to signature of the first final plat the applicant shall submit and obtain
City Council approval for development agreement modification that proposes
architectural guidelines for this development. So, that is the end of the development
agreement provisions as requested by City Council. The Mayor had also asked for
some information as to what we had done with Duane Drive when Council approved
Redfeather development. That one was a little different, because they were physically
abutting one another, whereas here we have an adjoining five acre parcel that is not
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 20 of 72
being proposed for development, but what Council approved in that instance was to go
ahead and make -- physically make the connection, but to install a gate. And, then, that
gate keeps traffic from flowing either way, but there was a provision put in there that --
let me find it. That the gate on Duane Drive could be removed and Duane Drive opened
for all vehicular traffic between Redfeather and Perkins Brown at the discretion of ACHD
commission after a public request and subsequent public hearing on the matter. So,
that's how Redfeather was approved. So, that would be certainly something that staff
could propose if one of those five acre lots wants to connect to that stub street, we
could certainly look at the possibility of providing a gate at that time. Where there is no
traffic that could move through that there at this time, staff did not feel it was appropriate
to build a gate just now. Okay. So, we addressed those issues. Now, I'm going to take
a breath. Now, I'm going to move on to the memo from Pete Friedman regarding why
Overland Road -- with the process we went through at the Ten Mile charrette to get it
where it was and why it didn't connect to Lamont and I am prepared to give you a lot of
discussion for his memo, but I'll also I think try to shorten it up a little bit, but I can
answer more questions if you have them. Basically, the rationale for realigning was the
proximity to existing Overland - Ten Mile intersection with the future interchange and the
desire to direct traffic on that further south, so that we could -- so, that that interchange
could operate better and that there were grade issues that would necessitate changing
that intersection anyway. When we looked at whether it should connect to Lamont, the
applicant raised the point that there were topographic issues connecting to Lamont as
well and that there really -- the topography of the area made the proposed location the
best one. And our consultant staff went out and met with the applicant on site and they
agreed with that assessment. We received additional information from ACHD and they
are, basically, agreeing with the statement that it's -- now I'm -- I'm pausing, because I'm
getting confused and 11m not sure if it's ACHD or ITD, but one of the transportation
agencies -- I'll find my notes in a moment -- did agree that the proposed location was
better than connecting to Lamont. They didn't want to put that kind of traffic off to the
existing street section on Lamont. The third reason that was by keeping it in its current
location it does fall within one property developer -- one developer's ownership and,
therefore, facilitates getting that constructed at one time and that's always a big
consideration of ours. So, that was the third reason. With regard to that statement, Mr.
Borton asked about us to clarify what it was meant by dedicating a portion of the right of
way for the realignment of Overland Road. What -- Mr. Jewett has proposed to built --
he's proposing to build all of Overland Road realignment. He would be solely
responsible for dedicating and constructing the first two lanes of that realigned
Overland, including sidewalks. He would, then, ask for -- he still is planning to build the
rest of it, but he would be eligible for reimbursement on the additional lane. And those -
- that reimbursement would be through impact fees as Overland -- because Overland is
an arterial roadway currently in ACHD's capital improvement plan. Okay. Our draft plan
also shows a west extension of Overland Road and that topic came up, too. And that's
very conceptual at this point. Since we have developed that charrette plan we have
been receiving more information that -- that that continuation of that may not be
desirable or feasible. So, we have been looking at -- in that Ten Mile plan that perhaps
Overland should stop there at Ten Mile and not continue further. Finally, ACHD is in the
process of completing the south Meridian transportation study that includes this area
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 21 of 72
and the current draft -- I said this at the last hearing -- but a current draft identifies -.. no.
I'm sorry. This -- that paragraph is in reference to the last statement I made. Okay.
Now, we are going to move on to the ACHD approval and the letter that I read into the
record last time and some clarification on that letter. Mrs. Den Hartog did go through
her original letter and clarify some of the issues. The first one was a different public
involvement process would be necessary for a major realignment of a principal arterial
roadway. For clarification was that due to the nature of the proposal, the Commission
indicated that a broader public process would be more appropriate, because more
people, other than just those impacted by the development, would be affected by the
proposal. ACHD staff notified all property owners within 300 feet of the development as
to the date and time of the commission meeting. However, the realignment of Overland
was viewed as having more of a regional impact, thus requiring a broader public
process. I asked Mr. Inselman to further clarify that and this is the response. If the city
approves South Ridge with the realignment of Overland and the city and the applicant
request ACHD to take an action, then, ACHD will be compelled to initiate a public
process for the realignment of Overland Road. At that -- at a minimum that public
process will most likely need to include a public information meeting or open house with
the appropriate level of advertising and public notice. Later he goes on to say that the
most effective process -- and I agree -- would be to allow the south Meridian
transportation plan to be completed and this already addresses the realigned Overland.
There is a public information meeting scheduled for next week. If they were trying to
schedule any other public information it wouldn't happen before the one for the south
Meridian plan would. So, really, it would appear that the timing of the south Meridian
transportation plan falls in line with the timing of this project and that that plan could
address this issue regarding ACHD's need for more public involvement. The second
issue in Mrs. Hartog's letter was the formal adoption of the Ten Mile area plan by the
City of Meridian, because the proposed Ten Mile area plan prompted the redesign of
the revised application. And she goes on to clarify that it was the draft transportation
map produced as a result of the Ten Mile area plan charrette, meaning that spurred the
redesign of this particular development application. That document is still in draft form
and subject to change as it continues through the Public Hearing process. There were
concerns raised by the desirability of making a final decision on the realignment of
Overland Road before the Ten Mile area plan had been formally adopted. I again asked
Mr. Inselman for a little bit of clarification as -- would they have to wait until the city
adopted the Ten Mile area plan and his response was the south Meridian transportation
plan could satisfy this requirement. Again, the transportation plan has the realigned
Overland Road in it. That plan is scheduled to be complete in April with possibly
commission action in May. This planning effort could and probably should be the ACHD
public process for considering the realignment of Overland, as it encompasses the
transportation needs of the whole area. The third issue that Mrs. Hartog's letter
addressed as a concern for the ACHD commission was which design alternatives is
selected for ITD for the Ten Mile interchange. The commissioners stated that knowing
the design selection would be helpful in understanding the full impact to both Ten Mile
Road and Overland Road and any future intersection along either of those roadways
relative to proposed interstate ramps. I asked Mr. Inselman if that meant they were --
that ACHD commission wouldn't be acting on this until the interchange plans were fully
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 22 of 72
approved and he stated that he did not believe that that was the case, that the
commission simply expressed a view that it would be desirable and helpful to know
what type of interchange design would be chosen. In addition to that, I received an e-
mail from Sue Sullivan late this afternoon and her statement was that the Ten Mile
interchange project terminized -- the southerly end is on Ten Mile Road just north of the
Ridenbaugh Canal. She goes on to state that they don't intend to reduce or widen the
canal. You know, I put that discussion in the wrong place, so I'm sorry. It doesn't relate
to the first item, so I'll address that in a moment. Sorry about that. So, those were the
reasons that ACHD had given. Mrs. Hartog, then, goes on to address some of the
questions raised by Meridian City Council at your last hearing. She, basically, says that
staff analyzed the proximity of other nearby roadways intersecting the Ten Mile Road
and they did feel that the proposed new intersection of the realigned Overland Road
with Ten Mile would meet district policy with both -- with regard to Lamont as well. So,
the separations that are being proposed on this application do seem to meet district
policy. They also went back and they -- staff determined -- again, this is just staff
looking at this application to address some of Council's concerns. They did feel that --
determine that aligning the proposed new Overland Road with Lamont was not a
desirable option. I mentioned that earlier. So, it was ACHD. While Lamont Road is
currently classified as a collector roadway, there are a number of existing residences
that front on the roadway. If the realigned Overland Road were to align with Lamont, it
would effectively make Lamont a de facto principal arterial roadway without going
through the normal roadway classification process. However, by offsetting Lamont
Road it opens up the opportunity to possibly extend Overland Road west of Ten Mile
Road parallel to Lamont through largely undeveloped acreages. And, again, that is
consistent with the memo Mr. Friedman prepared for Council. I think that addresses all
of ACHD's memo to the Commission. The final one was -- I did receive a memo from
Sue Sullivan with regard to this project. Because the project actually doesn't adjoin an
ITD facility, she had not received notice prior to your other hearing. But she did get an
opportunity, she got ahold of the plat and was able to review it for some -- and to
provide these comments. The first was that the termini of the ITD project is the
southern end of the Ridenbaugh Canal. So, they are stopping just north of the
Ridenbaugh. So, they currently do not plan to replace or widen the canal crossing. To
do so would likely delay their project they say. So, if the Ten Mile Road needs to be
widened south of there or the bridge to that new intersection with Ten Mile and
Overland, she suggests that perhaps somebody else should be responsible for that
improvement is what the memo says. And those were her only -- that was, really, her
only concern was just that one stretch of roadway. The applicant does have control
over nearly all, if not all of that property. I'm not sure if he has control over half of the
canal -- half of the property adjoining the canal or all of the property that crosses the
canal. Okay. That is my very detailed update for the Council and I would be happy to
answer any questions. And I'm sorry that I -- I really worked on organizing it for you, but
if I have -- if I have confused you on anything, please, let me try and address it.
De Weerd: No. We appreciate the detail that you brought back. Council, do you have
any questions for Anna?
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 23 of 72
Bird: I'd just like to echo the work that they did.
Canning: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, same -- that's exactly what I was looking for was all -- among
the millions of things we discussed on all sides of the issues, to say, okay, here is what
we think you said, thafs very helpful. It gives us a target.
Canning: To be quite truthful, it seems like the transportation agencies -- at least at
staff level all agree that this proposed realignment seems to be working and seems to
be a real workable solution.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. It was left open for specific reasons. Mr.
Nary, I would appreciate it if you could kind of give some guidance on any testimony we
receive from the public as to the parameters.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it would seem appropriate at this
juncture that as staff has reported on those things, I think the applicant, obviously,
should have an opportunity to address that as well. If you want other public testimony, it
is going to have to be very narrowly addressing those particular ones and if we get off
track, then, we are going to have to stop them and remind them that's not what we are
here on, we are only here on these subject matters only. But we can certainly see if
there is things the public has additional comment to, either what Mrs. Canning has
provided or what Mr. Jewett can provide if he has any additional comment. I did notice
in our information that Mr. Strong has a memo as well in regards to the park and it does
relate to an issue, so I don't know if you want to hear from Mr. Strong prior to Mr.
Jewett, too.
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Strong.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the park in particular and felt compelled to do so, because of discussion to
-- to rather than to keep the park as a public park, to make it a homeowners park, and
partly because of the amount of time and energy that we have spent with Mr. Jewett
over the -- over probably a year and a hairs period of time from the very beginning of
looking at the development of this property to develop it as a public park and that's
addressed in the first bullet point on the memo that I have given to you. We have gone
through numerous meetings. Mr. Jewett has been to two parks and recreation
commission meetings to work through issues that they brought up to get to a point of
positive recommendation for the park site to be moved forward to you for approval.
There has been numerous concessions that Mr. Jewett's addressed and made to satisfy
those concerns through that process, so certainly want to thank his diligence in working
with us through that process, because we were very excited about the prospect of this
park and because this property has a location for a future park in our future land use
map is what was driving us to look at this as a neighborhood park and a public park. It
fits our capital improvement plan process and what we have recently developed in a
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 24 of 72
capital improvement plan to help us meet our number of acres per thousand residents in
the community as we build parks and provide public open space for the community in
the coming ten year period that we have identified capital projects for the city. So, like I
say, some of that is addressed in that first bullet point. The second bullet point was to
address that as we have moved through the process we didn't find any history
anywhere that the location of a homeowners swimming pool, clubhouse adjacent to a
public park was -- would be an issue. It's not in code that that's not an appropriate
marriage of sorts of property. It seemed to make sense for just proximity of recreational
facilities for both homeowners in the area and the general public to locate it that way as
we discussed the process. During that discussion, though, and in presentations at the
parks and recreation commission, Mr. Jewett agreed to relocate the pool, provide
landscape buffering, signage in the parking lot and increase the size of the public
parking lot for the park to better in the sense kind of separate the private area that's
designed for homeowners from the public area for the park. As described in the park's
action plan, a neighborhood park really is intended to be located in the center of a
neighborhood to serve approximately a mile radius of that -- of that park. This -- the
location of this park certainly does that. It's connected by a collector street, as well as a
multi-use pathway system that goes throughout the development, as well as connects
outside of this proposed development, which would provide access to public open
space from users of that park area from outside of the development with a public
pathway system going through the park area, then, people that are using the pathway
system would, essentially, not -- unless they lived in the development not be able to use
that public open space as they were using the pathway system, either for recreation or
just transportation to the school, that you would be moving through that area possibly to
get there. So, one of the things that exited us as we went through the process is that
this particular park offered a geography that we don't have in any our parks that we
currently have in the city, because of the elevation, the drop in elevation, the ponds, and
just the real spectacular view from that area would really lend itself to a very pleasant,
more of a passive use park, rather than the more active use parks that we currently
have in the city. We felt that that would also lend itself to some other types of activities
that could be developed in the park, like disk golf where changes in geography, creation
of hazards for type of play would be possible where in a flat or relatively flat park it's not
quite the same opportunity for those types of recreational pursuits and there is
apparently a very active disk golf community in the Treasure Valley that is looking for
new places to play and this would certainly lend itself to that. As we propose donations,
the proposed donation of the park acreage and the green up certainly is a fiscal
advantage for the department to continue to add to our public open space with less
fiscal impact than the actual development and creation of park space. We would be left
to providing the restroom, playground facilities, tennis court, if that's provided were the
hard-scape features of the park. We wouldn't -- we wouldn't need to purchase the land
and green up the land, provide the irrigation system and those elements. So, it certainly
cuts the cost of developing the park almost in half. And, then, lastly, I guess, if the
decision to keep it a homeowners park really hinges on the location of the clubhouse
and swimming pool -- and I have not talked to Mr. Jewett about this yet, but it would be
my recommendation that we ask that the swimming pool and clubhouse be moved to a
different location in the subdivision and maintain this park acreage as public park open
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 25 of 72
space. So, I'll conclude with that and certainly would respond to any questions that you
may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the donation of the park, is not -- is the park impact fees being considered in
the donation of this park? No paybacks?
Strong: No. There has been no request for a park impact fee, reimbursement, or any of
that. The land donation and the green up and development of the water features, the
irrigation ponds, would all be donated by the developer.
Bird: And we maintain it --
Strong: And we would maintain, yes.
Bird: -- if we were to take it.
Strong: There would be a pump station located in the park that would serve just the
park, not the development. And thafs provided by the developer as well.
Bird: Thank you, Doug.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you.
Strong: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. The developer.
Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, for the record Jim Jewett, 1560 Carol Street in
Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jewett: Again, I would commend staff's efforts in not only this, but all the previous
reports I have done. This has been a complicated application and they have done a
very diligent job in trying to understand it, maybe sometimes more than me. So, I don't
really think I have anything to add, other than I would agree with all their comments that
they have offered to you in their memo. I have provided them three additional slides on
my PowerPoint that two of them address the Tasa connection that were provided to me
by the ITD representative. If you want to view that we can pull that up. And, then, one
other slide which would show the elevation of the library showing that it's a single story,
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 26 of 72
addressing the single story - two story, which really wasn't part of the memo, but I
thought I would offer that, so hope that Anna pulls that up.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm sorry, I forgot to address that
issue in my presentation. One of the items that staff had requested was to keep the two
story requirement within TN-C. Mr. Jewett spoke to the need to maintain the one story
for the library. This is the conceptual rendering of the library at this time. Also of
discussion by the public at that hearing -- although it isn't part of this application, so I
didn't necessarily want to confuse the issue, but there was some question about the
Tasa connection. Jim, I'm not sure you included that one. Oh, there it is. And we have
two slides showing how Tasa could be I believe relocated under the Ten Mile facility.
Jewett: This one actually shows how if Overland remains in its current location or
slightly moved to the north, how Tasa would be connected with Overland in a cross
intersection. This illustration shows still they were unaware of any relocation of
Overland, so they show -- still show Overland, but bringing Tasa under Ten Mile and
connecting it back to Overland. And I show this slide because if Overland is relocated
here, the road simply connects back to Overland right here and ITD would facilitate that
project. And for the Council's information, I am the owner of this property, so ITD had a
question as if the developer had the ability to grant that right of way and I do and I will
be working with ITD if this is their desired way to work with Tasa. So, I just wanted to
offer those two up, so that the Council fully had understood how Tasa could be dealt
with. And these two slides came from H.W. -- no, they came from Lochner, the
representative of lTD.
Canning: And, again, these are not on the current project site.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: The subject of the co-location of the park and the homeowners association,
when it -- when the discussion was leaning towards leaving the public park as a private
park I didn't chime in, because I wanted to hear the rest of it. The issue was actually
raised during public testimony of somebody who felt it would be difficult to separate the
two and you gave us some comments last time about how you had redesigned it and
those were repeated by the parks director now. In addition to that, were you also not
planning a substantial -- not loud enough. Okay. A substantial fence around it and my
question about that would be could you add signage to the fence that says private
property, no trespassing or --
Jewett: Obviously. I think what our commitment to the parks department was is that we
would -- we would strive to create some sort of screening that would clearly make it
invisible from people using the park or some way to denote it as private, so that there
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 27 of 72
wouldn't be that confusion. And we can accomplish that through the design review of
that clubhouse and the park to make sure that the staff is adequately convinced that we
have screened that.
Zaremba: Thank you. I'm betraying my opinion that I believe that would be an excellent
place for a public park.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Jewett, you had indicated that you're in agreement with the amended
comments or recommendations of staff, specifically with regards to the open space in
the CN-R --
Jewett: Yeah.
Borton: -- the 1 0,000 square foot, including parking area. That particular language, is
that -- does that seem sufficient?
Jewett: Yes.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, we will seek any public comment. There are some people
who have signed up, again, to indicate for, against, or neutrality. Testimony is limited
specifically to the items that have been discussed. So, if when I read your name you
have testimony you would like to provide, please, come forward at that time. Lucy
Lavelle signed up neutral. Okay. Steve -- and, I'm sorry, I messed it up last week, you
know, so I will just let you say it.
Presbus: Steve Presbus, 2530 South Del Rey.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Presbus: When I left the meeting last week I was under the assumption that everybody
was kind of in agreement to move the stub road down. Now, we come back and now
there is two stub roads. I mean this is getting crazy. Every time we come there is
something new. I was under the assumption that everybody talked about moving it
down and now, like I said, there is two. We talked about the rear setbacks of 50 and
Mr. Jewett said it's possible to do it. Somebody said 40. Somebody said 35. Now it's
30. Can we compromise and go 40? I mean that would work for me and I'm sure it
would work for him. We have -- we have a height limit they said of 22 feet, but where is
that from? Is one lot going to be raised up and 22 feet from that and the next one raised
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 28 of 72
up a little higher or is it going to be from the base line of the road. The base line of the
road gives you 22 foot. The other way it could be ended up 25, 26, 28, who knows. I
mean there is no -- each lot is going to be different. I don't think these lots are going to
be perfectly level. On -- I know -- I know the parks representative said that at the park
there is going to be a spectacular view. Well, right now I have a spectacular view and I
don't -- I don't understand -- I won't be able to keep it all, but I would like to keep some
of it, because I mean, you know, there needs to be some kind of consideration. So, I
think the 22 foot should be from base line of the road, so they all are the same and the
further the setback, the rear yard setback, it pushes the house peak further away for a
little bit better view. And last week on this park, I understood that Jim said it was going
for 50 cents on a dollar and I guess now it's being donated. And, then, last, the
Overland Road realignment. There has been no study. I have talked to ACHD
personally. There has been no study. The only other study that was Jim and a few
people working at the charrette thing. Okay. I think there should be more input, more
studying. There is -- that's a great impact, not only to our life, but when you drive it it's
going to be a big impact. That's alii have to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Sherry Fawcett.
Fawcett: Sherry Fawcett. I live at 2755 West Val Vista Court. I have more -- two
questions. One is on -- it's -- there is a statement that says that area cannot be
developed until such time as Ten Mile area specific plan is adopted by the city and
approved. My question is that still has to go through public hearings when those mega
lots are developed; is that correct? And also Ada County Highway District approval of
that road system, whatever it may be. I just want to verify that we are not saying city
says, yeah, go and all of a sudden he's given approval to develop those lots. Mega lots.
And, then, the other one is on the stub road into Val Vista. There is an agreement on
the fence along the property line. Where that stub road is will the fence be across that
stub road or is that an open area, because it is a stub road. And if it is an open area,
obviously, the homeowner that backs up to that now has an open area where that road
is. Is there restrictions on putting landscaping buffers as a homeowners association or
the homeowners themselves. So, those are my questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mel Shoemaker against.
Shoemaker: My name is Mel Shoemaker. 1620 South Ten Mile.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Shoemaker: And last week I did talk about the alignment of the Overland Road and
also the freeway interchange and with the amount of stuff that's come up on the roads --
I'd like to approach the board and put --
De Weerd: Okay. Sir, if you would just take that microphone.
Shoemaker: And I would also like to have that south alternate photo put up.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 29 of 72
Canning: Is this the Tasa property that we are referring to?
De Weerd: Mr. Shoemaker, which south --
Canning: Sir?
Shoemaker: South alternate four. South alternate four that you had up a little while
ago. I have said this before and I will say it again. I think there is a major overlook
being done here by not considering -- first I'm going to say that the Karcher Road
interchange was moved off of Karcher Road for a reason, because of existing
development.
De Weerd: Okay. Now, sir--
Shoemaker: And I think --
De Weerd: Mr. Shoemaker, 11m sorry, but testimony is very specific on three different
items or the items that were detailed.
Shoemaker: The road lid like to talk about.
De Weerd: And this on Ten Mile interchange.
Shoemaker: Yes.
De Weerd: And at this time that testimony is not appropriate.
Shoemaker: I do not agree with you, ma'am.
De Weerd: We are limiting testimony specifically to the items that this hearing was
continued for.
Shoemaker: I understand that, but there has been a lot of discussion about tying into
Ten Mile with 1 ,253 residences. So, I do not agree with you in any way, shape, or form.
Nary: But, sir, the limitation on the testimony was already stated before the public
testimony and the testimony that was already done by you and others regarding the Ten
Mile interchange and that connection are already part of the record.
Shoemaker: Okay. Would you like me to leave the room? Is that what you --
Nary: No. You just can't testify about the same thing you have already done.
Shoemaker: So, the interchange is a done deal?
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 30 of 72
De Weerd: No.
Nary: No. The discussion about it was already done prior to tonight.
De Weerd: The testimony on Ten Mile interchange, those public hearings are not had
yet. Those will be forthcoming when that is the item.
Shoemaker: Okay. But it has an impact of where Overland Road ties in, ma'am. You
both -- both of us know that.
De Weerd: Okay. Again, I can only accept testimony on what this was continued for.
Shoemaker: Would you like me to stop?
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: If the testimony you choose to provide is not on those items, yes, please.
Shoemaker: I think it's a miscarriage of justice, but I will stop. I do have one more thing
to say. Is it appropriate for the same person to vote on two boards, Planning and
Zoning and City Council?
De Weerd: Sir, yes.
Shoemaker: Okay.
De Weerd: The Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body. Okay.
Wayne Amend. Okay. Christine Apostolou. I'm sorry, you will have to -- please give
your name and address.
Apostolou: Yeah. I'm Christine Apostolou. 2360 South Ten Mile Road.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Apostolou: Madam Mayor, Council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice a
couple of concerns and ask a few questions. I do apologize, I may be a little behind,
because I missed the last meeting, but I actually own the property that is directly across
from Lamont. Right here. So, I have been trying to be really concerned and keep up on
what's going on as much has changed. Mostly just -- I just have some concerns about
the size of the subdivision and not having the infrastructure in place and having so
many different theories on where the roads are going to go and how they are going to
flow for the amount of potential traffic impact, not only with the homes, but if we do also
tie in and consider this to be -- to this public park, which I have a two year old, so I can
see the benefits of having that there, although from an objectionable standpoint I kind of
question the actual area and how useful it will be for all the citizens of Meridian, for their
taxpayer money to go into it, because it really is a bit off the beaten path and, again, it's
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 31 of 72
also going to increase some traffic flow into that area over and above just the residents
that are going to be in there and that raises some further concerns about the things that
we talk about. J'm wondering how it's going to work if Overland does go with the
realignment that we are talking about, because it would position itself so closely to my
property and affect me getting in and out and all these areas here and in Lamont and,
then, talking about putting in a park and ride there and things like that, I'd like to see the
actual layout of that before it's finalized to how that's going to impact and I question
Overland Road coming in and dumping into Ten Mile. There is a statement that said
that Lamont can't handle the traffic coming in there, but how much better is it going to
be to dump a four lane road into Ten Mile, which is now two lanes, and has a hard time
bearing the traffic that it has also. Sometimes it's hard to get out of my driveway now
and I can only imagine that it would exacerbate things further with the additional homes
being proposed to be put in there. And, then, I'm a little confused on the other -- there
was mention of a second stub road on the southwest corner and I'd like to have that
pointed out what that was in reference. I was having a hard time putting my finger on it,
so I'm just listening and it wasn't really pointed out clearly during this meeting, anyway,
so if there was maybe a slide I'd like to see that if it's possible. And I think that's -- I
think that's pretty much all. I thank you for your time to listen to me and -- and hear my
concerns and, hopefully, I could have a few more questions answered on that.
De Weerd: Thank you. James Prather. Prather. I'm sorry.
Prather: Madam Mayor, James Prather, Council. 707 East United Heritage Parkway.
And it's Prather.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Prather: Just one point of clarity concerning -- Mrs. Canning, if you would put up a slide
that would show where the proposed alignment of Overland hits Ten Mile. I control the
property to the west of Ten Mile where this proposed new alignment will strike and I
have talked to the applicant Mr. Jewett prior to the meeting and it's my understanding
from him that the current alignment, if approved, the center line of Overland will hit this
-- exactly the center line -- or, excuse me, not the center line, but it would be the south
portion of my property. One, I would like that to be substantiated on the record. And,
two, I'm a little confused now, because in staff's comments they had made mention that
perhaps the extension of Overland west would not be asked for. And if that is the case,
I'd also like some clarity on if it is not, then, I think ACHD may limit my access across
the street. Or restrict it. So, I'd like some clarity brought to that, please.
De Weerd: Okay.
Prather: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. And Max Vandenberg. Thank you, sir. Okay. This is a Public
Hearing. Again, for limited testimony regarding the items as specified by Council. Is
there any additional testimony?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 32 of 72
Stone: I'm Susan Stone. I live at 2530 South Del Rey Lane. And I'm not certain with --
the conflicting about the parks. What is the story? Is it a private park, as the proposal
said and by Mrs. Canning, or is it going to remain a public park with the border as Mr.
Zaremba suggested?
De Weerd: There is no decision made. It's still one of those items being discussed.
Council has indicated certainly some questions and so thafs what's being discussed
tonight as well.
Stone: Okay. I still look for it to be separate or same. So, separate the park and the
pool if they are going to be private and public -- or public and private. Or both be public
or both be private, but not be together if they are the same --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stone: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony? Sir.
Elton: Curtis Elton. 2906 West Val Vista. Last -- at the last meeting Mr. Jewett and the
subdivision agreed on 50 feet setback and now I believe it has arbitrarily been changed.
Correct or not?
De Weerd: No. There are no decisions that have been.
Elton: No decisions made?
De Weerd: No.
Elton: Well, I would just like reinforce -- Mr. Jewett said that 50 feet was workable and
we were asking 50 feet. I would definitely back 50 feet if at all possible, especially for
the three and a half lots that it affects -- it affects our view and changes our view
substantially if it's a shorter setback. And, secondly, we are asking for a barrier that
would stand up in a length of time and one that would possibly be fire proof or fire
retardant at least and a plastic fence is really quite fragile. If you look around town, the
wind has taken some of those -- those down. We are completely in the open there and
we would like something that would withstand a little bit of test of time, because,
otherwise, that fence is going to go down or be damaged very easily sitting out there in
the open and the wind. Also, it's very vulnerable to any type of grass fires, small ones,
and so forth and we would like some type of a barrier there that would look decent over
time. Definitely not wood, because that's just a matter of one or two years and it's
sustained differently in different places and, likewise, it could be torn apart very easily
and wind, likewise, can damage it. We have large gusts of wind that comes through
there and I would like something substantial that's a fire retardant and a fire -- probably
a barrier between the two subdivisions, because we are, basically, kind of a small
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 33 of 72
agricultural horse area and we all have pastures along there and there is, likewise,
water -- water rights going down there for irrigation, which leaves weeds and growth
substantially there all summer long and it dries out and it is a fire hazard. So, I think we
look into that. And, likewise, no more than one stub road into our subdivision. Thank
you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Any additional testimony? 11m sorry, ma'am, we
can't catch you on the record. You need to provide it in the microphone.
Apostolou: I won't take very long.
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name, please.
Apostolou: Christina Apostolou.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Apostolou: For the record. I just -- I had put against on the paper. I'm not really against
this subdivision in its entirety; I'm just against putting it forward without some thought in
infrastructure. I am actually neutral on the concept of it. I understand that it's good for
the development of Meridian and I just wanted to quality that. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment? Mr. Jewett, would you like to respond?
Perhaps, Mr. Jewett, before we ask for your response, we let -- let we have a comment.
I'm sorry, I really have a headache tonight and so it's distorting my thinking. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to comment on the stub
street, because I'm sure I wasn't clear. I didn't point to it on a map, so I need to do that
for you all. As requested by Council in response to the folks that live along Val Vista,
we did require that the stub street to the south be moved to the furthest west point
possible. When Mr. Hood was looking at that, we didn't address all the stub streets in
the -- for the mega blocks. With that mega block there appears to be another stub
street necessary and since we were pointing out one stub street for that mega block, we
felt we should put out the other one just to inform the applicant that there is an issue
here of providing a stub street to this land locked parcel. So, the way the condition
reads, though, is that there be a stub street to one of these two properties. The idea is
not to get traffic from within the development out to Ten Mile, it's just the opposite. That
as traffic increases and these folks are not able to get out safely on Ten Mile, that they
could come back through the development and have safe travel through that light if they
need to make a left. So, again, it was -- the idea was to provide an alternate means for
that -- particularly this land locked parcel here. You can see there is some access to it
and an access easement across that other property, but it is land locked, it doesn't have
frontage. So, that's what the stub street was about. And, truly, this conversation is
premature. It should occur with the other mega block, but since we were discussing
one of the stub streets and it was of such concern, we felt we better identify the other
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 34 of 72
stub street necessary in that mega block. I don't believe -- oh, shall I address some of
the other comments --
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Canning: -- that were addressed to me? Mr. Prather asked us to substantiate where
the center line will be. The applicant will have to do that. With regard to the clarity on
the extension, this is -- that extension is still being considered as part of the south
Meridian transportation plan and as part of the Ten Mile. We have -- there seems to be
some discussion about not extending that at this time, but we have no definitive answer
for you in any way. I cannot speak to ACHD's restrictions that they have if you're
immediately across the street from a signalized intersection. I don't know those. So,
basically, I can't answer Mr. Prather's question on those two. I believe that was it. The
stub street seemed to be of particular concern and I did need to clarify that.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, I guess also the 22 feet, measure between average finish
ground level of the lot to the average height of the highest roof surface.
Canning: The direction I had given Mr. Hood was to talk with the building department
on how they measure things and to put that in here. So, I assume that that's what that
is is how the building department measures. That's my general understanding of how
they measure, but our UDC refers to the building code. It says however the building
department is going to measure a building is how we should measure a building and not
have two different standards between the two organizations.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree a hundred percent that's how they measure. But when we are setting a
limit of 22, you have got to have a point to come off from. Not per lot, but for all the lots.
What the gentleman explained up here going off the center elevation of the road is your
ideal one, because you can put in basements or something and build it up three to four
foot, then, you're 25 or 26 foot with the roof height. So, on a development agreement or
something like this, I personally feel that we need to have a point of reference, not per
lot. It's the center point of the road or center point of something that they are measured
off from. I realize in building you do measure off of the finished level, but this is a
condition that the people are quite concerned with and I am, too.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: There is another concern that was raised a couple of times and one it relates to
the staff comment and the same section number 22 in regards to the building setback
and I have the luxury of having the minutes in front of me, but the discussion in regards
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 35 of 72
to the building setback on page 63 of the minutes from last week, Mr. Jewett only
agreed to the 30 foot setback, not a 50 foot setback. So, that wasn't changed by the
staff that was what was discussed. There was testimony requesting a 50 foot setback,
but what was at least agreed to, again, that's, obviously, not the final decision of this
Council, but that's the basis of the staff's recommendation to the language was the
agreement of a 30 foot setback and part of that relates to the -- again, what Mr. Bird has
raised, the building height, the depth of the lot, the build-able property that's remaining
and that was where the 30 foot consent was given by Mr. Jewett. So, it wasn't either a
change, as some of the testimony was, or some disagreement between what Mr.
Jewett said at one point and what was agreed to by the staff, that's what's in the
minutes. So, I just wanted to make that clarification as well.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anything further, Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are just debating on how to
achieve a suitable -- a suitable height restriction. You could measure it from the crown
of the road -- center line of the road or crown of the road and, then, the building
department will somehow just have to run measurements back to that roadway. There
is still a possibility that the road could be cut, that they would have to do a cut in the
road and so they are losing potential height that they would have normally been able to
gain or there is potential that they could raise the crown of the road above the existing
grade, so I don't know if you wanted it -- you will need to provide a little more
information if you want it based on the existing natural grade or as it's undeveloped or
where you want that to go. If you want us to review a grading plan and specify some
maximum tolerances for the grading of the lots in that area, then, maybe we could take
it from the finished grade elevation of the lots, so that the building department is just
measuring from the lots might be another opportunity. Do you understand my concern
about -- I was just -- okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: This is probably going to be eventually a question for Mr. Jewett, but these
lots most likely have a pretty good slope to them, I believe. They are not level lots and I
think that's why woe are struggling with using the street as the point of reference. They
are flat?
De Weerd: We will ask the developer.
Zaremba: I would direct that question to Mr. Jewett as to whether the elevation
changes or the -- if there is a contour to the lots or whether they are flat.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, did you want testimony from ACHD?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 36 of 72
Bird: You know, Madam Mayor, I do have some questions, because even though we
got this -- and Anna did a great job and her staff did a great job of getting answers, I still
haven't figured out if they know exactly if that's really going to happen. If they have
made a final decision -- if their commission has said, you know, we are going to move
the road. Where are we going to put the drains in and all this stuff, because you have
got a lot of property owners laying below you that your runoff could affect.
Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman representing ACHD.
3775 North Adams, Garden City. No, ACHD has not made a final decision on the
realignment of Overland Road. The E-mail Anna read from me was sent last week, so
our public information meeting is actually Thursday of this week for our south Meridian
transportation plan and is -- would be our staff's recommendation that we allow that
planning process to continue and that our commission action be taken at the conclusion
of that planning effort. If I might, while I'm here, I could address one of the issues on the
stub street. We do allow fences to cross the end of the stub street, so it's not an eye
sore for the neighbors.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any specific questions?
Bird: He answered mine. He answered my mine.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Gary, while you're here is there anything that you can provide that responds to
Mr. Prather's concerns?
Inselman: Councilman Borton, we -- ACHD does have access -- access management
standards regardless of where Overland would align that would possibly restrict access
to Ten Mile from his property. We do require that -- we try to consolidate access points,
not wind up with multiple access points on the arterial roadway system. With an
intersection proposed there -- actually, when we looked at this before we had
recommended that it align where the road could be offset of his property line a little bit.
So, it wasn't exactly dead center. When a stub street hits a property line dead center,
then, it can't be built without both properties north and south of it developing at the same
time. If it were a signalized intersection in the future that would require certain offsets
from that intersection before his first access point would be allowed, but we would still
require that he try to consolidate access points and he currently has an application in
with the private road. We require or request that all his access come off of that road
and not consider multiple access points up and down Ten Mile.
De Weerd: I don't know if that really answers that. I don't know. Okay. Mr. Jewett.
Meridian City Council
January 231 2007
Page 37 of 72
Jewett: Thank you, again, Madam Mayor and Council. The issue of the 22-foot height
setback, I would actually have to write something in the CC&Rs and the guidelines to
make sure that we maintain it internally, as well as externally. So, my suggestion would
be that we measure it 22 feet from the mid point of the lot, top back of curb, but in no
event higher than 22 feet from the rear lot line at mid point. That protects the neighbors
knowing that for some reason the road is higher, it's not going to be more than 22 feet
above the rear property lines at mid point, but to be measured 22 feet from the mid point
of the lot at top back of curb. So, that's the language that I would propose to use. On
the setback, your attorney had addressed the issue of what I had stated at the previous
Council regarding the 30 foot setback. I thought 50 foot was going to limit our building
envelope slightly, that 30 foot might be appropriate and I'm still open if the Council
would like to discuss that further, but my offer was to make that a 30 foot setback. I do
have some of the same issues with vinyl fences that was spoken -- I'm not really that
much of a proponent of vinyl fences. My idea was to have an open fence, a wrought
iron fence. If it's the Council's desire that it be a solid fence, like I spoke last -- last
week, I will gladly put a solid fence in and it most likely will be that I will probably put a
solid concrete fence in, because I'm not a proponent of vinyl. I think long term with their
uses backing up to it, the farm uses, the vinyl fence probably won't have a long enough
life that we would want. So, I would offer that comment. As far as the stub street, we
met with Anna and staff early on kind of about those stub streets going that way and,
again, the staff at that point indicated that would be an issue that would come with
future preliminary plats, but with the issue coming up of how to address the stub street
to Val Vista, it is appropriate and I am agreeable that some stub street needs to be
addressed to the west. It has been discussed with staff in the past, so it's very
appropriate and we are agreeable to that. I think the last issue that I'm going to talk
about, I guess, is the process and my support of the process, not only at P&Z, but here,
but at ACHD, at Ten Mile charrette and the Ten Mile planning area. And I don't think
anything we are doing here short changes that. A condition that was placed on it at
P&Z, which I'm agreeable to, is that no construction or no development of the westerly
half of this property will occur until the Ten Mile area plan has been approved. So,
basically, what we are asking for, if we set out what the land use is going to be and let
the process continue. What our desire is to move forward on the east half, with a
preliminary plat that actually is being submitted. And so it -- I don't think that it's our
intent or the staff's intent or the P&Z's intent to short change any process or make it
hinder, I think it's just to enhance it and to layout this land use and let that process
continue and so with that I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Can you speak to the issue that Mr. Prather brought up? Apparently you
have had a conversation, so --
Meridian City Council
January 231 2007
Page 38 of 72
Jewett: With the -- Anna, I think there might be a plan that shows his lot lines over
there. One of those plans. But when ACHD looked -- did look at the realignment in one
-- I think the aerial. When they looked at the realignment of -- yeah. That one will work.
ACHD -- their staff did make a recommendation in the staff report and it was for
approval of the realignment with one modification, that we split this south property line
of the Prather property, split it with Overland Road. And that we were agreeable to.
And so the information I have is what was generated by the ACHD staff report, which
had recommended aligning the center line with that property, which to my
understanding is to Mr. Prather's south property line. And that's what I indicated to Mr.
Prather this evening when he asked me the question. It's my belief and it's our intention
to follow that guideline, but, again, you know, the process still has some more
processes to go through and we are supportive of that and I think with that will be that
final final determination, but I think it's in everybody's best interest to locate it where he
has indicated he wishes to have it and where ACHD staff indicated would be the best
place for it. I hope that answers your question.
Rountree: So -- Madam Mayor. If I might rephrase what you said. It's flexible and you
will do what will accommodate ACHD's desires and Mr. Prather's desires.
Jewett: That's correct.
De Weerd: So, basically, you're willing to take the risk?
Jewett: There is a risk with everything we do. Obviously, there is elevated risk, but I'm
assuming you say by the risk by moving forward with this project?
De Weerd: That's correct. Because there are some pretty large issues transportation
related with all these other plans in the process.
Jewett: And that's why I'm eager for those processes to go forward and be a part of
those and I don't think anything that we are proposing or doing would hinder that, nor
hurt it. I think what we want to do is be part of it and what we are asking for is what's
contained within your approval, which says let us move forward on the east half with our
development, understanding that this is the land use, but if for some reason the Ten
Mile area plan modifies that, that we have to come back in and modify that part of our
preliminary plat and we are agreeable to that. So, if that means taking that risk, yes.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jim, as I understand it, then, your -- the only development that you are doing is
basically from the east and --
Jewett: Did you see this phase one and phase two line?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 39 of 72
Bird: Yeah. Okay.
Jewett: Everything east of that line is what we are asking and I believe that's how it's
worded in the -- in the staff report is that everything west of the phase line would not be
constructed until such time as that Ten Mile area planning has been approved. And it
sounds like ACHD is on their way. I know that your city is on the way. I believe those
applications have all been started through the process. So, it's there. And I think we
are more than willing to be a part of that and eager to be a part of that. All we are
asking is that we get our plat approved, so that we can move forward on that -- that east
half, which in no plan, either prior or current, modifies that area to the east.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Follow up, Mayor.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Jewett, you're -- but you're asking us on our preliminary plat to approve the
whole 290 acres, which --
Jewett: That's correct.
Bird: And, you know, there is no guarantee that that Over -- that Overland Road is
going to go there.
Jewett: That's correct.
Bird: So, I -- and don't get me wrong, I like having 290 acres being -- you know, it's
better than having five acres at a shot, but I -- I have some very much concerns for the
people that are the neighbors -- that's your neighbors and I know you want to do -- we
want to do right with them, but I have some -- I have some real concerns on that road
going -- I think the road going through like you proposed is ideal, but I think drainage
and stuff, you -- the lower level people have some real concerns about where is the
runoff on that road going to be. Your crown in your road is usually the high point, so
they do run. That's why I say, you want to go from -- at the mid point of the lot. Well,
most lots will run from the mid point out to the back and to the front so they drain and
you have the other come -- the roads drain off to the -- to the sides, so, anyway, I -- I
see that you are not asking for more.
Jewett: Let me address that. The road that we are talking about that would be located
along here when a preliminary plat comes through, the grade is fairly flat in here and,
then, starts falling this way. So, it's very very flat up in here. As it gets over here it will
fall away, so the road will definitely be below the lots. In this area it will be very level.
What my proposal would be is simply that you measure up in this point in the lot, but not
to exceed mid point of the rear lot. That would protect them knowing that they can
balance it from theirs, but most likely it will be lower than that. So, I'm just trying to
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 40 of 72
answer that. As far as the drainage -- the drainage issue that came up at the previous
hearing was generally over in this area for this individual, Mr. Amend. And I think that
probably the answer is we have to submit a drainage plan that not only ACHD reviews,
but the city staff reviews and, of course, my engineering must stamp. So, you have
three levels of review of that. And, again, the other issue is as far as Overland. If for
some reason Overland doesn1t go here, then, we have to come back and tell you how
we are going to service and for illustration purposes we showed -- the original road that
we proposed in here is this road. These are two collector roads that we propose.
Those are those light hatched areas. With the Ten Mile charrette we modified it and put
this road in. So, we show that and I show you how the options -- that we already had a
transportation plan in place that had a full traffic study on it. If we have to come back,
that will be part of any preliminary plats over there. What we are saying is, though, we
believe -- I believe that the city does want Overland relocated because of the problems
where it currently exists. My engineers did a lot of work in looking at it and saying there
really isn't a lot of options and this is a good option. We took a lead, we put it in there,
we have got it actually all designed and it does work. It works as good as any road
could work under the circumstances of that grade. So, it's our endeavor to work through
the city, ACHD, and ITD to make sure that all the components that happen in the Ten
Mile interchange area work and are in harmony. I think you will see from Sue Sullivan's
comments there can be some benefit from working ahead on this aspect of realignment,
rather than working it behind.
Bird: True.
Canning: Madam Mayor, there was question about the conditions of approval. I did
want to show those to you. It does state that all mega lots shown on the master
concept plan west of the first phase shall be annexed and recorded as mega lots with
the first final plat, but no home or road construction shall occur in this area until such
time as the Ten Mile area specific plan is adopted by the city. So, we did try -- we have
made every attempt to let this go forward, because it does seem to facilitate all the other
things that are important to the city in this area, but to make sure that we do address the
specific needs of this property.
De Weerd: And that Ten Mile -- just for clarification, Anna, the Ten Mile area specific
plan is tied to the design approved through the public hearings for the Ten Mile
interchange design.
Canning: Yes, ma'am. As you are aware, those public processes -- we have done
every effort we can to coordinate with Lochner through Rosemary Curtin's efforts
primarily and those have been well integrated plans, with both the interchange design
and the area plan.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Jewett, I guess there is still the question as to the park.
Jewett: Could I leave that to you guys?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 41 of 72
De Weerd: You can leave it to the Council --
Jewett: Thank you.
De Weerd: -- for discussion. But I guess there was a question that was raised is
relocating the pool to another location if you desired to have that as a city park.
Jewett: Okay. Let me take my developer hat off and put my citizen hat on. I believe
that the park brings a benefit to the city as a whole. So, I would be supportive of making
it a public park and if that means relocating a private facility away from that, I'm
assuming we could accommodate that. And we chose that location because of the
recreational addition to that -- that facility that would add. Also, because -- oh, it
changed on me. The centralized nature of the park also facilitated the centralized
nature of the pool and clubhouse. So, they kind of go in harmony. But I'm assuming we
can find another location that's very close to this and relocate it. We would like to keep
it on the pathway system. That was another reason we located it there. I think it's
important that the kids can walk through a pathway system to that facility and not have
to take the streets all the time, so -- but I'm assuming that we could go down that route.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions from Mr. Jewett?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Jewett, any further comments?
Jewett: No. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: There are a lot of elements to this that I believe that are attractive to the city
of Meridian. There are quite a number of elements that I believe are attractive to the
City of Meridian in this project. As for the park, I personally would like to see the
majority of the park be a public park, city park. I was reasonably comfortable with the
applicant's plan to visually separate it. I could also be more comfortable with the
homeowners park portion of it being relocated nearby. I think that's probably a better
idea. It would also maintain the public park where it is. The two stub streets, along with
some of the audience testimony, I misunderstood where the second stub street on the
mega lot was supposed to go. There are not two aimed at Val Vista, there is only the
one that was talked about. And I think it's reasonable to provide for the other properties
eventually not to access Ten Mile. The alignment of Overland 11m very much in favor of.
As somebody who uses Black Cat Road frequently, I'm a little disturbed by the first time
I'm hearing that it may be thought about not to connect over to Black Cat eventually. I
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 42 of 72
think that raises the same issue that if Overland were realigned and, then, aligned with
Lamont, it would turn Lamont into a collector or an arterial. I think the same thing would
happen. If Overland is realigned, which I believe it should be into this configuration, but,
then, does not continue over to Black Cat, you end up with the same problem on
Lamont you would have if they were aligned, except that now you have two turns to
make in order to use Lamont to continue Overland. I know that will all come out in the
south Meridian area plan, but I, for one, feel that Overland needs to continue and
eventually connect to the other Overland at Black Cat. I think the importance of that will
be even greater once the interchange is there and very possibly when Highway 16 and
McDermott are aligned -- it hasn't been decided whether that would be a T interchange
only going north or whether McDermott to the south would be accessed as well. But
connecting this portion of Overland at least over to Black Cat and, therefore, onto
McDermott, even if it ends at McDermott, improves the circulation of this area of
Meridian for the future and I base that on my work with city infrastructure all over the
country and feeling that such interconnections are important, that in our case it's a relief
valve for the interstate. It also will be accessed to this interchange when it's there. So,
I'm very much in support of this realignment. It's off the subject, but I also support
continuing that over to Black Cat. The one thought that I have is that we have a number
of studies going on and a number of agencies involved in those studies, they all seem to
be either leaning in or accepting the possibility of this realignment and we seem to all be
sitting around staring at each other wondering who is going to blink first. My feeling is
that Meridian needs to the take lead. I'm not taking anything away from ITD and ACHD,
they are the roadway departments, they make the final decisions, but I have no problem
making a firm statement that Meridian would like this to happen and I feel that the
issues that needed to be resolved are being resolved. There are some -- the mega lots
will have their own hearing as they come through again, and I, for one, am in favor of
this. I think it's good for the city.
De Weerd: Thank you. Other comments? Okay. What would be the desire of Council
at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings for items nine and
ten.
Borton: 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. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'm not sure we have every question asked or every question
answered, but I think we have gotten some degree of guidance from the public and the
applicant on this. Some of the notes that I have that speak specifically to the times we
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 43 of 72
were talking about after the last hearing was there is some indication on the part of the
developer to entertain a solid masonry fence. There is an indication to accept the stub
street from the mega lot to the furthest western point and also to the one land locked
parcel further west that currently provides -- gets access from Ten Mile via a lane. That
the applicant is willing to entertain moving or relocating the public -- or the private
clubhouse and swimming pool. Willing to entertain and work with ACHD and the private
property owner across Ten Mile in terms of access there. Has offered what I feel is
probably the only way to pin down a solution for a height restriction on the lots. There
has been an offering of everything from 30 to 50 feet setback. Scientifically I'm going to
say 40.
De Weerd: That was scientifically?
Rountree: Yeah. Just offering these for consideration. Those are the more specific
comments that I believe I heard for consideration. And either addressing moving
forward or addressing either rehearing or holding over this particular application. So, I
don't know if there is any other comments.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Just my comments. The applicant on the setback agreed to 30 feet and I feel
those are -- you know, they are not the deepest lots, they are only a hundred -- and I
think about 130 feet he says when he addressed us last week in the minutes. I have no
problem with a 30 foot setback, so the houses can be -- because we are putting a
restriction on the height of it, so to get any kind of square footage back there you're
going to have to have it longer and wide. Anyway, I -- on the pool and the park, I think
they should both stay private. If they don't, if they want to put the park public, I think
they can stay together, because 95 percent or more of your use of the park is going to
be from within the subdivision, so they can use the pool, too. I believe the park is a very
nice amenity for the subdivision and whether -- the way the motion is made will -- I will
be -- guide my vote. And so, anyway, I think it is -- I think staff and the applicant has
done a great great for this job large of a project, with the problems that have come
along with it. I, too, agree with Councilman Zaremba that Overland Road coming up is
the only smart way to do it, but, you know, that's not for us to make the final decision on.
I think that lays with the five commissioners at ACHD.
De Weerd: You're mumbling again.
Bird: It don't hurt us -- it don't hurt us to give them a direction that we would like to see it
go. So, anyway, that's my thought on the project. I just as well say whichever way I
vote is the applicant and the staff have done a great job and I appreciate it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 44 of 72
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: See if I can muddy the waters a little bit more perhaps with my comments, for
what it's worth. I echo the sentiments of Council and I appreciate the comments and the
hard work of staff, Anna and Caleb and everyone that helped answer a lot of our
questions that we had I believe in the last hearing and I appreciate Mr. Jewett and his
cooperation and confession, his involvement of the neighbors and, as well, the
neighbors that have come last week and this week to participate. I don't think there is
ever an application where each and every element is clear as a bell and we all
necessarily agree on anyone, so this one has even more variables that make forming a
consensus difficult. For what it's worth, I'll let you know my thoughts on some of the
areas that were addressed that we might disagree on and I'll start with the setback and
this might be my muddiest opinion is I have no problem holding Mr. Jewett's feet to the
fire on the 50 feet. I'm extremely sensitive to the comments of the neighbors in the Val
Vista area and there is one area that is of particular concern is that -- and I don't think --
and I think Mr. Jewett's remarks -- and I credit him for it -- aren't one that that's a deal
breaker. I think it -- and recognize the fact that it limits what his opportunities are on
those parcels, but from his testimony in both hearings, I garner the impression that he
could make that work and to me that's an important aspect of what the public's concern
was. I agree with Councilman Bird on the park and I appreciate Director Strong coming
forward and fighting like a wounded steer for more public park land. Keep doing it. I
think that's great, whether we agree or disagree with you. I disagree with you on this
particular one. I think Mrs. Stone's comments from a week ago and at the parks and
rec commission and, again, today are indicative of good rational thought. I think Mrs.
Apostolou brought up additional comments about this neighborhood park being a
private park will serve a lot of the functions of a neighborhood park, as Mr. Bird said,
most of the use will be from within this development, if not all. The neighborhood park
definition is trying to serve those needs within a square mile, give or take, and within
this development the cost benefit to the city and the taxpayers and the expense to
complete development, restrooms, play fields -- or excuse me -- tennis court or
basketball court, continued maintenance -- those types of costs outweigh the benefits to
the citizens of Meridian as a whole. I think it does provide a benefit to those within the
area and it's going to be a fantastic asset to this region. I don't think the -- in my opinion
the cost benefit supports it being a city park and it will be a great private park and a
clubhouse and the pool will be a wonderful amenity for all those within the area. I
appreciate the applicant agreeing to -- I presume he agreed. He didn't object to the
school district's request to tile the irrigation on their northern property boundary between
the elementary school and the public library. That was a concern I brought up and had
a question about last time and I brought up that safety concern to the district before on
another application at least one other that I can think of and I think the safety concerns
for me are satisfied with that irrigation canal being tiled. I appreciate the applicant's
remedy on the fly with regards to the height restriction. I didn't have as much heartburn
as others might have with regards to the ability to mound your home and sneak passed
the 22 foot height requirement. Nonetheless, I think the applicant's concessions are
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 45 of 72
maybe a safe way to protect the interest of those to the south and I appreciate that and
would agree with those. I asked staff -- and, again, Anna and Caleb, thanks to you both
for getting some of these questions answered. My concern or question about the transit
stop -- I understand and I know services are and are not available. My concern with the
transit stop is somewhat analogous to my concern about a private pool near a public
park and I just -- it's going to be a great asset to the community. My concern is whether
or not upon what week will we get the call from an individual sitting at a bus stop waiting
for the bus to arrive when there is no bus service. So, I know Boise feels that those
infamous benches that people wait on indefinitely where there is not a bus in the area.
So, that was my concern with that. I think it's going to be a great amenity down the
road, I just know we are going to be faced with challenges for those that wait and wait
and wait for the bus. I think that covers the majority of my concerns. The application as
a whole, phase two being required to comply with the Ten Mile specific area plan and
the critical part, to my mind, of this application going forward, nonetheless, whatever
that plan sets forth, to my mind, doesn't necessarily mean that compliance with that
specific area plan qualifies as a satisfactory product in certain mega lots of phase two. I
think it's an obvious condition to go forward, but it's not a per se acceptance of what's
going to go in there. There is my sufficiently vague standing of where I am. I was
concerned last week with the application. The public has echoed some of my
sentiments with regards to the ability to serve this particular area, from educating the
kids, transporting the individuals, providing park space, fire, police protection, every
aspect of the city services is challenged with something of this magnitude and what I
wrestle with and is probably my own fault, is the chicken and the egg timing that goes
with these types of things, where you love to have all of the amenities from
transportation on available prior to the development, but that's not a realistic process in
this region. What Mr. Jewett has done, in my mind, is provide as much as we can
reasonably expect to further those from his generosity, whether that's the right word or
not, his desire to help that along in roadway improvements and the sale of assets to --
for a library -- public library, public education opportunities, which, by the way, provide
some open space my understanding a few acres larger than normal an elementary
school site to provide some open space opportunities for the city in a sufficient
extension of our partnerships with the district and use of their facilities, might provide
the city some additional opportunities. I appreciate and respect what Mr. Jewett is
trying to do here and there is unanswered questions, but for this councilman the
questions have been satisfactorily answered and I'm comfortable going forward with the
inclusion of all of the public's comments and applicant's comments, staff's comments,
and the items that I have remarked upon.
De Weerd: I'm glad to hear you're a proponent of public transportation, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'll direct the call to you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: That's on the record I think.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 46 of 72
De Weerd: Thought I'd point that out in that dialogue. Okay.
Rountree: I was going to say, if Mr. Borton would like to put that particular argument in
the form of a motion --
Bird: We can go from there.
Rountree: -- we can go from there.
Borton: If it's possible to do it without having to say it all over again, I would incorporate
my comments, the requirements, concessions, restrictions that I stated, into a motion to
approve Item No.9, AZ 06-031.
Rountree: I'll second that.
Bird: Question.
De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before we vote. Does that include a private park?
Borton: Correct.
Bird: Okay. Then I'm for it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Discussion as well. That also leaves the rear
setback at 30 feet and the measuring as stated in Item 22.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: The motion would incorporate a 50 foot rear setback along the southern
boundary.
Zaremba: And measuring of the average height, the 22 feet.
Borton: The measuring of the average height -- basically that the terms of the motion
were the elements set forth in what I had just referenced, so there were some
amendments to the actual staff report, one being the 50 foot. The average height would
incorporate the applicant's comments, which I probably couldn't articulate as well as he
had with regards to measuring the house height, but it does provide I think better
protection for the residents.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 47 of 72
De Weerd: And that noted the fencing type as concrete -- stamped concrete with the
fence through the stub street?
Borton: Correct.
De Weerd: Staff, any further clarification on the motion?
Canning: Let me write down that note for a second.
Zaremba: To -- I'm sorry, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: On the subject of the fence, he -- the applicant said that required to build a
solid fence he may, in fact, make it a masonry one. Do we want to leave that available
by eliminating the word vinyl. We already say solid six foot tall fence.
De Weerd: No.
Bird: I think Joe meant a concrete or block fence.
Zaremba: This is --
Borton: The intent was a solid masonry.
Bird: Solid masonry. Yeah.
Zaremba: A solid six foot tall vinyl fence at the moment, but do we want to eliminate the
word vinyl or specify something else?
De Weerd: I think that was --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: The intent was to install a masonry, durability, and fire hazard as discussed by
the public. They made a request for solid masonry.
Canning: Madam Mayor, if I could get clarification on two items and, then, just to make
sure there is one additional one you addressed that we haven't spoken of that we would
add a final provision that states that the applicant shall work with ACHD to align
Overland Road to accommodate development of the Prather property. Is that what was
intended?
Borton: Yes.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 48 of 72
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: That's an applicant comment.
Canning: Okay. Thank you. Okay. With regard to the measurement of the height and
perhaps Mr. Jewett can nod if I understand this correctly, but I just want to make sure I
have got this right, it's either the mid point of the front of the lot or the mid point of the
rear of the lot, which ever is more restrictive. Okay. That's the way we will word it, then.
And I did understand the stamped concrete vinyl fence, the Mayor just now mentioned
putting it across the stub street. I'm not -- there may be a concern there, because I'm
not sure how you take it down once the stub street needs to be continued, so I don't
know if that's ever been done before, but --
Bird: Just knock it out.
De Weerd: Yeah. I think ACHD will worry about that.
Canning: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: It probably seems obvious, but they probably want to include the language that in
the findings that they will still mark that this street may be extended in the future and the
fence removed, so that it's clear that it will come down at some point, so --
De Weerd: I would hope that's --
Nary: Or could come down at some point.
De Weerd: -- a requirement in any regard.
Nary: It normally is, but it's not normally a stone wall that's across the road at the time,
so that's why.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, it probably could be designed --
De Weerd: You mean there is a mote with that?
Zaremba: It probably could be designed with some kind of a pillar right at the end of the
right of way, so that the section that's between -- the section that actually crosses the
roadway could be taken out without looking ugly. Just a thought.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other help with the motion?
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 49 of 72
Canning: The way I would propose to address the elementary school site, just for
clarification, is to state -- to add a statement to provision number 16 saying the applicant
shall tile the drainage facility on the northern boundary of the elementary school site.
Borton: Correct.
Canning: I have had my questions answered. Thank you, Council, for that clarification.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council? Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment that as I -- my vote has been noted, I'm very much in favor
of the project. I still feel that the park should have been public.
De Weerd: Thank you for that on the record. Okay. Item 10.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: And I move we approve Item PP 06-031, to include staff, applicant, and Council
comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second on Item 10 to approve.
Bird: Question. What's the date on the preliminary plat for the record that we are
approving?
De Weerd: Anna, can you give us a date?
Bird: Is it this one?
Canning: Madam Mayor, the one in the staff report should still be accurate. We have
not gotten a new revised -- oh, you did get a new one?
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 50 of 72
Rountree: No, it's the same one you've got.
Bird: It's the same one we've had, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the staff report, to my knowledge,
indicates the correct preliminary plat date. I will have to look it up, but --
Bird: Does 11/28/06 sound right, Anna?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Bird: We have got 12/14--
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Bird: -- landscape.
Borton: I have a December 7th revised --
Bird: Revised plat? Preliminary plat?
Borton: Yes.
Bird: I just want to make sure we have it on the record.
Canning: Madam Mayor, the applicant has indicated that his stamp should say the 7th,
I believe.
Berg: Madam Mayor, in the staff report it does refer to a December 7th preliminary plat
as a revised plat.
Bird: 12/7/06? Okay.
Canning: Thank you, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Would add that to your motion?
Borton: Done.
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Just further discussion. Last week we did ask to tie in the elevations
until the design criteria is submitted by Mr. Jewett and that's certainly probably more
relevant to the development agreement and annexation, but did want to at least note
that for the record. Okay.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 51 of 72
Rountree: That's a condition.
Bird: That's a condition. That's right.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And since most of the people are gone, we appreciate
all of the help and certainly, Mr. Shoemaker, that the process for public input will still go
forward on the transportation plan. That is not a done deal.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: MI 06-011 Request for a Miscellaneous application to
amend the previously approved Development Agreement by including a
provision to permit the installation of a double wide mobile office on the
property at 4740 W. Chinden Boulevard for The Tree Farm Annexation
(AZ 06-004) by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on
both sides of Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: So, Item 11 is a Public Hearing on MI 06-011. I will open this Public
Hearing on Item 11 with staff comments.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Due to a conflict I'm going to recuse myself from Item No. 11.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Tree Farm project. It's
located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard between Ten Mile and Black Cat and
this is the second modification to the development agreement. The applicant is
proposing to amend section five, conditions governing development of subject property
of the DA. And staff is recommending the following amendment. Ifs a little bit long, as
is everything tonight, so -- but I will read it for you. All future development of the
property shall be constructed in accord with the UDC as it exists on the date of this
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 52 of 72
agreement, provided, however, the uses may be expanded, but not limited by any future
amendment to the UDC and the existing Tree Farm nursery may continue to operate as
it presently exists on the property, including all existing structures and access points.
That portion is currently in the development agreement. We are asking for you to
consider the following additional information or provision. In addition, the existing Tree
Farm nursery will be allowed to relocate its offices from their current location at 4042
West Chinden Boulevard to a mobile office building to be located at 4740 West Chinden
Boulevard. In association with this relocation the applicant may install a new septic
system at 4740 West Chinden Boulevard to serve the mobile office building until gravity
sewer becomes available. At such time the applicant shall remove the septic system
and connect to the city sewer. The septic system shall be removed and the office shall
be connected to the city within 60 days of the date of sewer being available, which shall
be prior to issuance of building permits in the first phase of the Tree Farm development.
Furthermore, within five years of the date of this amendment to the development
agreement all uses and structures on this property associated with the Tree Farm
nursery shall be abandoned. So, as I pointed out when I was reading that, the existing
development agreement clearly states that the existing Tree Farm nursery may continue
to operate as it presently does, but with development on the east side of the property,
they are finding that they need to relocate the office. There is currently a house located
where they are moving it to and they will use the access for that house. Unfortunately,
they can't use the septic system, it won't accommodate the office. So, they need to
replace the septic system. The owners of the property, Tree Haven, LLC, have agreed
to lease the new property for five years. At that time the nursery will vacate the property
to a more permanent location. As I mentioned before, they will just use the current
access, temporarily extend that until such time as the western end of the property
redevelops. That's as it stands right now with staff. The applicant is opposed to the
requirement to hook up to city sewer and I believe you should have received a comment
from him. They are asking to just have the septic system for the five years or whenever
they vacate the property, whichever is first. So, there is that additional testimony from
the applicant with regard to this application. Just as a little background, that's not in the
staff report. We looked at how we could possibly do this as a temporary use, but it
doesn't meet the purpose statements of a temporary use, so this development
agreement modification did seem to be the appropriate mechanism for getting this
approved. With that I will answer any questions you may have.
Rountree: Oh, all the wheels are gone.
Bird: Mr. Vice-President, I had no --
Rountree: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: I do have one, if I may. There was an issue about the existing red barn. Is
that what we are talking about moving or can you identify where the red barn is? As I
Meridian City Council
January 2312007
Page 53 of 72
recall, they intended to continue using it and the issue was they got a landscape buffer
variance around it, but is that moving?
Canning: Vice-President Rountree, Councilmember Bird, Councilmember Zaremba,
since there are three of you up there, I know their existing offices are in the red barn. I
thought they were keeping that facility, but I'm not sure -- I believe they are moving
offices out of there. I will have to let the applicant actually answer that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rountree: Any further questions of staff? This is a Public Hearing. Anybody -- does
the applicant wish to provide some information? State your name and address for the
record.
Carter: Yes. Joe Carter, Jayker Wholesale Nursery, 25455 North Lansing, Middleton,
Idaho. I come before you as a representative of the nursery, the occupant of the red
barn, and I will address that first if I may. My staff and I do currently occupy the red
barn and that building is intended to remain, I believe, for some period of time during the
development process, but the preliminary road that cuts into the development will cut
right through our operation and so we are moving our staff to the west to that existing
house and which is not big enough for all of us and, therefore, the reason for our
request to put some additional space there. Beyond that, I think the staff report and
Anna's comments are right on target and pretty well cover the situation. The one thing I
would add is that I represent a business that's in transition and I want to emphasize the
temporary nature of this. I have been, basically, displaced out of a very nice building
and I'm putting my staff into something that is far less than that. We are in the process
of looking for a permanent site and it is my hope -- it's my hope that we can find
something and move very quickly, because I would like to replicate that and, then, have
the continuity for my business. To that end -- and, then, as really the nature of my
request, additional request to enable us to use the septic tank that we are to install and
use for at least a year. It's a system that's designed for longer term use and although I
do understand it is not in complete compliance with the city ordinance regarding
temporary use, I do believe that the wording would enable plenty of opportunity to see
that that is rectified in the future. We will vacate, our lease will terminate, there will be
ample opportunity for this Council to review any additional requests on development of
that property and, again, I think ample opportunity to see that that temporary use is, in
fact, terminated and any additional buildings be tied to city sewer.
De Weerd: Mr. Carter, I can say that your business is a welcome site to certainly these
eyes. You have taken very good care of your facility and we hope you find a relocation
in our community.
Carter: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 54 of 72
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. Mr. Carter, are you a partner in the Tree
Haven, LLC, or do you just have a lease with that particular group?
Carter: Councilman Rountree, I am not a partner in Tree Haven. I am an employee of
the Carnahans who are part owners in Tree Haven. I represent the nursery as an
employee, but I am also president and CEO of that corporation.
Rountree: So, I take it to understand you're also representing the desires of Tree
Haven, LLC, as well?
Carter: Well, we are in close contact. They are my landlord and Derek O'Neil is here if
there are more direct questions of Tree Haven. I do not represent them directly, no.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony on this?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Len, given that Public Works has
expressed an opposition to this particular waiver. Could you expound on that?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I think it's just the principle of the
application, that, you know, when an annexation takes place and eventually sewer does
come, that they hook up. A temporary being one year we don't have as much concern.
Five years we have quite a bit more concern. You know, if you wanted to provide
wording to the effect of one year renewable at the city engineer's discretion -- you know,
for example, if they were one year and six months, we could go ahead and extend it, but
I just -- I just don't like these things carrying on for extended periods. So, it's just literally
that.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess to carry that further, would language to the effect:
Until services are available --
Grady: Yes. Very much so.
Rountree: And no more than five years?
Grady: Perfect.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Are you mumbling over there, Anna?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 55 of 72
Grady: Just to make sure I understand --
De Weerd: I think this hearing has made us all start mumbling. Uh, Mr. Bird?
Bird: Yes.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, so once services are available, they
would hook up, unless, through Public Works' discretion, we extend it; is that what
you're saying? And limited by five years.
Rountree: And limited to five years.
Grady: Perfect.
Rountree: I have a question to the applicant. Is that language --
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Carter: Allow me to clarify a little bit. There is a septic system there with the house, I
think that's been made clear. It's not adequate for the office. We have asked for
permission from Central District Health to install a new septic system and they have
agreed. The issue of the city ordinance has come up and we are fully prepared to
comply with the wishes of Council here, but all I'm asking is that having installed a new
system that will be in place for roughly a year and, then, tear it out, just enabled me to
use it for a longer period and I did e-mail late today -- I realize it's the 11 th hour, but I did
a-mail some wording and I have put a date to it as well, that I would like to see in the
conditions that -- and we be able to use the septic system until development of the
property on which that office is located or until January 1 st of 2012, whichever comes
first. At that point we would remove this new septic system and any later connections or
any other later building permits on that property would be contingent upon connecting to
sewer. I do wish to --
Rountree: I think that's what I said.
Carter: Okay. Okay. I wanted that clarification. We do want to comply with the
ordinance, we are just asking for a variance in time.
De Weerd: Len, do you feel comfortable with that?
Grady: Just want to make one final clarification. So, once sewer is available they would
hook up?
Bird: That's not what he said.
Grady: No?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 56 of 72
Rountree: I thought that's what he said.
Bird: No. He said once they decide to develop the property, the sewer could be
available before they decide to --
Grady: Right. That's what they are saying and that could be up to 2012.
Carter: That does look like it, yes.
Rountree: You would make it green, so I can't read it.
Carter: My apologies. I have a blue one.
Rountree: Oh, I can read that one.
Carter: Derek's pointed out another -- another point there that if we do connect to sewer
when it's available and whether that be in a year or a year and a half, that connection
will have to be, basically, torn out again when we move and that's another disruption to
that system. We would like, from a practical standpoint, to, yes, leave it longer, but with
full agreement that when we vacate our system will be removed as well.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: I have a blue highlighted area, which I believe is what you just said, and in
pink -- is that pink or green? Pink, I think.
De Weerd: It's gray.
Rountree: Is it gray? Okay. Whatever. I'm color challenged.
Carter: I understand.
Zaremba: I knew we could get along. So am I.
Carter: If I may, Council --
Rountree: Is one built on the other?
Carter: What 11m asking is to replace the -- the lower shaded area, regardless of its
color, with the upper shaded one.
Rountree: Okay. I believe what you're proposing gets to the issue. I don't -- until you
develop the property, you're telling us that until the property is developed the sewer is
not going to be extended and available anyway. So, once the property is developed,
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 57 of 72
then, the sewer would be available, then, you would connect. I believe that's what that
says. Development of the property upon which the mobile office is to be located or until
January 1 st.
Carter: If I may, the first phase in Tree Farm development will take place on the eastern
part of the property, which is over here. That's the construction of which will cut through
and interrupt our operations. My understanding is that sewer will come up Black Cat
and take some route to the east, which I donlt know if that's been decided as of yet, and
I think that's what staff is referring to is sewer will come through here relatively soon,
possibly within a year, and they are asking that we connect at that point, within 60 days
of the time that that is there. Because we are putting a -- or asking to put a building
here and a new septic system per Central District Health requirements, it just seems
unnecessary to tear it out in a year to connect when, in fact, I will -- I'm asking to make a
condition of further development of this and the Tree Haven -- the owners have agreed
with that, to make a condition of that continuance, being that it -- we will take ours out.
So, again, the difference is one of timing. It looks like sewer will be available in the near
term and we are asking to be connected to or using an old fashioned septic system,
albeit brand new, for a little bit longer period.
De Weerd: No longer than five years.
Carter: And per my wording no longer than January 1 st, 2012, or at which time we can
find a permanent location and move out, whichever is first.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: But, sir, didn't you say the developer wanted to add something to that? Did I --
Carter: He just pointed out to me that the later development of the property where we
want to put this mobile office mayor may not involve a sewer connection and when we
tear ours out, if we are, in fact -- if we leave, there is an open connection there and I
think that was his point is that they would probably have to remove that or relocate it in
some way to accommodate the development that would replace us.
Rountree: Thank you. Sorry for all the confusion.
Carter: It's all in the interest of understanding.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony? Questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 231 2007
Page 58 of 72
Bird: Len, is language, in reality, is kind of worded like Charlie's statement, but in
understanding is a lot different. What can you live with?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I think -- to me it looks like either one or the
other. There is probably not much middle ground. I suppose the only middle ground
would be the five year period, you know, if we were to -- it just sets wrong that we run
sewer right by there and, then, have a septic tank for five years. We are willing to --
Rountree: You1re an optimist.
Grady: Pardon me?
Rountree: You're an optimist.
Grady: Yeah. I have to be, but --
De Weerd: He gets paid to be.
Grady: So, really, I'm just bringing it to your attention. I can live with either one. I really
can. I just feel ifs appropriate to bring it to your attention and I can go either way.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Follow up. And I appreciate that, Len, because I think you can understand from
their viewpoint is when they develop and need the sewer it's probably not going to be at
this location. I mean, you know, there is no guarantee that they will want it run right
where that temporary office building is. So, if you can live with that, I certainly can.
De Weerd: So, what I hear is he is -- Len is okay with living with no longer than five
years. Bottom line?
Grady: Correct. Yes. Unless you wanted to cut it to three.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, this is not for this particular application, but it is a subject that
is of issue for the city in terms of the Black Cat trunk and I think that Mr. O'Neil and the
city and some other folks that are looking at developing out there, we need to get
together in order make that happen. So, hopefully, if that hasn't been set up, it will be
soon.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 59 of 72
Zaremba: I was just going to ask if it would be appropriate for the eventual maker of the
motion to add something that says that nobody should construe this as establishing a
precedence. I think that is part of the concern of Public Works is people will think, oh,
we are making an exemption.
Bird: I agree with you.
Rountree: It's your turn for a motion.
Zaremba: All right. First motion, Madam Mayor, I move we close the Public Hearing on
MI 06-011, Item 11.
Rountree Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve MI 06-011, to include all staff
comments, with the following change and that is to accept the applicant's wording that
the septic tank will be abandoned when they relocate or on January 1 st, 2012,
whichever is first and that nobody should take this as being a precedent for future
exceptions.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Motion and a second to approve Item 11 with the added comments as
stated. Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. B~rg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 60 of 72
Item 12:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-008 Request for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-
45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for
Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of
Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road:
Public Hearing: MCU 06-002 Request for Modification of the approved
Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to remove the requirement
for detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for development on Lots 41-
45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 for Lochsa Falls Office I
Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard
and west of N. Linder Road:
De Weerd: Items 12 and 13 have been asked to continue to February 6th. I will open
these two public hearings on AZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002 and ask for a motion from
Council.
Zaremba: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
Bird: That was to February 6; right?
De Weerd: That's correct. Was that your aye as well, to continue Items 12 and 13 to --
Borton: Aye.
De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico,
LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road:
Public Hearing: PP 06-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26
single-family residential building lots and 3 common / other lots on 5.17
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico,
LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Public Hearing on 14 and 15, AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053. I will open
these two public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Portico Place project. It's
located at 1780 East McMillan Road. It's on the north side of McMillan Road just east of
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 61 of 72
the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan Road as shown here. The applications
are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and alternative compliance. The
applicant has addressed this issue in his preliminary plat. The proposed development
includes the request to annex and zone 5.17 acres to R-8 and a preliminary plat
approval of 26 single family residential and townhouse building lots. The alternative
compliance is with regard to the street buffer along McMillan. They are asking to
reduce it in some portions from 35 feet to 25 feet around an existing home. You can
see it here on the site plan before you. The dark area shows the buffer. You see how it
kind of cuts in and that is near the existing home. The building lots consist of 20
attached units, five detached units, and one existing detached home. The applicant has
proposed a gazebo, pathway, and parking areas and common lot located centrally. The
gross residential density is 5.03 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 6.98. Here
are some of the townhouse elevations. You have seen photographs of several of these
before also. There are currently two development agreement provisions that were
added by the Planning Commission. One is to state that if Lot 17, Block 1, redevelops,
re-subdivides or if any other modifications to the lot are made that require the city to
issue a building permit, at that time a new plat will be required that complies with the 35
foot wide landscape buffer required along East McMillan Road. And that Lot 17, Block
1, is the existing house lot. The second provision would be that the existing direct
access to East McMillan Road from the existing house shall be terminated and access
to the house shall be taken internally from North Beethoven Avenue. That was a -- well,
I'll move on to the Commission's recommendation. The Commission did recommend
approval at their December 21 st, 2006, Public Hearing. Ron Sargent, the applicant and
owner, spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented.
The key issue of discussion by the Commission was the retention of the existing access
to McMillan Road for the resident of the existing house and the associated landscape
buffer. The key Commission change to staff's initial recommendation was to require the
development agreement provisions that I detailed previously. The applicant -- that's,
really, the only two issues we have had. They have worked out another minor issue
with regard to one of the common drives, but those two points, the existing access to
McMillan Road and the DA provisions, are still outstanding issues according to the
applicant's response letter. The applicant's response letter I feel I should discuss briefly
with you and I believe you all received a copy of this from the clerk's office. And Mr.
Sargent articulates his particular concerns with the -- what I'm sure are the unintended
consequences of the development agreements that were added. They, basically, say
that if you have to pull a building permit, then, you have to plat that lot. And, then, the
other one says you have to pull a building permit to move that access. So, his
argument is that to meet our conditions of approval he's got to pull a building permit to
change the garage doors on the house, so that the house no longer has to take access
from McMillan Road. To be able to pull the building permit he has to go through the plat
and provide the 35 foot landscape buffer. So, I'm sure that -- you know, that sequence
of events was not anticipated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and particularly
by the maker of the motion who is now sitting on the end of the City Council, so -- but
this is one -- we have worked hard with Mr. Sargent to provide the alternative
compliance. We have trimmed it down, the area where they are providing the 25 foot
buffer to the minimum that we thought was necessary to accommodate that house and
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 62 of 72
we have worked with him on specifying exactly how much vegetation will go in there
and really providing that alternative to providing the 35 foot compliance, so -- and
although we very much appreciated the Commission's attempt to get a consistent 35
foot landscape buffer along there, I do believe that the way the condition was originally
written with the alternative compliance will probably suffice for the city. We are very
much opposed to that access remaining, so we have insisted and implored and coerced
the developer at every stage to move that internally and not maintain the McMillan
access. To do that he feels that it's necessary to reduce the buffer somewhat. I guess
that's staff presentation and I'll answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Anna, I don't see any elevations in here. I see a lot of black slides that
maybe they are elevations, but I don1t see anything in here. Oh. Thanks. I was looking
through my things for --
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Mr. Sargent has also provided photographs of these
units in I think three other developments that we have seen. So, he can speak to those
as well.
De Weerd: That would be great. Well, I see this in front of us are really more on the
pathway from what I can tell, so -- okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a comment. It was well explained by Director Canning, but as the
applicant will point out, there is a reason why they are asking for a variance from the 35
foot landscape buffer. I know he's going to say it, but the current resident of the house,
who is, I believe, selling the rest of the property, but not the house, is legally blind, is
very familiar with the setup the way it is, and would be greatly inconvenienced to have
things change when she's familiar with how everything is. In order for her to use her
front access and her garage door the direction it is -- not for her own driving, but for
people who come and pick her up and apparently use her car as well --
De Weerd: Thank you for clarifying that.
Zaremba: The 35-foot landscape buffer would -- would be too wide. It would,
apparently, come right up to her doorstep. So, the dance that we were doing at the
Commission hearings was that we all had sympathy for her need and desire that during
her life time or her use of that house that we could waive the 35 foot landscape buffer.
Where I was trying to get it to was that that was not a forever exception. We were trying
to find a way to have that waiver sunset, so that some day the city does have a 35 foot
landscape buffer there and that's where we were going. We may have gotten the word
wrong or there may be better wording that needs to be discussed, but there is a good
reason for waiving it. I feel there is a good reason not to make that waiver forever. End
of my comment.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 63 of 72
De Weerd: I appreciate the clarification. Any questions for staff, Council? Okay. Mr.
Sargent.
Sargent: Ron Sargent. 1883 North Wildwood Street, Boise, Idaho. Madam Mayor,
Council members, to begin with, just to clarify; we do actually own the house. We
bought the entire property, including the house, so -- but as part of that agreement we
have allowed her to remain living in the home for the -- as long as she1s able to continue
to live there. So, we are the owners of the house and I guess as Anna explained, what
we are very concerned with is this issue with the building permit, that if it remains as a
development agreement as is written, we will not be able to get insurance for the house,
because the house sits 35 feet and a few inches from the right of way, which means
that it would be a nonconforming use, because it doesn't meet any of the setback. So, if
there was some damage to a house, if one of our backhoes accidentally hit the side of
the house, we couldn't even get a building permit to do the repairs on it, because it
would kick in -- the development agreement would kick in, the landscape buffer would
have to go to 35 feet, it's a nonconforming use, so is what we think would happen, the
building department wouldn't be able to issue us a building permit. So, I guess our
feeling is that we are at considerable risk with the development agreement written as it
is, is that it just would not -- you know, would really put us in a very awkward situation.
Secondly, I guess feel that the landscape buffer being narrower at that point isn't
necessarily forever, because we really feel that the UDC and the city code, that if the
house is torn down and redeveloped for that area, that that, then, gives the city the
opportunity to put into place whatever the code requirement is at that point in time. So, I
guess we feel that the UDC is a very good code in being able to deal with any
redevelopments and future uses of that particular lot at this time. So, we don't feel at
this -- our feeling is that the development agreement is not a necessary part of the
approval and also puts a considerable burden on us, because we'd also be in a
situation, because we couldn't get insurance for the home and we are allowing Mrs.
Buckley to continue to live there indefinitely, we really couldn't do the development of
the subdivision until she was no longer living there and if it's beyond two years, then, we
would have to come back through for another application for the subdivision. So, we
are kind of in a real difficult situation with the development agreement as it is. So, we
would ask that the City Council approve it without the development agreement. I guess
we had agreed with Mrs. Buckley and the family that we would ask for a continuation of
direct access to McMillan, but the staff, ACHD, the police department have all
recommended against that. I think we are going to request it, because that's what we
said we would do with the family and Mrs. Buckley when we purchased the property.
So, I guess we are requesting that, but we realize that that probably is not going to be
successful given the opposition that there is to it. So, I guess I'd stand to answer any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 64 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Ralph, this is a Public Hearing, would you like to provide
testimony? Okay. Staff, any further comments? Okay. Council? You know, I guess I
do. Those sketches on what the elevations look like, I didn't see pictures. I have
pictures in front of me on -- of the house and the sidewalk, but I'm sure there is pictures
in this file, but they must be the black pictures that are on my computer screen.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I meant was that in previous
applications we have seen these pictures before. What I was trying to say was it's the
same unit that Mr. -- name just zoomed right out of my head. Sargent. Thank you. I've
just been blanking out. It's the same unit Mr. Sargent's been working with for a number
of years. So, you have seen it before. That's all I was trying to say. That we are
familiar with it.
De Weerd: I thought -- yeah. We would love to see the color.
Canning: Sorry, Ron.
Sargent: We understand. What we do is as we go through the various subdivisions we
like to change the elevations and the colors, change the rock, make modifications,
change the look of the doorways and the windows, to add a variety and within a given
subdivision we like to see a variety of different styles in units, so we are not building the
same unit side by side, try to break them up with a combination of different color and
change in architectural features and rough lines, et cetera.
De Weerd: So, what -- your request is not to have the setback requirement in there?
Sargent: The request is that --
De Weerd: And, I'm sorry, I have a headache, so I'm trying to track.
Sargent: Our request is the alternative compliance that adjacent to the house we'd
have a 25-foot buffer, but in alternative for that is that we'd plant an additional 44 shrubs
and an additional three trees in the landscape buffer along there. So, we -- you know,
that would be our alternative to having the narrower landscape buffer and we'd also
request that the annexation and preliminary plat be approved without the development
agreement.
De Weerd: And why is that?
Sargent: Because the way the development agreement says is that if we apply for a
building permit, the landscape buffer would go to 35. Since the house sits 35 feet and a
few inches from the right of way, it would be a nonconforming use, so the building
department wouldn't be able to issue us a building permit.
De Weerd: Is that correct?
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 65 of 72
Canning: The way the current -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the way the
current provisions of the development agreement are worded he is correct. If the
Council wishes to strike the development agreement provision with regard to one or
both of those -- I did want to make sure you were aware that the prohibition on direct
access is noted in the preliminary plat as well, so you would not be losing that. It is as
shown up on the board. It's in the preliminary plat conditions of approval, number 1.2.4.
So, what Mr. Sargent is asking is that until the owner of Lot 1 comes in asking for
additional subdivisions or asking to subdivide that property, that the 25 foot landscape
buffer would remain there. Now, if they wanted to further subdivide at some point in the
future, we could request the 35 feet then, but he just wants Lot 1 to be allowed as is.
De Weerd: Along with access.
Canning: No. Well, he's asking for access. He knows he can't get it. But he's told the
owner that he will ask for access, but we have beat it into him that --
Sargent: To honor my agreement with the owner that we bought the property from, I
have to ask for access, but realizing that staff, the police department, and the Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended against it, it seems unlikely that we would
be able to get that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, he did valiantly defend that in the Commission hearing as
well and the Commission sided with police and staff. He did his duty.
Sargent: Did that clarify? Madam Mayor, did that hopefully clarify it?
De Weerd: Thank you. Councilman Rountree is color blind. J'm just a little bit -- I'm not
even going there. Okay. Council, any questions? Hearing none, what would you like to
do?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-053 and PP 06-053.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Items
14 and 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry. Council, if there is no discussion, do I have a motion?
Either direction.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 66 of 72
Zaremba: All right. I guess in discussion before we get to make a motion, I just -- 11m
comfortable that if that lot were re-subdivided, the 35 foot landscape buffer would once
again come into play. I guess I worry that somebody might decide not to re-subdivide,
tear down the current house and build one bigger one farther back in the lot and still
have the 25-foot landscape buffer, instead of a 35. So, this is the dance that we were
doing at the Commission that is considering all the possibilities that might leave that
exception there. So, I am not tied to the way it was described before or the
development agreement. If the other Council members are comfortable or want to
make some discussion about it, I'm sure if it is subdivided, then, that's true, the 35 will
happen. I guess do we want to put some other limitation on it if it's not subdivided?
De Weerd: I think that's a great idea.
Zaremba: Then, the question would be how do we do that. Apparently, the
development agreement --
Rountree: If you can word that, that's fine.
Zaremba: Uh?
Rountree: If you can wordsmith that --
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, any suggestions?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, I don't. I think without a
development agreement I donlt know how we are going to limit the future use of that
property to at least that one possibility that someone would simply redevelop that
existing lot. I don1t know how we could -- it's pretty unlikely -- Mrs. Canning may have a
better suggestion.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant has stated that he's
retaining ownership of the lot, so we could tie it to prior sale of the Lot 1. The applicant
shall complete boundary adjustment with the homeowners association to provide the full
35 feet and, then, they could remove the existing home and presumably build
something else.
Nary: We would have to trust Mr. Sargent to do it. Not that I don't. I don't mean it that
way. But I mean -- I don't know whether --
Canning: You could put it in the development agreement is what I was --
Nary: But I thought part of the discussion was to not have one?
Zaremba: Well, it's to not tie it to a building permit or a repair permit.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 67 of 72
Nary: Okay. I think we could probably fashion some language if -- and maybe -- and I
guess it's my ignorance, Council. If we are going to have a development agreement,
but not that building permit to that parcel to that particular structure, that's the only thing
he's asking us not to do, we can probably fashion the language as Mrs. Canning stated,
that any other -- whether it's redevelopment or sale of that parcel would, then, require,
prior to the sale, that it be done and we have some tool to do that. We could do that.
So, if that's all we are trying to do, I think we could put it in a development agreement.
It's my mistake that I thought we were not going to include it at all, so -- I don't know if
you probably even heard any of that, Mr. Sargent. If we tied that -- if the issue is that
we have a development agreement, but not tied to the ability to reconstruct that house,
but simply tied to any development of that lot or sale of that, that the requirement would
be that a lot adjustment would have to be done, including the setback, then, it would still
allow you to rebuild the house and get a building permit and all of those things. Would
that be a problem?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, would you like to reopen the Public
Hearing, by any chance?
Borton: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Canning: I'm sorry I spoke before. I believe I was under the misconception that the
house was not of lasting quality, but I have been told that it is a brick home, it's nicely
done, it's worth keeping. So, the applicant has said that tying him to sale of that lot -- he
is holding possession of it until the current owner no longer desires to live there, but he
doesn't want a development agreement tied to sale of the lot either, because -- and I
think, really, the basic thing is is that this lot will always have a 25 foot buffer in front of
it, until that house is torn down. Now, that may be 30 years from now, but --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, I mean this is what the Planning Commission put in onto the development
agreement and I donlt know which lot it is, whether it's 16, one, or 17. Mine says 17 and
that says 16 and everybody keeps talking about Lot 1. So, I don't know which lot it is,
but, anyway, that's neither here nor there. What was the -- what was the staff's
recommendation before the Planning Commission? What was the setback you guys
recommended? Twenty-five feet?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 68 of 72
Canning: Yes, sir. We worked with the applicant to get alternative compliance for the
25 feet and we narrowed it down to what we thought was the -- the minimum length. I
pushed for a five foot setback for a long time, but the applicant convinced me that
because it's the front door and that's the way she's used to coming and going, that they
really needed a ten foot front.
Bird: And I -- and follow up, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: And, Anna, I agree a hundred percent with you on this one. I think that 25 foot is
sufficient. I think that if you want to know the truth, the way this home's built it's
probably going to be standing when a lot of the new ones are collapsing. I think to be
truthful with you, Mr. Sargent, as soon as this lady moves out or is no longer able to live
there, he will sell it as a complete package. He's not going to retain it and live in it. I
think 25 foot is sufficient, in my mind, and I think it's the something -- it's too nice of
house to see tore out, to be truthful with you. That's my opinion. And while I do believe
we need a development agreement, I think that that -- and what lot is it, Anna? Is it 16,
17, or one?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, the home is on
Lot 17. The open space is Lot 16. I think that's where the confusion is.
Bird: Okay. Okay. Common lot. Yeah. Okay. That's right in between whether I can
see with my glasses or without or whether I can read with it or without, so, anyway, I
understand now. That would be my preference, Council, and you can jump in here and
tell me I'm wet behind the ears, but I would just -- I'd like to keep the development
agreement, but I think we strike that Lot 17, Block 1, and go back to staff
recommendation of 25 feet.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we close -- reclose -- again close Public Hearing on Item 14
and Item 15.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items
14 and 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 69 of 72
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Not a motion, just a comment, that the situation's very difficult to put the -- one
of the solutions not discussed, somewhat easier for me, and it's not to go forward with
this particular application. I know access to McMillan and the 35 foot right of way, is, in
my mind, a paramount consideration and if we are going to try and gerrymander around
a brick house with some unique needs at the present time, at least not ready in terms of
joining the City of Meridian in its apparent condition -- at any rate, that's my two bits is
I'm not necessarily comfortable going forward with those types of concessions.
De Weerd: Thank you. I agree. Any further discussion from Council? Okay. Do I
have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we deny Item 14, AZ 06-052.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Motion and a second to deny Item 14. Is there any discussion? Hearing
none, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 15 is immaterial, because Item 14 was not approved.
Nary: You still need to take action, Madam Mayor.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we deny Item 15, PP 06-053.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 23, 2007
Page 70 of 72
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny Item 15. All those -- I'm sorry. Mr.
Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Amendment to Ordinance No. 07-1282 A: AZ 06-042 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180
East Amity Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 is amendment to Ordinance No. 07-1282 on AZ 06-042.
Staff, any comment necessary on this? Mr. Nary?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think this is a return from the Tax
Commission. There was just some errors in the legal, so we just cleaned it up.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance -- you don1t have to?
Berg: No. Madam Mayor, the reason this is being amended is because the zoning was
incorrect on the original ordinance and so we corrected it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Berg: Unlike what normally happens.
Nary: Normally it's the Tax Commission that --
Berg: This one happens to be an amendment to the zoning description.
De Weerd: Okay.
Berg: Ordinance 07-1282A, an amendment to the zoning description for ordinance for
annexation of property being a portion of the west half of the southeast quarter of the
southwest quarter of Section 29, 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.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 71 of 72
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this ordinance Item 16 read by title only. Is
there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none, do I have a
motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 16.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f) - (to consider
and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation);
De Weerd: Item 17 is an Executive Session. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(f).
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Bird: Madame Mayor I move we come out of Executive Session.
Meridian City Council
January 23,2007
Page 72 of 72
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to come out of Executive Session. All those
in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
2- I 2-7 I 07
DATE APPROVED
8 E,J;~IJ
_ '7 S?
~ ~~ . ,STFD:'$i ·
~/// ()A/~r 1'5\' ,~tAM G. BERG J
.// ~. .h. vi. "
//1 .-'I'~T"\ ' ,\\'
III/ ~\',
IfJ!i1'l~ \i\\\\t