HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 04-03
Meridian City Council Meetina
April 3. 2007
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, April
3,2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, Joe Borton,
and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Caleb Hood, Len Grady, Bill Musser, Joe Silva,
Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I will go ahead and start tonight's meeting. Welcome to the
Meridian City Council meeting. It is Tuesday, April 3rd. It's five minutes after 7:00. I
don't have my glasses, so if I have fudged it, I apologize. And we will start tonight's
meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge
by Lieutenant Colonel Ron Coulter. If you will all raise and join us in the pledge of
allegiance. Retired.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Craig Flinn with the Meridian
Alliance Church:
De Weerd: I would offer you a City of Meridian pin, but I think you have one. Okay.
Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Craig Flinn
with the Meridian Alliance Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or
take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Pastor.
Flinn: Let's just take a moment and just have a moment of silence. Almighty God, we
acknowledge your soverenty in the universe and in this earth and over all mankind. We
thank you that your loving kindness is new this morning throughout the day and this
evening and great is your faithfulness. Again, we thank you for your patience, your
compassion, your kindness towards us. God, we thank you for the city you have placed
us in to live, work and play together. We pray that this meeting tonight will have great
conversations of discovering new avenues of growth for whatever developments,
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 2 of 69
projects, avenues of transportation or communication are before this meeting. We pray
a blessing and wisdom in humanity amongst the leadership as they make decisions and
just bless each participant that we be a stronger people and community and city
because of this meeting tonight and we pray these things in Jesus' name, amen. I have
a lot of pins.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. I'll save one just in case you change your mind. Okay. Item 4
is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the agenda we have -- on the Consent Agenda Item E is resolution number
07-552. Item J on the Consent is resolution number 07-553. The regular agenda Item
14 is 07-1307, ordinance number, and Item 15 is ordinance number 07-1308. With that
I move we approve the agenda as adopted.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as stated. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 30, 2007 City Council Joint Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of March 6, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting:
c. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-
003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 commercial building
lots on 8.06 acres in a C-G zone for Medina Subdivision by Ken
Lenz - SWC of South Meridian Road and West Overland Road:
D. Approve Transfer of Location of Beer and Liquor Licenses for
Jakers of Boise DBA Jakers of Meridian from 906 N. Main
Street to 3268 E. Pine Avenue:
E. Resolution No. 07-552 A Resolution Adopting the
Park Properties Namina Policy for the City of Meridian; and
Providing an Effective Date:
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 3 of 69
F. Approve Beer, Wine and Liquor License Renewals:
Winco Foods #48
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar
Tobacco Connection
Sizzler #215
Maver ick Country Stores #343
Epi's A Basque Restaurant
Baja Fresh Mexican Grill
Goodwood Barbecue Company
Jacksons Food Stores - 412 E. Fairview #1
1585 S. Meridian Road #11
522 W. Cherry Lane #35
66 E. State Street #56
3100 E. Magic View #97
1950 E. Fairview Avenue #98
180 E. Central Drive #99
3291 E. Pine Street #105
Idaho Pizza Company
Big Smoke, LLC
Meridian Speedway
Red Robin
Albertsons - 20 E. Fairview Avenue
3301 W. Cherry Lane
Ultra Touch Carwash
Limelight, LLC
A New Vintage Wine Shop
Corona Village
Jakers of Meridian
G. Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Masco. Inc. for the
Construction of Water and Sewer Improvements in
Conjunction with ACHD for $1946.00:
H. Approve Agreement for Professional Services with Kay
Frances Company for Entitlement Services and Community
Development Block Grant Management for $42,995.00:
I. Approve ACHD Bid Award to Kina Excavation for Water and
Sewer Improvements in conjunction with AHCD Project W. 1st
Street, Washington to Cherry Project for $18,042.50:
J. Resolution No. 07-553 : VAC 07-005 Request to Vacate
the public utility, drainage and irrigation easements located on a
portion of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 2 of Strada Bellissima
Subdivision No. 1 adjacent to 3015 S. Meridian Road for Strada
Bellissima by Strada Bellissima, LLC - 3015 S. Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 4 of 69
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda, which includes Item E, which is
resolution number 07-552 and Item J, which is resolution number 07-553 and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Any
discussion, Council? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
De Weerd: Okay. There are no item listed under department reports.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Or item moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing From March 20, 2007: PP 06-060 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3 common
lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sundial
Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road and west
of Linder Road:
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8, which is a continued Public Hearing from March
20th on PP 07-060. I will start with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As the Mayor mentioned,
this is a continued item from March 20th. The project name is Sun Dial Subdivision. It
is located approximately a quarter mile south of Ustick Road and a quarter mile west of
Linder Road. It's just south of Tumble Creek and north and west of Turtle Creek
Subdivisions. Everything in the general vicinity is zoned R-4. The site is currently
vacant. It's in the middle of the screen there, but for the 150 foot tall cell tower and
associated structures for the cell tower that will remain and as I get to the plat you will
kind of see how that fits in. The specific site is currently zoned R-4 in the city. There
was a previous request to R-8 zoning. The applicant has withdrawn that application, so
all of the lots shown on the subject preliminary plat do conform to the R-4 dimensional
Meridian City Council
April 3,2007
Page 5 of 69
standards and there is not a rezone request tonight. Highlights of the development --
after the R-8 rezone was withdrawn, the applicant did have to redesign the plat to make
some of the lots conform to the existing R-4 zone for frontage, lot sizes, et cetera.
There are 28 single family homes. Thirty were originally proposed. Three common lots
and one lot for the existing cell tower. I did mention that that -- how that lot fits in.
There is another plan that shows future redevelopment of that lot, so when that lease
runs out they are planning on re-subdividing that and having the cell tower go away,
again, when that lease did expire. So, for now it will remain and development is
proposed around that. The density is 2.64 units per acre. The Commission heard this
item on February 15th and recommended approval. Some of the key items of
discussion at the Commission meeting were the proposed irrigation system and
integrating the proposed subdivision in with the adjacent subdivisions. Some of the
discussion there had everything to do with the pressurized irrigation system and tying
into some pressurized irrigation systems. Covenants, having -- making sure that the
homes look similar to the homes in Turtle Creek and Tumble Creek. Some of the other
items that were discussed, particularly by adjacent neighbors or neighbors within the
vicinity, anyways, was traffic. There is pretty good interconnectivity -- I'm going to jump
back to this map here and you can see there is a few stub streets to this property,
anyways, and, then, those get you out to the arterials fairly efficiently, but there are --
there is several avenues of ingress and egress to the property currently, but those
routes do pass by existing residences and some of them were in attendance at the
Planning and Zoning Commission and mentioned some concerns they have with adding
additional traffic to the streets there. The intersection of Cubic and Field Stream was a
particular importance in how that -- some traffic mitigation for that intersection, either
some speed bumps were talked about or some chokers or something to that effect to
slow traffic down. There are some fairly long, straight strips on the existing streets, too,
so these would be some off-site concerns, but concerns nonetheless for some of the
property owners there. The Commission did recommend approval of the project,
required a homeowners association to be formed for this project. That's pretty much the
long and short of this project. Staff and the Commission, as I mentioned, are
recommending approval of the project and I will stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: Not at this point, Mayor.
Rountree: Mayor, I do. Could you tell me what -- what happened with the tower lot in
the initial phase? Are there some conditions in the plat that would require maintenance
to a certain level, surfacing of the access facility in and out of there, those sorts of
things?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, there are some conditions and I can
look them up real quick. I know there were some original concerns expressed by the
fire department and the police department about the existing site being a weed --
noxious weed or an eye sore, essentially, and potential fire hazard. So, there is a
condition in -- I believe it's the fire department's requirements that they need to maintain
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 6 of 69
the site in accordance with our weed ordinance and they agree to keep it mowed and
maintained. I'm not sure about any other maintenance provisions on the site regarding
the cell tower itself and I don't know if that's where your question was going, like with
the covenants and stuff. There is nothing specific about that. There is an access to the
cell tower from the end of the cul-de-sac -- it doesn't really show up very well on any of
those, but on the south side of the property that is where the access to the cell tower will
occur. Again, I can look and see what the specific conditions regarding maintenance
until it does redevelop are and get the exact language for you.
Rountree: If you would I would appreciate it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else from Council?
Rountree: That's alii have.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Good evening.
Wildwood: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Susan
Wildwood. Office is in Boise. Business address is P.O. 6502 in Boise and I'm here on
behalf of the applicant. And I think I might be able to address Councilmember
Rountree's --
Rountree: I'm forgettable.
Wildwood: -- question.
De Weerd: Long name.
Wildwood: The staff presentation really covers the basic facts. Just a little bit of history.
When we originally came in with an original request to rezone to R-8, staff and I had
spent some time trying to find the original file. This property actually dates back -- the
annexation is 1994 and it was only when Justin was digging around in the dusty tones in
the basement that we actually found the file and the development agreement. So, we
withdrew that application and came back. Under the development agreement we are
required to meet the R-4 zoning and have a minimum lot size of 8,000 square foot lots,
so we withdrew everything, redesigned it, and what you have before you tonight is that
redesign. Can you all see this --
De Weerd: That's good, because, you know, I have institutional knowledge of that 1994
plat.
Wildwood: I'm sure you do.
De Weerd: Because that was my backyard.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 7 of 69
Wildwood: Was it really? Well, then, we have -- we can take judicial notice of that, by
golly. Back in '94, because the owners had entered into a lease agreement before the
annexation and plat was put in place and that has a -- it's a very unusual lease. It has
five automatic renewals without anything done by the property owner. So, we are stuck
with the thing for an additional seven years. Because of that this section was
withdrawn. It's in the annexation, but it was withdrawn from the plat, so it's never been
platted. And so there weren't any original conditions for maintenance. They had to
have the certain distance fall line and that was about the extent of it. Because it had
been a weed infested issue, what we have done is we have agreed and Scott Noriyuki
has met with Joe Silva, we have mowed it down and we are going to keep it mowed
down and happy to have it as a condition to keep the weeds mowed down to
approximately three inches, which is, actually, a little longer than my front yard or just
barely. And also it currently has fencing around the cell tower. I have photographs for
you of the existing facility. I apologize, I only have three sets, but you can probably
share them. The cell tower and the anchors are each fenced with six foot chain link
fencing, three strand barbed wire, so that they are presently fenced off. We will be
requiring as a condition on each of the lots that the lot owners install a six foot cedar
privacy fence, which will also go along the perimeter and as soon as a lot is sold if
perimeter fencing is not installed immediately, we will put up temporary construction
fencing, so that we don't have any debris blowing over onto any of the neighboring
properties and we will be submitting a detailed fencing plan with approval of the final
plat if this project goes forward with approval tonight. So, that is a condition of the
approval. We agree with all of the conditions and I did want to make one small
comment about the homeowners association. I know that some of the neighbors were
concerned that we would not be building a project that would be compatible with the
neighborhood. I'll get Scott to play my Vanna White one more time and show you we
have taken photographs of our intended product. I have worked with the Gemstar
people for about ten or 15 years and every single project that they have done has
restrictive covenants, a homeowners association, an architectural review committee and
most all of the projects also utilize a profession management company to be sure that
everything is taken care of and well maintained. So, we have tried to reassure the
neighbors about that, but they are not entirely convinced that we are going to have as
quality of product as they have. We looked at the CC&Rs for both Turtle Creek and
Tumble Creek and, actually, we think ours are better. So, we are going to be integrating
this project in visually. This is an example of the kinds of homes that we are projecting
will be built out in this area and would be required by the restrictive covenants. The
issue with regard to the pressurized irrigation system -- I have had a number of phone
conversations with Nathan Draper at Settler's Canal and also with John Anderson from
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. They met last Friday and had another discussion on
Monday and what they have agreed to do and we will be working with them to
accomplish all of this, Settler's -- if you will excuse me. I have marked in blue -- you can
see this existing connection to pressurized irrigation. This is a Nampa-Meridian stub.
This is another one. This would be immediately on the east side. That's a stub,
Nampa-Meridian. Another stub here to the south. Another one also to the south on
either side of Whitelaw. These are all stubbed into the property from the Tumble Creek
- Turtle Creek projects. Settler's has a canal that basically dead ends with the property
Meridian City Council
April 3. 2007
Page 8 of 69
on the west side of the property, with a head gate up here in the southwest corner -- is
that southwest? Yeah. Southwest -- northwest corner. We will be abandoning this
ditch and what we will end up doing is de-annexing or requesting exclusion from
Settler's Canal. They will retain the water, which will give them more water to service
other projects. We will be annexing this area that is currently in Settler's into the
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company and they will be able to service. By looping
through the entire system in here, it will solve some pressure problems that Nampa-
Meridian currently has out there in both Tumble Creek and Turtle Creek where the
water comes to an end without a loop, so we would be able to fix that problem for those
other subdivisions and, actually, create some better water connection for the
pressurized irrigation. We will coordinate with Nathan Draper at Settler's and with John
Anderson and those will, basically, be done at the same time. So, we will submit all the
documents, make sure that everybody is happy with what we are doing. In addition to
constructing it, we will be engineering the system. Stan McCutchisen at Stanley is --
has done work that's well respected by both irrigation companies and they were
reassured that he would be doing the designing. We have at least one pumping system
that we will have to be upgrading and so we will also be taking care of that and that
engineering will be reviewed by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. So, we think that we have
integrated the water, as well as the lot sizes. Most all of the lots surrounding the project
are identical in lot sizes. One of the major differences -- and if you could put that back
up, Justin. The big map showing all the surrounding. We -- yes. Thank you very much.
There -- if you look at the surrounding projects, there is virtually no open space
anywhere in Turtle Creek or Tumble Creek. This open space lot that would be,
basically, on our northwest corner is actually a two to three acre lot that's privately
owned and I'll talk about that in half a second. None of the rest of these have open
space. We have five percent open space in our -- could you put back the plat, please?
In -- we have open space up here. This is common area number five. We also have
common area here. If you will excuse me, I will put the lid down and I will show you
that. So, we have this common area against these lots offering some buffering to these
smaller lots. We have this buffering against these other lots in this area and larger lots
against the two to three acre property. We are also stubbing a street out. Currently it
only has access out through this other subdivision and staff has recommended and we
are happy to plant, for lack of a better term, this road access so it actually comes in at
more of an angle, rather than coming straight in the property line, we will move that at a
ten foot angle. They are happy that we are going to be working with them, giving them
access. That means that they will have legal access in for future development of that
property. We will also be working with them when we do Settler's irrigation
abandonment there may need to be a walk on the system. Their headgate is roughly in
the northwest corner of the property, so we will be looking at that to insure that we don't
affect the current flood irrigation for any of those properties that would be taking service
off of that line. I'm trying to see if there is anything else. When we redevelop there is
also open area that will be in phase two, Lot 22, and we will have a cul-de-sac that,
essentially, will come in where the cell tower is now and that's sort of hence the name
Sun Dial. So, we have got this great big tower that we hope to retire and get out of
there in seven years and we are going to be back with that. Madam Mayor and
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 9 of 69
Members of the Council, I would be happy to stand for any questions and, hopefully, I
have run through all those questions. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wildwood: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Thank you.
Huebschmann: Madam Mayor, Council Members, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you this evening.
De Weerd: Sir, if you could, please, give your name and address.
Huebschmann: I was just coming to that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Huebschmann: My name is Michael Huebschmann. I have provided the Mayor with my
business card so that you can have a hope of a chance of spelling it correctly. I live at
2328 West Whitelaw Drive, which -- if I can get this right -- is located right there. I'm
encouraged to see the progress that the applicant has made with the homeowners
association in terms of coming to agreement on how the two subdivisions will be
integrated visually, that there are a few concerns as to the solicitor has just mentioned
in terms of integrating the two homeowners associations into one at some point in the
future. That would be our preference. I'm speaking as a private citizen, not as a
member of the board of the Turtle Creek Subdivision, so anything that I say here should
be construed as my own comments and not as representing the official position of the
homeowners association. I think the only major concern I have right now is that the
access to the tower be graveled or some sort of provision be made such that when the
tower construction or maintenance crews come in and do any maintenance on that
facility, that the street, Whitelaw Drive, not be littered with all kinds of dirt and debris and
so on. Also, again, just to stress that when the construction is taking place that
appropriate barriers be erected to prevent sedimentation or other debris leaving the site.
Also, that as -- or while the tower is still standing for those additional seven years, that
the site be maintained such that it does not present more of a fire hazard than what it
does already. I do appreciate the fact that, finally, that hazard is about to go away and
I'm also looking forward to not having all the noxious weeds to flow directly into my
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 10 of 69
backyard. So, with that I think I will concede the floor and stand for any questions you
might have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none. Thank you.
Huebschmann: All right. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Scott Noriyuki. If I mess your name up, I apologize.
Noriyuki: Scott Noriyuki with Gemstar Properties, 738 South Bridgeway, Eagle, Idaho.
was stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. No?
Noriyuki: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. and Meredith? Thank you. Okay. Any other testimony on this
application? Yes, sir. If you will, please, share your name and address for the record.
Schafer: John Schafer. I live at 2788 West Ustick Road and there was a letter
submitted that -- didn't hear of any acknowledgment on that regarding the irrigation
down the west side of this property. There is flood irrigation that provides us over off of
Ustick Road and we just want to make sure that that's maintained substantial flow to
irrigate our properties on that site. That would be the only thing I'd have, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Is there any further testimony?
Wildwood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Susan Wildwood. And not rebuttal,
but just some comments. I neglected to mention that we are going to be doing as Mr. -.
I think it's Huebschmann -- indicated. We are going to be putting in a gravel road from
the intersection -- the cul-de-sac. ACHD is -- would be requiring that we do some all
surface road, because that also assists the fire department in case there is a fire, so
that we will have an all-surface -- or, excuse me, an all weather road that goes in there.
Gravel. We will also be paving into what would be probably termed an apron, a
pavement that goes off of the cul-de-sac in far enough so that the gravel drops off the
truck tires before they go out onto Whitelaw. In addition, I was familiar with Mr.
Schafer's concern, that's why I wanted to mention that we would be working with those
neighbors to insure that when that ditch is abandoned that we don't have any affect on
that flood irrigation. They, actually, are at Ustick, which is north of this, but there is
some connection here to that particular headgate, so we will be working with Settler's to
insure that we do nothing to interfere with that headgate and make sure that that
irrigation water does arrive up there. With regard the homeowners association being
Meridian City Council
Apri/3,2007
Page 11 of 69
integrated into one, that's probably a long ways off and not necessarily out of the realm
of possibility, but we want to be sure that we get the project developed out and we have
to come back with the cell tower Lot 22. So, we will be seeing how that works and we
want to work with them, the homeowners association, we have had a lot of dialog and
we have really appreciated that level of communication back and forth and as far as the
barriers, there will be the perimeter fencing, as I indicated, and we have to be a little bit
careful, just because the cell tower lease, how they are able to access this cell tower.
We can't put in barriers, but we are going to post it and we are going to make it as
difficult as we can for folks. It will be posted no trespassing and we have to keep some
of that access open, just simply because of the terms of that lease. So, some of it we
are kind of stuck with, but with that -- with those comments we are actually very
delighted with all the cooperation we have had from the neighbors and a lot of help from
staff, so I want to thank the city. Hopefully we can get this project off the ground and
eventually get rid of that cell tower. I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Wildwood: Thank you, gentlemen.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to close.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing for Item No.9, PP 06-060.
Zaremba: 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.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 12 of 69
Rountree: A comment and if there is no further comments, I'd make a motion, but I just
wanted to thank the folks that are not here, but in reviewing the record there was close
to 30 folks at one point in time that were not particularly happy with this application and
it seems a thank you also to the applicant that you have gotten together, you have
listened and you have resolved the issues -- I think pretty much all of the issues that I
can see and it certainly, though our job is not easy, it does make it easier at times, and,
again, for you folks in the neighborhood's time and the applicant's time, thank you. No
further comments, Madam Mayor, I would move -- Madam Mayor, I move that we
approve Item No.8, preliminary plat for PP 06-060.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8.
Rountree: If I might add to that, that -- help me. Is there going to be a development
agreement?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, there is no development agreement.
Rountree: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: He was going to tie the elevations to it.
Rountree: Can't do it. It's already annexed.
De Weerd: But we trust that you will keep the concept of your elevations.
Rountree: My motion for approval is based on the testimony received this evening.
Bird: Second agrees.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: And that includes the applicant's comments?
Rountree. The applicant's comments. Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 13 of 69
Item 9:
Public Hearing: VAC 07-006 Request for a Vacation of the 20-foot front
yard setbacks for Lots 4-7 & 11-13, Block 34 for Paramount Subdivision
No. 13 by Paramount Development Inc. - West of Meridian Road and
North of McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 9 is a Public Hearing on VAC 07-006. I will open this
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item on your
agenda is a vacation in Paramount Subdivision No. 13. Paramount is -- Paramount No.
13 is zoned R-8 and it's located approximately a half mile south of Chinden and a half
mile west of Meridian Road. The applicant is requesting the city consent to vacate the
special setbacks that are depicted on the face of the plat for eight lots. They are Lots 4
through 7 and Lots 11 through 13, Block 34, of Paramount Subdivision No. 13. This
phase was recorded in 2006. As you can see on the screen, there is a special setback
on those aforementioned lots, the eight lots that are mentioned there, and the -- seven
lots. Excuse me. And the applicant is requesting this, because the rest of the lots that
aren't encumbered by that special setback are allowed a ten foot setback. So, you
would have some lots that could be to within ten feet of the back of sidewalk and, then,
these ones would be setback the 20 feet from right of way it looks like. So, the
applicant has submitted a letter with justification for that request. The city has required -
- has required compliance with this standard, which is a DEQ best management
practice standard for a couple of years now anyways, that there be a 20 foot minimum
separation between infiltration trenches and building foundations. Again, that is a
minimum. The DEQ actually -- their BMP, best management practice, actually states in
some circumstances that they would like to see a hundred foot setback from some of
those trenches. This came about primarily because of what crawl spaces and the
associated complaints from homeowners, so it is now a standard condition that the
Public Works Department puts on plats as they come forth with this design, having the
roadside swales, trenches, be in the streets, like Paramount 13 has. Let's see if I have
anything else to add. This BMP, as I mentioned, is still a standard requirement and,
therefore, staff does not believe it is appropriate to vacate this standard setback,
somewhat standard setback, the best management practice, and it's in the best interest
of the future residents that are going to be living on these lots to try to avoid any wet
crawl spaces and adverse impacts that may occur from those swales. So, again, staff is
recommending that the Council deny the applicant's request and either I or Len will
stand for questions, as this is primarily a Public Works issue, if you will.
De Weerd: Very good, Len. That was a nice presentation.
Grady: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 14 of 69
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Not to let Len off the hook or anything. Help me understand the location of
the infiltration beds. Are they in the alleyway or the roadway there or what's the
situation with the --
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, they are right on the property edge.
When this plat came forward as a pre-plat, of course, a lot of that detail isn't in the pre-
plat. We did pick it up on the final plat that these infiltration trenches were right on the
property line. That's when we imposed the 20 foot setback, that final plat, was the first
time we became aware of that trench. It was right on the property line. I did speak with
DEQ and they were pretty adamant. I spoke with them yesterday. They were pretty
adamant that 20 foot is really -- it is a BMP, it is the minimum. Normally, it's a hundred
foot, especially if the trench is upstream from you, so --
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Turnbull: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is David
Turnbull. Address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I appreciate the staff report,
not necessarily the conclusion, and I will try to explain why. This -- Paramount 13 is the
first phase of our -- what we call carriage lane home sites in Paramount. We introduced
this product initially to the Meridian market in Heritage Commons project and, as you
know, this product is on smaller lots, it's a higher density, and we feel like density
requires -- when we are increasing density it requires a higher degree of attention to
design and there are certain principals involved with this sort of development that are
important to us, to the market, and to the esthetics of the project and one of those is the
front setback. You will notice in our Heritage Commons project all those homes were
built pretty much to a ten foot front setback. That concept is to bring the porches and
the front door closer to the street, get more intersection between the street and the
porches and so forth. You know, some of that may be a little bit feel good, but feel good
counts. I think everybody appreciates the ambience and the character we have created
in the Heritage Commons neighborhood. We wish to create that here as well. That
density does require a greater level of detail to design. These homes are on smaller
lots and we take advantage of almost every square foot of those lots and we design the
lots around the product and we also design the product around the lots. Now, we have
a product ready to go. The first time this came to my attention was not on the
preliminary -- or the final plat that we submitted, but when I saw the recorded plat and
those 20 foot setbacks were on there, we thought, well, you know, this is a mistake, we
should get it resolved with the staff level, but we were unable to do so. This is a huge
deal for us. I wouldn't be here arguing this if I didn't think it -- if it weren't a big deal for
us and I wouldn't be here arguing this if I thought there were some of the concerns
about water in crawl spaces were valid. It may be valid in certain locations where you
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 15 of 69
have a high groundwater table, where you're required to put your storm drainage
retention basins, those can fill up, those can flow over hard pan, they can possibly get
into crawl spaces, but we don't have that situation in Paramount, nor did we have it in
Heritage Commons. I have got Glen Logan, who is our soils analyst and engineer here.
He has prepared a report that shows the groundwater in this area immediately
surrounding some of the monitoring wells don't go any deeper than ten feet, but the
ones immediately surrounding this are 14 to 18 feet deep and still dry. So, I'm going to
submit this for the record. And I also have Gene Smith, our civil engineer and Glen
Logan here to answer any questions you might have on the drainage of these facilities.
Essentially, these underground drainage facilities are put in seepage beds. Those
seepage beds go to clear free draining soils. Water goes in them and they are going to
go straight down. Glen can answer questions if you have any in that regard. Like I
said, if we thought that there were a sound engineering reason to require these
additional setbacks, I wouldn't be here arguing. But for the esthetics of the project, it is
a big important part of us. Not only that, our builders design to this .- these specific
dimensions and to require them to go back now and lop ten feet off of a house plan will
give us an inferior product with inferior esthetics. So, we respectfully request that this
extended setback requirement be removed from this plat and it's going to be an issue in
future plats in this project. We have in the surrounding area more of this type of product
coming on line. So, I would address the issue of Heritage Commons 9 there in the staff
report it says that additional setbacks were required there as well. Heritage Commons
9 had probably a dozen kind of standard lots with front entry garages and about 28 lots
that were the carriage lane homes. The increase setbacks were not required on the
carriage lane home sites specifically because of this issue. So, to say that it's been
required in the past is true, but not in this type of a situation, and we, frankly, don't see
any reason or justification for it and we appreciate your granting our request to remove
this from the plat. I will stand for any questions you may have.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: David, how deep do you go with your -- with your drainage?
Turnbull: Ten feet. Ten to 12 feet.
Bird: And how much of that is concrete -- or concrete. How much of that is gravel? All
the way?
De Weerd: And for the record. that was filled up all the way. Whatever that meant.
Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 16 of 69
Rountree: David, you talked about this wasn't required with the carriage lots in Heritage
Commons.
Turnbull: Right.
Rountree: Were there infiltration beds in the carriage lots in that particular subdivision?
Turnbull: Yes. And I have that plat. Right here, if I -- if you would like me to show it to
you.
Rountree: Sure.
De Weerd: Do we want to try and put it on the overhead?
Turnbull: Okay. I don't know if you can see this. Can you zoom in on this area here?
Okay. Right here is a seepage bed that would go right up to our property line right on
the front. Now, there is a ten foot setback requirement, that's standard ACHD setback
requirement, so that is clearly delineated with that ten foot setback requirement, but
there is no additional setback requirement there. It also occurs I believe right here.
Now, if you go over to this area here -- actually, the rest of it's a note on the plat that
requires 20 foot setback from these lots that don't access from the alley where there is
seepage beds, as in this location here. And that's defined as a note on the plat.
De Weerd: Did that answer your question?
Rountree: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council at this point?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De W eerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I know nothing about water and soils, necessarily, other than the clay that I
run into in my own backyard, but I would just wonder if there are other things to explore.
I assume Polk Street is probably crowned in the middle and I -- I wonder if there would
be an opportunity to instead of making it high in the middle, make it low in the middle
and put a few drains in and have this field underneath the road, instead of at the
property lines. Does that make any sense or is it possible?
Turnbull: Well, it's already paved.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. That's not going to be worth doing. Another thought would be to
have the first ten feet of the buildings slab on grade and, then, the rest with a crawl
space. Is that -- I have no idea whether these ideas make sense or not, but --
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 17 of 69
Turnbull: If I thought it was a problem I would come fOlWard with alternative solutions.
Zaremba: Okay.
Turnbull: I just -- I am not convinced, nor is our soils engineer convinced that there is
an issue here. Now, I mean talk about DEQ and best management practices, they
probably have a hundred or two hundred of those, but, you know, they are not
universally applied to all situations on all plats. Best management practice is just that,
it's a guideline and it's not a requirement. If you can show that it doesn't make sense in
a certain situation, that it's an unnecessary condition, then, the best management
practice can be waived. And that's what we are asking for. And regarding the hundred
foot setback, that's where, you know, a property would down grade from a detention
basin or an irrigation facility or something like that where the water is, you know, likely to
seep down. That's not the case here.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Okay.
Turnbull: I would just say if you have any questions for somebody that's much more
knowledgeable on this than I am, Glen Logan, who has been doing this in the valley
probably longer than anybody, is here to answer any questions, as well as Gene Smith,
our civil engineer.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: I'd like to hear from both of them at some point in time.
Turnbull: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any public testimony? Okay. So,
Councilman Rountree, would like to hear from -- has some questions or would like to
hear comments from the two mentioned individuals.
Smith: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Gene Smith with
Engineering Northwest at 423 Ancestor Place in Boise. So far as the seepage trenches
being located in the street, there was a question as to whether or not in the future they
can be located in the street. There is a specific requirement for setbacks between
seepage trenches and water mains, so where you have a water main in the street you
can't have a seepage trench adjacent to that water main, so we have to locate them on
the opposite side of the street of the right of way from the water main and keep it away
from that. So, the answer is, no, we can't do that.
Zaremba: That makes sense. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 18 of 69
Smith: So far as how the seepage trenches work in this area, because of the
permeable soils, the pit run material, the sand and gravels, we have dug sewer trunk
lines to approximately 20 -- 22 feet deep, it's sand and gravels all the way. I'm sure it
continues down to the Boise River basin to the Boise River bed. Those materials are
extremely permeable. We are limited to our design percolation rates. ACHD limits us to
eight inches per hour, when, in fact, those soils -- those pit run materials will take water
and I'm sure Glen can give you some better numbers, but in excess of 25 inches per
minute -- or inches per hour. Here, again, we only -- we only calculate eight inches per
hour and so these trenches will carry a lot more water down than what we design for.
So, there is a huge factor of safety there. There is factors of safety in the sizes of the
trenches. We are required to oversize them for basically sediment storage, sediment
debris. We are required to oversize them -- we are not allowed to calculate the water
that infiltrates out of the sides of the trenches. ACHD only let's us take the water that
will infiltrate out of the bottom of the trenches. So, these are -- these are oversized from
that-standpoint. So far as water getting into crawl spaces, I have looked a numerous
homes where people have had complaints about water in crawl spaces over the past
ten, 12 years here in the valley. I have never found a single instance where water was
coming out of the bottom of a seepage trench that's 12 feet below the foundation of a
house going up into the foundation -- or into the crawl space. I have tried to design
water to go uphill. It doesn't work. It goes down. And I can't imagine any case where
water could get out of these seepage trenches into the crawl space of a home.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. You have indicated you prepared analysis and studies on
this. I assume you reached the same conclusions that you have testified to this evening
in your study?
Smith: Have I prepared studies on this? I designed the seepage trenches.
Rountree: You designed them?
Smith: Based on the existing soil conditions, yes.
Rountree: And did you reach the same conclusion in your analysis that bears your
certification or stamp?
Smith: Absolutely. Water doesn't go uphill.
Rountree: Okay.
Smith: You bet.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
.~
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 1 g of 69
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Smith, it sounded like from the way you said it near the end that -- I guess
in this example of -- with 12 foot seepage beds that finding the groundwater at 14 feet to
18 feet, still dry --
Smith: Uh-huh.
Borton: -- isn't necessarily dispositive on your recommendation? For example, at 14 or
12 or 10, does that give you cause for concern? Is there a depth where you say 20 foot
setback requirement does alleviate the concern or does the seepage bed design in and
of itself alleviate it?
Smith: Well, in this particular area there is a hard pan as you go down -- as you dig
down into the strata there is a hard pan in the neighborhood of four to six feet,
somewhere in there. If you -- if you were to place a pond -- if you were to place a
reservoir on top of that hard pan, it would be feasible for the water to follow that hard
pan transversely, instead of going down through it. However, with a seepage trench
once you break down -- break through that hard pan and get into the free draining
materials, it doesn't go back up through the hard pan.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Smith: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, did you want to hear from the other individual?
Rountree: Yes.
Bird: Yes, we do.
De Weerd: Okay. Good evening.
Logan: Madam Mayor and Council Members, my name is Glen Logan. I work with
Associated Earth Sciences. My address is 6238 Edgewater Drive in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Logan: And in this Paramount 13 area we have monitoring wells, pisometers, on all
sides of it and it was monitored from 2002 through 2006. Not all of the wells were
monitored that long, but, basically, we have information that would support the water
table not coming higher than 12 feet below ground level and at that point it's still in the
sand and gravel pit run material that Mr. Smith referred to. I see -- this is very well
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 20 of 69
drained in this area and I see no possibility of having water in crawl spaces and storm
drain facilities should drain very well down through the pit run material. So, do you have
any questions about this?
De Weerd: Any questions, Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I do have a question. Are you a registered engineer or a geologist?
Logan: Am I a registered engineer or geologist? There is -- I'm a soil scientist.
Rountree: Okay.
Logan: And there is no registration in the state of Idaho --
Rountree: I understand that.
Logan: -- for soil scientists.
Rountree: Thank you.
Logan: Professionally I have been doing this for 53 years.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Logan: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Do you have any concluding
remarks, Mr. Turnbull? Is there any testimony before I ask the applicant to conclude?
Thank you.
Turnbull: Well, again, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would just add one
thing. I know that water in crawl spaces can be a concern to the city and as Gene
mentioned, he's examined numerous cases like these and we have, too, as a
developer, sometimes we are called out to examine somebody's crawl space and
almost without exception, unless you're in an area with high ground water and you have
probably encountered that in some of the areas in Meridian, because they are areas in
Meridian that have extremely high groundwater tables. But in these areas like we have
here in Heritage Commons and Paramount, the only way that water is getting in the
crawl space is if people grade their landscaping improperly and, then, they either, A,
overwater, which happens a lot, since we, basically, provide free water. in their -- and
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 21 of 69
they use much more than they need to. Or they have improperly drained their roof
down spouts into the craw space. And other than that, we haven't had any issues. You
might get other issues around drainage ditches or something like that, but we don't have
that circumstance here. What we have is seepage beds, they are free flowing to the __
to a very deep groundwater table. So, again, I would reiterate this is a big deal for us.
This was important for us moving forward on this kind of a product and we ask for your
consideration and favorable response to our request. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any--
Bird: Madam Mayor, I guess--
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. I mean I should have asked him earlier. How deep do you go with your
foundation and footings?
Turnbull: They are generally about 30 inches.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would ask a question of staff if I may and that is just to clarify if we vacate
the 20 foot required front yard setback, does it automatically default to a ten foot
setback for some other reason or is there no requirement?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, I believe it defaults to -- there is an
overriding ten foot easement there already, so I think it goes back there.
De Weerd: Thank you. Len, is there anything else you would like to add?
Grady: Well, a couple things when you consider this is we have been enforcing this 20
foot for years. Brad enforced it for several years before me. If it's not 20 now, you
know, is it two or is it five -- those are kind of the concerns we have is we have been
toeing the line at 20 and if 20 isn't right, where do we set it. So, something to consider.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess I'd like to explore that a little bit. With a little
background in BMPs, they pretty much are site specific and condition specific and in
guidelines or design criteria, generally, are with a safety factor for the protection of the
public, which is our business. If, however, those guidelines may not specifically apply in
a certain instance and in those instances the city has on record documented
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 22 of 69
engineering analysis with an engineer's stamp and subsequent errors and omissions
and liability coverage on the conclusions reached, is that support enough to say in some
cases the guidelines -~ they might need to be more or could be less.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I think I understand where you're going
and I know that -- it's my understanding DEQ tried at one time to build in enough what
ifs and therefores to accommodate most situations. I think in the end they came back
to just keeping it black and white. As far as this situation, I'm not quite sure -- I know I
heard that the groundwater is deep and we are not concerned about the groundwater
flowing uphill, we are really more concerned about the storm water deluge that hits this
infiltration gallery, finds one of the sewer services, which has got chips in it and heads
back in the other direction. So, I know that Gene -- I believe I heard him confirm that he
was okay that the ground water is deep and, again, we are not contesting that. I'm not
sure I heard Gene specifically sort of stamp and seal that these are going to be dry.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Any additional information needed from the
applicant? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 9, VAC 07-006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 9. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Do I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: From my perspective and what I have heard from the applicant and staff and
Mr. Smith and Mr. Logan with regard to the 20~foot wide setback and somewhat
competing interests at stake here, the single concern of mine is the water in the crawl
space issue and protecting future residents from that potential problem and the best
management practices that are cited are intended to alleviate. There is nothing about
the way I look at this request or any requests coming forward about the type of product
which is to be placed in the subdivision that's persuasive to me and at least from my
Meridian City Council
April 3. 2007
Page 23 of 69
perspective it's not a factor that I would ever consider as to whether or not the type of
product that's intended to be placed in there be consistent with the intent of a potential
water problem in crawl spaces. I do agree that the best management practices and
drawing a line at 20 feet does allow the unlimited -- in certain circumstances a waiver if
the -- on a case-by-case basis if the facts support it. I'd prefer that decision to be made,
you know, by a Council here, rather than DEQ or some other arbitrary more distant
government entity. So, with regards to this particular application, I feel comfortable
approving the vacation in light of what we heard. I think that the concerns that the 20
foot separation they are intended to alleviate are addressed and I feel comfortable that
with these unique facts on this unique request that the vacation is proper.
Bird: Is that a motion?
De Weerd: Is there any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would like to comment that I never take staff's recommendations lightly.
They are recommending for denial. However, I also agree with Councilman Borton that
there may be situations where the explanation is good enough for us to, first, say thank
you to the staff for alerting us to this, but, then, go the other direction and approve it. I
was satisfied by the explanation given. I'm also satisfied by the staff that they raised the
issue and I appreciate that, but I believe I could support the vacation as well.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just briefly I want to echo what Councilman Zaremba said and I appreciate and
I think -- and perhaps developers going forward maybe get frustrated with the process,
but I appreciate staff -- if there is a line drawn in the sand, so to speak, and whether it
seems arbitrary or not, if the staff errors on consistent application of it, I think that's
fantastic. If it means a couple more things coming to Council, it's probably frustrating __
maybe frustrating for the applicant, but it gives us a better chance to carefully review
any limited particular exception. We see it in variances, you know, in different aspects.
So, I -- we can disagree on the end result, but I do appreciate consistent efforts at
applying the rules.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 24 of 69
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I can certainly see staff's position. I support their position. I understand
what Mr. Borton and Mr. Zaremba are saying. I could agree with them as well if, as part
of the motion, it was made that the city had in hand a professional engineering analysis
with supporting conclusions of the information provided here in testimony this evening
and an engineer's stamp on that report for the file. Been around long enough that these
things come back and haunt us. I don't think either one of you have had phone calls
from people that have had their sewers back up in their basements. I have. And it's not
fair to them either. So, I would want some assurance -- my background is that if you
vary a guideline, particularly based on engineering, that you have an engineering
analysis that supports that variance. So, that would be at a minimum what I would need
to support this particular variance.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I, too, echo from the staff. I appreciate everything they do and I realize that they
have laws they have to go by and we once in awhile change it, because we once in
awhile make it, but we -- I have to agree with Councilman Zaremba and Borton,
because I don't think you're going to find an engineer -- and I, too, have had calls when
sewers have backed up and they got water under there, but I can think of about three
instances where sewer pipes have come undone right under the crawl space and filled
up. I happen to live in an area that's very high water table. In fact, you can't have
basements and I have never once had water under my mine, so I -- while we have the
guidelines, I think this is -- I could certainly support the vacation.
De Weerd: Okay.. Council, do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I could get Mr. Borton to do it, but I will. I move that we approve VAC 07-006,
request for vacation of the 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 4 to 7 and 11 to 13, Block
34, for the Paramount Subdivision No. 13.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9. Is there any further
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Meridian City Council
April 3. 2007
Page 25 of 69
Item 10:
Public Hearing: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16
building lots and 4 common lots on 4.0116 acres within the R-4 zone for
Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC - north of Ustick Road and east
Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 10 is a Public Hearing on PP 06-064. I will open
this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next project is called
Cold Creek and it is a subdivision as well. Just a preliminary plat. Again, this is the
second one on the agenda tonight where the existing zoning is in place for the
development and it is located on the north side of West Ustick Road, approximately a
third of a mile east of Ten Mile and on the south side of the Five Mile Creek. So, the
five mile traverses through here. This is one of the one entrances into Bridgetower and
this is the sUbject site here. To the west is an R.1 zoned county parcel, four acres in
size. To the east is a medical office building in Bridgetower, also known as Primeland
Subdivision. To the north are single family homes in Bridgetower, zoned R-4. And, as
you can see, the site is currently vacant. The present Comprehensive Plan designation
is medium density residential. The applicant has applied for preliminary plat approval of
16 single family residential building lots and four common lots on the four acres. The
sole access to the development, excuse me, will be provided from a public street
intersecting Ustick in alignment with Quarystone Avenue to the south. I'm going to jump
back real quick to the aerial. There is Quarystone, so the entrance that you see here
does align with that entrance. And, then, a stub for future connectivity is provided at the
west boundary to that four acre parcel that I mentioned in the presentation. The gross
density is 3.99 dwelling units per acre. There are no elevations for this project. The
applicant is proposing to sell the lots and has not provided elevations at this time. The
Commission did recommend approval at the March 1 st, 2007, hearing. There was one
adjacent neighbor that testified on the project. Let's see. The Commission talked about
the configuration here and the plat on the left is what was discussed and talked about,
submitted by the applicant at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and, then,
on the right is the revised plan representing those changes after the hearing. So, some
of the things that were talked about at the hearing were the odd configuration of Lot 6,
which is this lot right here, it kind of had this odd side yard, if you can call it a side yard.
Now it's just a true flag log. It's been straightened out. These two lots now have a little
bit more, quote, unquote, regular shape to them. They are still a little bit different than
most standard lots. That has been adjusted. And perimeter fencing was also talked
about. The applicant did offer up to construct fencing along Ustick Road, as well as the
west property line. A couple of things, I guess, that staff would like the Council to do
this evening. One would be to review the revised staff report. That's what has been
reflected in the staff report for tonight, so disregard this. I guess the other change to
maybe talk about real quick is the sewer service to this site was originally proposed in
this location. That has now been relocated over further to the east in this location. So,
maybe just point that out, too. And there has been some minor tweaks to some lot
sizes here, but they all do conform now to the minimum frontage and lot size
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 26 of 69
requirement of the R-4 zone. As you can tell, it's substantially the same, just some
minor tweaks to that. So, staff would recommend that you review and take action on
the revised plat this evening. Let's see. The other thing that we did have the adjacent
property owner come in -- what was it, last week I think, and I talked to them for a few
minutes. I think he has a couple of concerns still about the type of fencing along that
that -- the adjacent property. I see that they are in the audience here tonight, so I won't
take too much time, but they probably have a couple of concerns that I'll let them speak
to as well. Other than that, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission are
recommending approval to the City Council of the sUbject preliminary plat and I will try
to answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: Caleb, would you take me back to how it fits into the rest of the world out
there? Thank you.
Hood: So, this is -- I believe it's a dentist office or maybe an orthodontist office and,
then, there is another vacant site here in Bridgetower that they are going to be
constructing another medical office on soon and this is also an L-O type business there
and everything else is single family around going up through Bridgetower.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Caleb, that kind of sparked a question for me. Is there any concern that the
one access point to the west being so far north, does that create any difficulty with the
future development of this parcel that -- that northern street perhaps might connect
there, but will there be a means, then, to get down to the southern portion or is it too
narrow?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Borton, the width of the lot I'd have to look at that.
I'm not quite sure. And probably the property owner could tell you exactly how wide his
property is. Just eyeballing it -- I mean you need a 50-foot right of way, 42 as a
minimum if they are going to do a cul-de-sac there north-south. It looks like they could,
potentially, get a street down there. Another option may be just a common driveway for
four homes. I don't know what -- if they thought about redevelopment of that property.
Staff would not be real supportive of a public street coming all the way down and
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 27 of 69
intersecting Ustick, just because of the other Quarrystone that's real close as well. So,
you're looking at a short cul-de-sac or maybe a common driveway as well. But I haven't
done that analysis, it wasn't my project, but I could sure look at that and get the
dimensions and see if it's feasible or not.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant here tonight?
Carney: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I just kind of reiterate
some of the things that Caleb brought to --
De Weerd: Sir, please, state your name and address.
Carney: My name is Ryan Carney. I'm with Lochsa Engineering. I represent the
applicant. I'm at 1511 West Jefferson in Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Carney: Some of the things that Caleb brought up that were questioned by the P&Z
hearing, a couple of -- some of the lots didn't have the minimum 60 foot of frontage or
30 feet at 90 degree and the adjusted plat has met those requirements. Some of the
lots were oddly configured and those were adjusted and what you're viewing now is
basically a response to those comments. The neighbors questions. One with regard to
fencing along the western property line. We had agreed to put up fencing. I hadn't put
a lot of discussion or conditions as to the type of fencing. I think a cedar fence could be
appropriate. I think that's what's on the west side of their property. Or we could look at
a fence very similar to what the Bridgetower development has. I think it has a four foot
with a -- excuse me -- a four foot closed fence and the two foot visual fence above that.
Those were kind of the highlights. Some other things with regard to the property to the
west where the subdivision had went in hadn't necessarily met existing grades on that
property boundary. We haven't done a plan and profile of this street and all the grading
yet, but that's, you know, general conditions to meet -- match grade at adjacent
properties and we will get a letter of approval to grade in that property, so that won't be
an issue. Other than that, I just agree with the staff recommendation and will stand for
any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I just had one and that's about the easement .- was it for a sewer line that
moved in the old drawing to the new drawing.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 28 of 69
Carney: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: This piece right there.
Carney: The revised plat you will see on the right includes a 20 foot common lot width
as required by Public Works. The one on the left just had an easement. So, in an effort
to adjust the lot sizes, the common -- the common lot width 20 feet was moved to,
basically, a shorter dimension. Functionality-wise the sewer still works the same. The
lot generally drains to the north. It's not moving from a low pOint to a high point, so the
. change is to address a Public Works concern -- requirement for an open space common
lot, rather than an easement through a private lot.
Zaremba: I guess my follow-up question is whether there is any concern about making
that attractive or difficult to be a pedestrian access closer to the canal.
Carney: Well, we didn't have a proposed pedestrian access to the canal. For
maintenance purposes I think they will need access to that, so we could not --
Zaremba: Will the back of it be fenced with a gate or anything that discourages people
from going there or --
Carney: I believe the UDC requires a gate -- I'll have to defer to Caleb -- across rear
lots is the gate required, but not a common lot?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Zaremba, and the applicant, there is no
requirement that a sewer line be gated off or at the perimeter be fenced off, for that
matter, so nothing in the UDC would require that.
Carney: I guess, then, maybe another question for engineering. Are we going to
require that maintenance to be open from manhole to manhole or can you use the route
north of the Five Mile to get to that manhole?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we don't encourage locked gates, but
we will need access. If you want to gate it off and provide with -- provided we have a
key, some means of getting through there, we are okay with that.
Carney: I mean it doesn't really address the esthetics question. I know what you're
saying. There is a 20 foot wide lot there with--
Zaremba: Well, I guess my concern is whether people might go back there and do
things they are not supposed to do. It looks like an attractive place to go hide. I don't
know if that's a concern for anybody else, but if it were accessed to a multi-use pathway
that went along there, then, I would want it to be open, but since it doesn't go anywhere
that anybody needs to go, except for Public Works, I might like to see the access cut off.
Carney: We certainly have no objection to putting a fence there.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 29 of 69
Zaremba: And then Public Works --
Carney: As long as Public Works approves of what we want to put there for their
access, I guess.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, I guess that does raise a question. If both lots on either side of it fence
their yards, you're just going to have this narrow path to nowhere and so it would be --
indeed, does become a real issue and certainly a maintenance issue of who maintains
it. Is this part of the homeowners association or --
Carney: Yeah. To answer the maintenance issue, the homeowners association is
responsible for maintaining the landscape within the common lot.
De Weerd: And which one is your common lot?
Carney: If you look to the plat to the right, yeah, it's right where the pointer is. A 20-foot
wide common lot.
De Weerd: Okay. Do you have open space in this?
Carney: The open space, depending on clarification -- or classifications and -- what we
are providing common lot open space-wise is a 25 foot buffer adjacent to an arterial as
per any residential subdivision adjacent to an arterial in the City of Meridian and this
common lot. Other than that we do not have any open space.
De Weerd: So, Caleb, can you explain that one.
Hood: Madam Mayor, I can. This site is four acres. Our minimum open space
requirement doesn't kick in until you get to five acres.
De Weerd: Okay. Sorry, I didn't know it was so small. Any other questions, Council? I
guess there still is that lingering question of the safety aspect and the esthetic aspect of
that easement or that common lot.
Carney: Okay.
De Weerd: So, I'll let you sit there and think about it while we take additional testimony.
Carney: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I have two people that signed up as neutral. I have Tammy Schafer
and John Schafer. Would either of you like to provide testimony? Or both. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 30 of 69
Schafer: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I'm Tammy Schafer. I
reside at 2788 West Ustick Road in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Schafer: Thank you, Caleb, for helping me with the pictures. Picture one just shows
our house and to the west is Hartford Subdivision and the fence that they constructed
for us before they began the development there. Picture two shows just a little to the
east where the Cold Creek property line is and Bridgetower there in the back. I
understand that development is inevitable, but I do have a few concerns that I'd like to
share with you. First and foremost I hope the developer will ensure that a portable toilet
will be placed on the property on the very day that work will begin. When Hartford went
in they didn't have any and we saw on several occasions where workers stepping
behind our haystack with toilet paper in their hand. So, if you will pardon my candor, we
don't want to put up with that crap again, so -- fencing, with the existing elevation, is a
concern. At the Planning and Zoning meeting we were encouraged when the
developer's representative offered fencing between our properties, but with some
elevation difference retaining walls might be necessary. As you can see in pictures
three through ten -- and, Caleb, if you just want to scroll through those. The fence
between Bridgetower and Cold Creek, weeds are difficult to control if that difference in
elevation and the fencing doesn't hold up well either. That's me. And, then, picture 11
and 12 you can see the sidewalk from Bridgetower to the Cold Creek property line. The
elevation is a considerable difference there. Without some kind of retainage between
our properties, overfill from that proposed road that will continue in the future, as well as
the sidewalk, could be a problem. As you can see from pictures 13 through 16, this is
our backyard. The Hartford Subdivision fence where -- that's the road that will continue
in the future -- they didn't offer any kind of retainage and the contractor did come and
take several truck loads of sand and gravel, because it extended further, but that's what
we are left with. To this day you can see we have a portion of the asphalt and concrete
in our yard as a permanent reminder of poor planning. We later added boards at the
bottom. You can see in picture -. you can go onto 16, 17, that just shows how the
structure doesn't hold up well with the difference in elevation. And in picture 18 you can
see that we added boards at the bottom to try to retain the runoff, trash, and debris that
we were getting from the Hartford side. The last pictures .- oh, I'm sorry. Pictures 21 --
20 and -- okay. I'm sorry. Numbers are hard for me. In this picture you can see when
they were doing the sidewalk from Hartford to our property their sand and gravel
extended into our grass, killed the grass, covered a sprinkler head. They finally
removed that for us and added a retaining wall you can see there and in the next
picture. They did put sod in there, but our grass just won't ever look the same. And
picture 21 I think is another shot of that. And, finally, the last pictures -- when we were
rolling down Ustick Road near Black Cat, this is what they described as an affordable
housing neighborhood and they just provided chain link fencing. Some of the neighbors
opted to put their own privacy fencing, but that just creates a dead zone with weeds and
really hard to manage. So, Ryan, I appreciate you offering to put fencing between the
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 31 of 69
property, so we won't have to have our neighborhood look like that, because we are real
proud of our neighborhood. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Questions from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Ma'am, is there a fencing type that you are encouraging or opposed to?
Schafer: Well, like Ryan suggested that would match the other side. Hartford. Cedar--
you know, high quality cedar fencing or if they wanted to bridge the gap with
Bridgetower, that vinyl fencing is nice, too. So, we can certainly entertain some --
something other than Cyclone fencing would be in agreement to talk about.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: That's not allowed anyway, is it, Caleb?
Schafer: We just think it's a good neighbor policy. Up and down Ustick Road it looks
rather nice. There is some continuity, even though it's not code, I understand there is
some continuity with the development to make it look nice.
De Weerd: Well, that chain link, it's usually allowed only in -- I think that was along a
ditch or a canal where you need a visible fence to look through.
Schafer: Okay.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Let's see. One of your pictures showed the sidewalk that comes from the
west to your property. That appears to be right along Ustick.
Schafer: That's correct.
Zaremba: The other one showed from Bridgetower and I wasn't clear if that was a
sidewalk along Ustick or is it --
Schafer: That is correct. It's on Ustick. It's on the east side of --
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 32 of 69
Zaremba: Also along the road?
Schafer: Uh~huh. It's the border between the Cold Creek property and, then,
Bridgetower to the east.
Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a pathway that came into the
project that we are talking about midway up the property line or something.
Schafer: No.
Zaremba: So, if it's along Ustick --
Schafer: And for the record, at Hartford, they -- the sewer line is adjacent to our
western fence line property and they put a fence with no access gate to the rear, just to
try to keep the riff raff from accessing, because once you get to the ditch bank, then,
you can walk up and down and we have things back there and we have had some
problems with damage and theft and I believe access to the sewer manhole is
obtainable through the development itself, like through the street. So, we would be
happy to see that that fence would be blocked off, too, to the creek, so it wouldn't
encourage foot traffic up and down behind our property.
De Weerd: Caleb, while I have Mrs. Schafer up here, is there a plan for a pathway on
the north side of that waterway?
Hood: Madam Mayor, there, actually, is a pathway on the north side in Bridgetower.
They constructed the -- and that's why I count the south side here and why we aren't
encouraging a micro-path or anything to get through this property, because pedestrians
should be using the other side.
Schafer: Yeah. See, that's what you were speaking of, sir, that's --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Schafer: -- right along parallel to Ustick Road.
De Weerd: And so I guess, Mrs. Schafer, I would like to -- one of the issues where you
had to board, if they would have put a retaining wall and built that up, it would have
solved that issue?
Schafer: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: And that's what you would like consideration if they don't grade it
appropriately --
Schafer: Right.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 33 of 69
De Weerd: -- that they do this kind of mitigation.
Schafer: Since I'm not an engineer, I'm not sure how that will all work out, but it's just
something that's a lot of afterthought. A lot of things they should have done and nobody
knew at the time or didn't disclose. So, we just want to make sure that something can
be done, so we don't have this again.
De Weerd: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Schafer: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would just like to add the comment that as they say a
picture is worth a thousand words and I appreciate the visual. It certainly helps me.
Schafer: Thank you for --
Zaremba: They are very clear and a good selection of pictures.
Schafer: That's great. I have to thank my daughter Kelsey, because the only benefit of
having a teenager is they know how to do these things.
De Weerd: They do know how to take pictures. I have two and we use our camera a
lot John Schafer, would you like to provide testimony as well?
J. Schafer: Yes. I'm John Schafer. I live at 2788 West Ustick Road and we are to the
west of the proposed development. First off, I'd like to say that we do not oppose the
development of the property. We know that it's imminent that development does grow.
In the past 12 years there wasn't a house around us and now we are completely
surrounded and --
De Weerd: I can see you from my backyard.
J. Schafer: Oh. So, about 12 years ago we developed the property and, then, we built
our house. It was a modest 2,800 square foot house, compared to some of the houses
that are developed in Bridgetower and when they developed the property to the west of
us we were told the houses would be comparable to ours. The developer went broke
halfway through the project and the housing development was picked up by a track
home builder and when the development was basically done, they were very moderate
vinyl sided homes, not a composition wood or a cementitious siding as promised. I
hope I don't offend anybody by saying that I'm not a real fan of vinyl siding, but I have a
feeling that it kind of lessens the value of a home. The Bridgetower Subdivision was,
then, developed to the north and it was constructed of 2,500 to 5,000 square foot
homes, which I felt put the property values of our property back up to where we felt that
it was a good value again. And they built an upscaled dental faCility at the entry to the
Bridgetower, as well as an orthodontic clinic, and now they are trying to insert an
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 34 of 69
affordable housing circle in the dead center of some upscale -. I guess you might say
development, which I don't think is really appropriate. At least I feel that it will down -- or
devalue our property, because if we ever decide to develop, we will have to access our
property through Hartford Subdivision or through Cold Creek Subdivisions. With the
development of the Cold Creek Subdivision -- I'll get into kind of the basics here a little
bit later on. And we also understood that there is no specific builder assigned to build
these homes and we do have concerns that the neighborhood will be a mishmash of
quality and design by not having a specified group of builders and the developer
represented or stated that there is a need for affordable housing and this side of town,
but we don't feel it's adjacent -- or appropriate and adjacent to Bridgetower Subdivision,
our residence, or the upscale or dental facility next door. The neighborhoods directly in
front of the Bridgetower Subdivision, so they are keeping the neighborhood design. It
would be nice to see these homes with wood, composite, or cementitious exteriors
installed, rather than the vinyl in a natural color. All other subdivisions up and down
Ustick Road provided fences, which I think we have all talked about and we would ask
that -- and they have offered that the -- it would be a cedar fence of four or six inch
boards with a number one grade. These are on metal posts or a vinyl fence, something
similar to that. Also, there is a headgate that comes in on the Cold Creek property that
feeds our irrigation -- flood irrigation that will have to be addressed, how we get that
water off of their -- the headgate that comes in on their property as well. We would also
request that single level homes be constructed along the west border, if possible, to the
subdivision. And also there was some discussion about the -- I don't know if there is a
possibility to go back to the plat again. The--
De Weerd: And, then, sir, I will have to ask you to summarize, please.
J. Schafer: Okay. Along the western border -- this lot right here at the Planning and
Zoning we requested the easement for the sewer line be run across this -- or at this
location right here. I think there is already a ten foot setback from property line
required. We requested the 20 foot easement to go right here. That would give a buffer
between our property and the first house to be built here, because that's a very narrow
lot, very long in shape, and look to be more like an in-fill housing, it was constructed
there by a long, narrow construction. Also, that -- my wife had mentioned about the fill -
- having to fill in the slope of the grade onto our property. As you can see that it is a
maintenance nightmare, either by spraying for the weeds, weed eating, or whatever you
have to do. It's -- as we are getting up in years we are not quite as able to go out there
and use the weed eater like we used to. One other thing -- not to bore you real quick
like --
De Weerd: Sir, I'll need you to summarize, please.
J. Schafer: Okay.
De Weerd: Your time is over.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 35 of 69
J. Schafer: Okay. Let's see. Right here. There are five lots of the 16 lots that have 31
feet or less of road frontage. There are two additional lots that adjoin these narrow
accesses that have 57 feet or less of road frontage. Lot 2, west of the entrance to the
subdivision requires parking no closer than 30 feet to the stop sign, which would be this
lot right here, so I have got a stop sign right there. You have to be 30 feet back from the
corner with a driveway entering these and these two lots -- usually in a subdivision you
come in off of side streets to access these lots, so you will be accessing these two lots
directly as you enter the subdivision, which could be a hazard or -- for incoming traffic
into the property. There are also five outside corner radiuses in the subdivision, which
parking is not very easily done on the outside corner. And, then, you also have inside
radiuses, which really don't accommodate parking as well. And, then, you have three
lots that have narrow entry into the subdivision -- or into their residence, if there is
anybody that visits these houses or they have a party or something like that, there is
very very very limited parking on the street.
De Weerd: Okay. Sir, I'm sorry, but your time is up.
J. Schafer: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public
Hearing. Is there any additional testimony? Okay. I would ask the applicant if they
could come up and respond.
Hood: Madam Mayor, as he comes forward, I just wanted to answer the question that I
believe it was Councilmember Borton brought up about the width of that adjacent parcel
of the last two people. It appears that it's about 250 to 260 feet wide, which a typical lot
is usually right around a hundred. I looked at the lots in this subdivision, there is a
couple that are right at a hundred, 102, 105, 110 foot lot depth, that's -- so if you have
hundred foot wide lots on either side and a 50 foot right of way, it appears they can put
a street right down the middle of that and get lots on both sides. So, I just wanted to get
you that information as well.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Carney: Madam Mayor and Council Members, once again Ryan Carney, 1311 West
Jefferson, Boise, Idaho. I can address some of those. I didn't maybe make note of all
of them. If you have concerns from neighbors, then, you can bring them up as they go
on. One, with regard to grading adjacent to the western property boundary, I believe we
went over that. I know along that sidewalk adjacent to Ustick, both the project to their
west and the project to our east the sidewalk is two to three feet higher than adjacent
grade. As we grade across there, should we, to not match property -- or match grade of
their property boundary on the east, we will simply put in a retaining wall, probably a
temporary type retaining wall for the next connection piece to go in. Same as with the
road that connects along our northwestern property boundary. With regard to the
construction, it's a little bit ahead of where we are in the preliminary plat to discuss
some of the construction things that went on during that for the property to their west. I
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 36 of 69
know as an erosion control permit is issued that does cover things like portable
restrooms, you know, waste management, and erosion control. Those are managed by
the EPA and City of Meridian for the construction. The sewer line location was
requested to be along our western property line. That would wind up costing us a lot if
maybe the applicant was willing to dedicate ten feet to get the 20 foot required common
lot on their property, if they would be interested in looking at that. Also, that lengthens
that sewer line by a considerable length and the crossing becomes more difficult and
lengthy, because there is a boring we are going to have to put under that canal to avoid
going to a permit through the Corps of Engineers. I can't really speak to architecture at
this point. I know -- I had heard a statement to the effect of we are looking for
affordable housing -- I'm not sure that's the case. I'm not really -- I don't know where
that statement came from. The applicant, nor the applicant's representative, have
stated that this would be an affordable housing solution. I guess I'm kind of out of
responses. If there is anything specific that they had brought up you want answered,
please, feel free to ask me.
De Weerd: Can you tell me -- I would understand -- wouldn't they have CC&Rs. Or do
they not have to submit that? Or because they are four acres they don't need to do
that?
Hood: Madam Mayor, the city does not, on a general matter of practice, require
covenants for subdivisions. That's a civil and a private agreement that a developer
usually puts on the homeowners and we don't enforce those, so --
De Weerd: I understand that, but don't we require that they have them?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we don't require them, we normally
would seem if they are common areas to maintain, pressurized irrigation to maintain.
This one there is not a lot of common area in this, so -- and I don't recall if there was
pressurized irrigation. Those are the only two things normally we would see an HOA --
someone -- homeowners association to maintain those two things. Otherwise, we
would get -- as Mr. Hood said, we don't require it as an ordinance. You know, it is a
common practice at least when there is some maintenance issues.
De Weerd: Well, I guess the reason I ask that is usually in those CC&Rs you would
require what kind of treatments that the houses would have and that's probably what I
was more getting to is what -- what is the annotation of the type of materials and will you
require accents and -- and I would have a question, then, if you have -- if there are not
rules that will say who maintains that common area. It, again, becomes a concern. So,
do you have any materials that you are identifying that will be used in this area? I guess
in some regards -- and maybe for the very fact of what Mrs. Schafer had brought up is
some of these properties are flipping and what we are anticipating happens there
doesn't necessarily happen. So, we do like to see what kind of product is being
considered and I would ask if there is a vision for that if you could, please, share that.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 37 of 69
Carney: To address architectural and materials and building concerns, I can probably
open that up by saying the anticipated cost of sales of the lot are going to drive up the
price of these beyond what you would see in affordable housing. I have got some kind
of mock up building plans that I can show you. Whether or not these get built to those
standards or whether or not those architectural drawings get used to build these
buildings is kind of beyond my scope of preliminary plat approval. So, I can show you
what we have been looking at, show you what we are anticipating, but the teeth to that
-- I'm not sure would be enough to satisfy your concerns, so -- if you would like to see
what we are thinking, I can definitely show you.
De Weerd: I don't know. I think if you showed us we would tie it to annexation and you
would be required to do it, so --
Carney: We are not seeking annexation or a rezone.
Rountree: They are already annexed.
De Weerd: Oh, wow. Yeah. Council, do you want to see what they are contemplating
at this point?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I do not. He's indicated that he's just showing pictures and we have no means
to bind anyone, let alone the applicant whether they show us or -- I don't want to see the
pictures.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I don't need to see pictures either.
De Weerd: I would recommend that you show it to the neighbors. I do have still that
remaining question as to who maintains your common area.
Carney: At this point an HOA will be formed to maintain common area lots and we have
three of them -- well, four if you count what we are putting in the -- there are four
common area lots, one in the center of the cul-de-sac, the two adjacent to Ustick, and
the one that ties to the sewer line connection and an HOA will be required to maintain
those.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have a question --
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 38 of 69
Bird: -- regarding the common lot with the sewer line. I want a better explanation of
why you can't take your 20 feet down to the west side and put it in down there, other
than the fact that maybe it costs a little more. To me, that sounds very practical.
Carney: The reason is that the limited square footage available on this lot and the way
it's configured, a 20-foot wide common lot adjacent to the western property line is
another 30 feet long, I guess, basically, and would require reduction in lots based on the
minimum square footage of 80 feet. If you look at the location of where that common lot
is now, that is a shorter and less area consuming common lot.
Bird: Yeah, it is, it's shorter. It's shorter, but you move 20 feet on down with your lot
lines, I don't see where you're going to -- where you're going to damage your width and I
might be wrong, but I don't -- I don't see -- other than it will be a few feet longer to go
and you say you have to bore through the canal to get to the sewer there?
Carney: Yeah. There is a 30 inch sewer main on the north side of the canal that we
need to tie into and provide a manhole for. We will do that in either location.
Bird: Okay. So that's no different.
Carney: It's not different. It's just a slightly longer for construction. I'd have to scale it
out. I mean it's 30 feet, maybe.
Bird: Thirty feet more?
Carney: Just because of the angle. The actual sewer line -- 30 to 50 feet long or the
portion that is boring, which is a more extensive construction style -- or method, would
be maybe 30 feet longer -- 20 to 30 feet. And I have looked at several variations to try
to appease the neighbor to the west on providing that 20 foot common lot and the lot
square footages couldn't be met in the zoning that we are currently in. At least in
several iterations.
De Weerd: Any further questions from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Len, is the only way to get sewer to this property is from the north? These two
options that we have described? Is there a third option that wouldn't require a 20-foot
wide strip to nowhere?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I'm not positive, but I think the issue -- I
think -- I think any other avenue would also eat up common space and I think the
bottom line is I understand they are right on the threshold and the extra 30, 40 feet
Meridian City Council
April 3,2007
Page 39 of 69
going to the -- if he moved it to the west puts him over and he loses a lot. But as far as
other availability, I'll have to do some checking real quick. I'll see if I can check the
utility map.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: -- a follow up to Councilman Borton's question. Do we have, let's see,
maybe an aerial or something that shows this property and the property to the east of it,
the Bridgetower? Maybe it was the aerial. That was a question for Mr. Hood.
Hood: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question. I'm having some technical difficulties with
the computer, so --
Zaremba: Yeah. I was looking for an aerial that would show this property and the
property to the east of it.
Hood: Yeah. My computer froze up, that's why I was focusing on this, so I'm going to
have to get back with you, too, with that. It's completely frozen right now.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, I'll ask it anyhow and people can imagine that. What I was
thinking -- along the lines of what Councilman Borton was asking, is if there was a way
to connect to a sewer whose source was over here, then, this could also be a pathway
over the top of that sewer easement common property lot and provide a way for people
to get back and forth to the dentist office and I thought there was going to be a day care
over there -- possibly without getting in their cars. So, we are still back to Len.
De Weerd: Well, while we wait, are there any other questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Council, why don't we take a five minute recess while we try and get the
computer to unfreeze and you can stretch your legs or -- Len, do you --
Grady: Madam Mayor, I'm not showing any sewer to the south whatsoever. I show
water, but no sewer.
Zaremba: Not to the east?
Grady: Sorry, to the east.
Zaremba: Not that could be accessed to the east either in the Bridgetower office area?
Okay.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 40 of 69
Grady: No easements. There is sewer stubbed, but doesn't appear to be an easy way
to get access.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Did that answer your question?
Zaremba: That answered mine. I don't know if it answered Mr. Borton's.
Borton: It did. Thank you, Len.
De Weerd: No unanswered questions any longer?
Zaremba: Back to the treatment of the existing common lot sewer. Did we settle on a
locked gate fence at the north end of it?
Carney: I would actually propose at least one at the north end, perhaps one on the
south end. I'm not sure a 20 foot gated corridor is any better than being behind those
lots, so maintenance -- or the HOA's responsibility and a gated -- a locked gate along
the northern property line and kind of investigate what we do adjacent to the street
frontage and how that works with what planning would approve. I'm not sure they have
got an answer.
Zaremba: If I could ask the police department for comment, if they have a preference.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Zaremba, I guess I would just say that because that would be an
easement, the two sides -- the two lots on each side of it would not be allowed a six foot
fence and so if you locked the gate on the south side, you would just jump over it. I
think I could even do that one, but -- so --
Rountree: I want to see that.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm not going to do it, but --
Zaremba: And we will take pictures.
Bird: You're going to what?
De Weerd: So, you know, that would -- and that is also a note to the applicant, when
that is an easement, those property owners on both sides would have just -- what, a
minimum of a four foot fence. I don't know. I think it's all the way down. Caleb, what is
the UDC -- UDC on those situations? It goes clear to the back fence line; is that
correct?
Hood: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, are you talking about fencing a long that common lot?
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 41 of 69
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Hood: Yeah. It would extend from the -- actually, it's even restricted further. As you
mentioned, it could be four foot solid and a six foot open vision adjacent to common
lots. At the first 20 feet up to the right of way it's a maximum three foot tall fence, but
that would extend all the way to the rear of that common lot and the adjacent build-able
lots.
De Weerd: Okay. So, do you still need the chief to answer a safety question there?
Zaremba: I would like to hear his opinion, if we may, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, Members of the Council, frankly, the
common area seems to be more of a problem in my mind. That's my opinion on it,
irregardless of the fence height or anything else from where it's at. It's in the middle of
nowhere. It doesn't seem to go anywhere, except back to the canal. So, from a safety
standpoint it becomes an attractive nuisance and I don't have much more to add other
than that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you
De Weerd: So, now that we know that, what do you want to do about it?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I probably would suggest that there be a locked gate at the
north end of it and go with the city requirement, since it is an open space, that the two
properties next to it have no more than a four foot or a six foot open vision fence, but at
the back wall that it be a six foot -- six foot locked gate. North wall I mean. North end. I
would rather have the front of it open and visible.
De Weerd: Len, is it -- is it required to have some kind of a treatment over the top of it?
You know, can they pave? Can it -- does it need to be planted? Can it be grass?
Grady: Madam Mayor, just provided it's not large trees, it can be paved. Grass is fine.
Landscaping -- normal landscaping is not a problem.
De Weerd: Okay.
Grady: Just avoid large trees and permanent structures. And paving is okay.
De Weerd: So, I guess one more maybe more specific question. What are you going to
do in that area? Is it going to be landscaped? Will it be grass?
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 42 of 69
Carney: Well, I guess I would prefer a landscape option there. If it's paved, I think
that's inviting access to it. We are just anticipating a landscape -- grass in that area. I
don't think Public Works need access to it vehicularly, they just need to be able to dig it
up.
De Weerd: Right.
Carney: And that's where that comment comes from. So, I was proposing just a lawn.
De Weerd: That would be maintained with the setbacks and all of that?
Carney: Right.
De Weerd: Okay. Sorry. Anything else, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have nothing.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Unless there is additional information needed --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: If not, I'd move we close the Public Hearing on Item 10, PP 06-064.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item
10. All those in favor say. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: It's no fault of the applicant, it's a challenge of the site, but this sewer issue to
the north to me is fatal to the -- to the plat, whether it's in its current location or whether
it's on the western property boundary, I think the police chief properly pointed out that
we are going to be left with a 20 foot wide attractive nuisance to nowhere for eternity
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 43 of 69
and there doesn't seem to be an alternative source that will satisfy this particular plat
option. It is a challenge, perhaps, when -- if and when the property in between -- or I
guess, excuse me, the property directly to the west develops, that would afford
additional opportunities, but I see an unanswerable challenge with regards to the 20 foot
strip, whether it's landscaped or gated, it a problem forever, as I see it. So, that is a
fatal flaw on the plat that can't be overcome in my mind.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion, Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My comments on the plat, it seems to me, is that -- and, again, no direct
comment to the developer or the engineers, they fall on the desires of someone, but it's
-- it looks to me like they are putting five pounds of coffee in a three pound can and we
see a density in an R-4 on this small acreage that we don't ever see in an R-4. It's
seldom that we see four acres -- or four lots per acre in an R-4. It's a very small parcel.
It's a tough parcel. We have more problem accesses in this four acres than we do in
larger parcels. So, I would like to see some thought given to redesign, re-Iayout, the
possibility of maybe abutting the property to the east with a roadway, as opposed to
yards. That could maybe develop at some point in time in the future with some kind of a
cross-access. I'm not going to solve the issues with the plat. I -- it falls, again, in the
category I'm not in that big of a hurry. So, I'm at this point not favorably inclined to
approve this.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Do I have a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Councilman Rountree expresses a thought that I can support as well and not
to reengineer the project, but it would seem to me it would make sense if it were to be
redesigned to have the stub street fall a little farther south. That would allow the
neighbor, should that ever be redeveloped, to actually have a little better access than
just right straight across at the top and I think it would help the neighbor more in their far
future planning. Just a thought.
De Weerd: Okay. If there are no further comments, I would entertain a motion.
Rountree: Oh, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 44 of 69
Rountree: If this is not a successful application and we see it again, I would hope that
we would also be presented with some design considerations. That has been our
practice. I hope it remains our practice. Not having design review in the City of
Meridian, but, basically, on staff's shoulders, as well as ours, ultimately, before making a
decision I'd like to know what it is we are deciding on. So, that's my last comment.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-064.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 10. Is there any
discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57
acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by
RMR Consulting, Inc. - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black
Cat Road:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 118
single-family building lots on 26.41 acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216
single-family building lots on 38.26 acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in
the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi-family lots on 13.01 acres in the
proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots for Baraya Subdivision by
RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat
Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 11 and 12 are a Public Hearing on AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062.
I will open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The last application -- at
least Public Hearing application on your agenda this evening is for Baraya Subdivision
and it is located on the south side of Franklin Road and on the east side of Black Cat
Road. To the north is Silver Oaks Subdivision. Let's see. Which is a mixed use
development proposed with some multi-family units in the future, as well as some -- a
day care and some L-O zoned property there. Everything else around this -- around
this project is currently in the county and zoned in the county. R-1 and RUT are the
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 45 of 69
dominant zones in this area. There is the aerial. You can see it's agricultural land
today. There are some homesteads on the parcels in this area and, again, you know,
it's pretty much rural out there right now. However, the Comprehensive Plan does
designate this site currently medium density residential and mixed use regional. As
you're aware, we are going through the Ten Mile area plan and this is within the
boundaries of that Ten Mile specific area plan and the draft designations that are
proposed for this site include a civic school site, green space and park land, medium
density residential, medium high density residential, and high density residential. So,
those are the designations on this specific property that are proposed with the Ten Mile
plan. Before I go any further, I do want to stop and give you some of the history behind
this property and also behind this subject application. In late 2005 an application for
annexation and zoning and preliminary plat were submitted on this site. That project
was called Bryce Canyon Subdivision. Bryce Canyon included a request for an R-8
zone, TN-R zone, and it included 475 single family residential lots. That application was
withdrawn by the applicant shortly after submittal. Then, in May of 2006 the applicant
again submitted annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat application for the site.
That application submittal was called Baraya. The applications for Baraya proposed
406 single family residential lots, one office lot, and 23 common lots and L-O zoning
designations. The applications were brought before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on June 15th, 2006. The Commission recommended approval of the
project. However, on July 18th, 2006, the City Council voted to deny Baraya. Council's
basis for denial fell primarily upon the lack of conformance of the proposal with the
anticipated outcome of the Ten Mile area specific plan. I want to stop right there for just
a second, because we were just pretty much in the heat of the discussion for Ten Mile
when this was before you, again, in July of this last year and the applicant subsequently
asked that you reconsider your denial action. The action that you took was to remand
this project back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. That has occurred. Some
further changes have even occurred at the Planning and Zoning Commission level to
get you to what you see here tonight. So, I'm going to jump into that project and staff
believes that this project now does comply generally with the anticipated Ten Mile plan
that you will be seeing here some time this next -- late spring, probably.
De Weerd: Caleb, is that -- that plan does not have a recommendation on it from
Planning and Zoning yet?
Hood: It does not. It's actually scheduled for hearing April 5th. So, the proposed
development -- and I apologize, the plat is on a couple different pages and trying to get
all this on -- on one screen doesn't happen very easily and jumping through five different
sheets you can't really see what's going on. So, this is, essentially, a plat, although
there aren't any dimensions or anything on it. But it's a layout of the project and it's --
there is 95.57 acres and 28 acres is proposed for R-8 zoning. Sixty-four acres is
proposed for R-15 zoning. And 13 acres, plus some change, is zoned R-40. Generally
speaking the R-8 stuff is more near the north. R-15 would be on the southern. Now, I'm
being real general here. And, then, the R-40 would be on the east side of the
subdivision. The subject preliminary plat proposed is 334 single family residential lots,
28 common lots, and one school lot within the proposed R-8 and R-15 zones. So, I'm
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 46 of 69
going to stop right there real quick. You can probably make out the school lot, but this
would come out over on Black Cat Road and that's the property talked about there.
And, then, I mentioned that the R-40 -- there are two lots in the R-40 on the east side of
the plat as well. Access to this site is proposed from three public streets that connect to
Black Cat Road and Franklin Road. So, there is one off of Black Cat and two off of
Franklin. Sorry. Two off of Franklin. Right in there. That's a collector roadway, South
Glen Canyon Avenue is proposed near the east boundary of the property and divides
the property along the proposed zoning designations of R-15 and R-40. So, this is a
collector roadway that stubs to the property to the south. That is also consistent with --
the Ten Mile plan has a traffic component to it and a collector was generally anticipated
in that location. They also are aligned with the entrance into Silver Oaks Subdivision on
the other side of Franklin Road. Sixteen percent of 13 acres of the site is set aside for
open space. Jump to the landscape plan. A multi-use pathway, landscape parkways, a
25-foot wide landscape buffer along South Glen Canyon Avenue and two community
park areas, which include a pool with changing room and tot lots are proposed as
amenities. The gross density of this project is 5.16 units per acre. That does exclude
the school site and the future multi-family dwellings, as we don't know the exact
densities that are going to occur on those R-40 lots in the future. The applicant has
submitted some elevations since the Commission hearing. I believe the only elevations
we had at the Commission hearing were some townhouse elevations. We now have
elevations for the townhomes, the alley loaded lots, and your typical single family
detached, so I'm going to come back to those in just a minute. The Commission did
recommend approval of this project on March 1 st of this year. Some of the things that
were discussed at the hearing included providing quality building exteriors for these --
for the residential products, to include stucco, stone, and brick and the Commission also
accepted the applicant's proposal that the high density portion, the R-40 zoned portion,
comply with the specific guidelines of the Ten Mile area when adopted, as it appears
that those guidelines should be adopted prior to -- prior to the development of those R-
40 lots and they will require Conditional Use Permit approval, so they will be back for a
Public Hearing in the future. Let's see. Some outstanding issues, I guess, for you. We
do have some elevations, which I talked about and I'll run through those. A couple of
things that I would ask that you modify in your recommendation. The applicant did
submit an e-mail to staff here this last week. Condition1.1.7,references31510ts, is
actually 334 lots proposed tonight. So, I would just note that. That is an error in the
staff report. And, then, condition 1.1.12 should have said that, you know, with the
development of each phase the required landscaping and sidewalks need to be
installed along the adjacent arterials. I know it's been the preference of this Council to
get some of the sidewalks going to schools in with the development as they occur.
Excuse me. There is not a very large piece of sidewalk on Black Cat. As you can see,
there is a very limit amount of frontage. I looked -- we just a couple weeks ago received
a map from Wendell Bigham at the school district and I looked on his map and this site
still shows up as being a negotiated school site. So, timing -- I was looking to see when
construction of this site was in their plan and it looks like it's still a negotiation site, so I
don't know what that means necessarily. To me that implies that they don't have it
scheduled for construction anytime soon. The applicant may -- and, hopefully, does
have some more information on that, but I just thought I'd let you know, because I tried
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 47 of 69
to see if that school was planned next year, then, probably getting the sidewalks in is
important, you known, if you have kids going to be showing up there in a couple few
years. But it looked like it's on a time plan that's a horizon that's out there a little bit
further. And the applicant also in that e-mail stated that they have met with the fire and
police department on a couple conditions in Exhibit B and I'll let the applicant touch on
those if they need those to be amended as well. And now before I yield the floor I did
want to run through a couple of the slides, particularly some of the elevations. First, this
exhibit shows the mixture of lots. I don't know if you can read that or not. The yellow
are the townhome lots. The next color down -- I'll call that pink -- are R-40 zoned lots.
And, then, red is 40 foot wide lots. The orange would be 50 foot wide lots. The baby
blue is 60 foot lots. Purple are alley-loaded lots. And, then, green is common area or it
looks like the school also shows up in that common area. So, that's kind of a mixture of
the different sizes of lots and different typologies for the residential units that are
anticipated throughout Baraya. And, then, here is a blow-up area of the -- a blow up of
the Ten Mile area, with this property overlaid on it, the -- just so you can kind of see the
designations. And, again, moving from left to right, medium density residential is kind of
that yellow color that is on the northern part of this. The orange would be a medium
high density residential. The elementary school pretty much is on -- excuse me. The
high density residential would be the darker brown, again, where the R-40 is proposed.
So, you can see it generally conforms pretty well to the overlay that the Ten Mile -- draft
Ten Mile plan has for this site and it's not exact, you know, there are some streets that
are off a little bit or this designation floats a little bit, but generally staff said, you know,
this is pretty close, especially for a plan that hasn't even been adopted by the Council
yet. We felt this was pretty close. So, just wanted you to see that overlay as well. Here
is the tot lot structures that are proposed. I vaguely recall seeing something about the
color of these maybe changing, but this is, essentially, the layout of the tot lot, so I don't
think it's going to be that blue, but I'll let the applicant maybe clarify that. I think he
could clear that up as well. But I vaguely remember seeing an e-mail. And, then, they
have this, as I talk about before. And there is some comments and I'm not even sure if
these comments are from Anna or they are from Amanda, but they are comments and I
did review them and I would concur with most of them. I guess I'm going to maybe jump
to the punch line here before we go through all the slides, but a lot of them are garage
dominated. That's what I saw on quite a few of them. Not only just the single family
homes, but the townhomes specifically. There are some components -- and I apologize
I haven't been probably as diligent of reading up on this Ten Mile plan as I should be,
but I have other duties and I do know that one of the aspects, though, is to -- oh, similar
to what Mr. Turnbull was talking about earlier tonight with his vacation request was
berm the residences to the street, create the friendly environment, pedestrian friendly
environment, bring the homes to the -- to street level and kind of create that and I think
they do that with some of these units, not -- not all of them, and that's what a lot of these
-- these comments from the staff are and I'll just let you kind of review and read for
yourself, I'm not going to comment on all of them. Materials -- you know, there are
some that do a better job of using materials and others that are pretty monotone and
don't use very many materials. So, there is some more single family. And if you want
me to stop or go back, please -- so, now onto the townhome projects. So, these are
attached single family. The one on the bottom of this slide is not the same, it's similar to
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 48 of 69
what was proposed at the Commission meeting. I do see there are some modulation in
the garages. Some of the buildings, if you can notice, it's slight, but there are some
modulation between the face of the garage and the street, so your driveways,
essentially, get longer and shorter with some of those. That fourth unit is set back it
appears a little bit further than the third unit. So, there is some modulation, but, again,
it's pretty garage dominated in front of the street. That's a lot of what you see. Here is
another set of town homes that we feel does a lot better job of downplaying the garages
to a mix of materials, even though that's still street, that's a lot of what you're going to
see. And here is some other ones that we have found somewhere. I'm not even sure
where -- that we thought were attractive and did a nice job of making it not feel so,
again, garage dominated. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but it does down play that
garage and makes it more street friendly, if you will. And, then, some alley loaded
products. Again, we don't run into the garage problem with these. They are going to be
off of alleys, so you aren't going to see the garage, but for going down the alley. So,
these are going to be on your 40 foot wide lots, essentially, in the alley loads. And,
then, I have a bigger Ten Mile map. But that's -- that's what I have for elevations and,
again, most all of those, I believe, are new since the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, so I just wanted to share those with you and with that I believe I touched on all
the notes that I had and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this point?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I have two.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Let's see. During some of the, I guess, public open houses on the Ten Mile
area plan there was talk in this general area or this direction of some industrial -- is that
farther west or north of this or is this where it was suggested?
Hood: Yeah. It is a little bit further. I could put the draft area map on there. I was
trying to stay away from this, as -- it will be -- you will have your chance at it here soon
enough. But, yeah, it did end up further to the west as you can see and that would be
the border with Nampa as well, so --
Zaremba: It's not this property that's --
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: -- industrial.
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. The other question is there was a letter I believe from the
church that's going to locate across the street from this, about a signal at Silver Oaks.
Does one of your plans identify where Silver Oaks is?
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 49 of 69
Hood: Yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't touch on that. That is in the staff report. I didn't mention
the letter that we did receive. So, this may not -- let's go to this one, maybe. So, again,
this is Silver Oaks or Umbria is what the final plat was called. They just have the
smallest amount of frontage there with the triangular piece. So, that's where this
subdivision also ties and aligns with, so I believe that's what their -- again, on this side,
that would align with the Umbria. That would be a collector roadway here. So, the
warrant probably in the future would be -- on the south side, anyways, I don't know
about the north side, would probably be there for a signal, but that's the location.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to
come forward?
Schultz: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, 2127 South Alaska Way in
Meridian, here representing this application and it's good to be back. It's been awhile,
last summer, and we have been working hard since then and, you know, one thing we
were lacking last summer, as I thought back on it, was there just wasn't a consensus as
to what this area was. It wasn't that our plan was bad, it was just we didn't know if there
was industrial going to be pointed out in the area or if it was -- if the mixed use regional
that it shows right now was going to be commercial or what was it going to be. We had
an idea, but that wasn't good enough. So, we did immerse ourselves in the Ten Mile
area plan. We were one of the large stakeholders in the area and we believe brought a
lot to the table as a suggestion, some regional issues, but we suggested and a lot of
suggestions were made towards that that we were able to comply with and I can say
that we have complied with everything that was recommended to us to get to this stage
and that we do come before you with a consensus now that we didn't have before from
your staff and Planning Commission, which is no easy task, as well as your HDR, your
consultant that was hired to orchestrate the charrette process and everything, worked
closely with Mr. Mark Sawyer through that process as well. But not only that, but your
police department, your fire department, your parkS department. If you remember, there
was a question about a park in this area last year that through that process it was kind
of moved across the freeway, I think. You know, it moved when they looked at the
bigger picture. And, then, the school. Wendell Bigham last year said, oh, we don't need
a school out here right now. Well, when it became apparent to him through the
charrette process that this might have a lot of kids in the area at some point, he went we
need a school. And so that changed as well. So, what we bring back before you is a
highly evolved project that I think that we have covered all of our bases, crossed our I's,
dotted our T's, and I think we have done -- you know, we have taken our time and I
don't think anybody is going to accuse this thing of going through quickly, so I think it's
good and let me if I can -- if you can go to the landscape plan, please. Maybe point out
some of the main regional type things that -- that we identified through the Ten Mile plan
and also point out that we do comply with the current comp plan, which has been in
force since -- what does it say there, 2002. It's on your floor over here. You know, we
do comply with that, as well as the anticipated recommended outcome of the Ten Mile
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 50 of 69
plan. So, we do comply with both and we are subject to the current one. We are not
saying that to get around anything, we are just pointing that out that we do comply with
it. But this regional collector here does line up with Silver Oaks and, yes, we will be
contributing towards half of the signal through the ACHD staff report at whatever time
they dictate that that be put in. This is a 70 foot wide collector, with landscaping on both
sides, and to the middle, similar to EI Dorado or Silverstone, a nice regional type
entryway that we don't necessarily need for our side, but it is built to get to the south
and also to get to the east. The school site, 15 acres that we have set aside to -- to
work with the school district. Wendell's been busy. It's not on the top of his priority list
right now to get that through, but if anything other than a school goes there, we would
be back in front of you. I mean it's set for a school, we are going to -- you know,
Wendell negotiated very astutely to get the best deal he can on the property and we are
going to put a school there, because it adds value to the area, it adds value to have
walk-able paths to the elementary school. It's just a good location and it's kind of an
odd shaped piece. It works well, because it's off of Black Cat and, yet, it's set back from
Black Cat, so it's a good piece for a school. We have got the regional pathway that's
ten foot wide pavement with an additional five foot on each side for -- so that the big fire,
EMT trucks can get down there. We have kind of worked that out here recently. It
needs to be a little bit wider in case somebody has a problem here, say, that the big
truck can get in there and the EMT guys can get right to a person. So, we have made it
extra wide to allow the emergency vehicles to get to it and we have got the room in
there to do that. The Black Cat trunk, fortunately, is built through here and across the
highway and, you know, it's to Overland Road now and that's -- it's all in the ground and
all good. We have got a couple parks. This one has a pool and a changing area.
Another one here that we have been working with police. We moved the playground
from here to the middle to make it more visible. That was one of the conditions that we
worked through with the police department staff. The R-40 that we set aside, not really
our thing, not -- you know, we are a single family residential developer and -- but that
was our contribution to the area plan. If you remember before this collector road used
to run along the property line. We have since brought the whole thing onto us, set this
aside as R-40, as our contribution to the regional plan that will be residential. will be
commercial, will be employment, and I'm really excited that this piece long term --
people won't even have to drive out to the main road potentially. You know, they could
work in this area down here, they could recreate, they could go to school, you know,
shop, you know, kind of live, work, play in a bigger picture. Not necessarily all within
our site, but as one of the pieces of the bigger puzzle. I think it fits quite well. It has
been a somewhat painful process just to open ourselves up to that public design
process, if you will, but I think in the end we can look back and say the process worked.
It was a good process. We have a good diversity of product styles in here. Our
contribution to deemphasizing the garages is we have set aside 20 percent of our
homes to be alley loaded. That's one way of handling it. There are other ways to
design houses. A lot of people have opinions. It's hard to quantify in writing and say
you must build exactly that product in this free market economy, but we want to comply
with whatever this Council says we need to do. We want to comply with it, with what--
while still giving us some freedom to compete and do nice things with our product. But
Caleb did -- I appreciate your bringing up the e-mail about some of the minor
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 51 of 69
corrections, that two I need to hit on are the police and fire. The police was we met
about moving the tot lot and met about stop signs. You know, there is a fine line
between encouraging high speed traffic and also making good connectivity and
Lieutenant Stowe and I agreed on that. Said, yeah, you're right. So, we have good
connectivity, but at the same time, somebody might say, hey, you're kind of encouraging
people to drive fast and so we are going to four way stop this and two way stop these
two here, plus, we have traffic calming circles here and here for this north-south and this
north-south. So, we have -- in this area up here we have rounded off to prevent a real
long block, too, to kind of try to calm the traffic as well, as well as this area here. So, we
tried to break up some of the long straight stretches the best we could. So, the police --
that was the police department. And, then, the fire, we talked about the pathway needs
to be extra wide from ten and also secondary access -- I want to clear all these things
up up front before we get to final plat. This first phase up here, our secondary access
was going to be out here. Out to Franklin Road. So, I like to get all those out up front,
instead of having to negotiate them later on down the road. And we have all agreed
that that is a viable secondary access until we can get over to this one over here. And,
then, there will be another access when the school goes in and we just don't know when
that's going to happen or how fast Wendell's going to think he needs a school out there.
So, we have covered the police and fire. I wanted to point out kind of our lot mix. We
have got about 26 percent town homes, 20 percent alley loads, 15 percent 40 foot fronts
-- can you go back to that color, please. So, the townhomes, about 26 percent. About
20 percent are alley loaded. About 15 percent are in the red or 40 foot fronts. About 30
percent are the orange and about ten percent are the blue or the 60 foot. We don't
have anyone that's below ten or any other one that's over 30 of those -- of those five
different product types, so I think we have got a really good mix and that last iteration
with Planning Commission helped us get to that point where we added in some alley
loadeds and we added in more townhomes and we really tried to meet the intent of that
R-15 zone, which is get something more than just straight, you know, single family
detached front loaded and our contribution -- where are the town homes and where are
the alley loadeds in that. You can see that's a pretty high percentage in there. Where
we differfrom the proposed Ten Mile plan slightly -- they have R-8 abutting up to R-40.
We feel wrapping that R-15 around, so you go R-8, R-15, R-40 is a good step that way.
Like Caleb said, it's minor that we are off a little bit on that delineation. I really think we
have that consensus that we didn't have before. I really hope that all the work we have
done on the renderings, as you can see that we have done the work, we have paid an
architect to really put a pencil to it and that's an ongoing process. We are not done with
those renderings. If there is any input we can have, we appreciate it. We have spent
the money, we have spend the time to do the renderings, to do something quality,
something that we can all be proud of in this area and look back and say, hey, that was
a good process we went through. We didn't waste our money on that Ten Mile plan,
because it was a good process, even though we gave up a school and set aside some
areas, I think in the end for the greater good it was -- it's a good project that I can stand
behind and stand proud of. So, I guess with that I will stand for any questions or if there
is anything I missed, appreciate it. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you, Matt. Any questions for the applicant?
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 53 of 69
Moore: Oh. Okay. Sorry. Steve Moore. 820 South Black Cat Road in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Moore: My opposition to this request is based on the conclusion that land between
Interstate 84 and railroad tracks is a unique community resource. The amount of
acreage is limited and should be developed carefully, reserved for commercial,
industrial use. There are numerous places far more appropriate for residential
development in this city and for the future annexation for that purpose. The present
planning and zoning designation names this mixed use, which can, theoretically, include
residential. In public testimony in the past relative to this project it has been
acknowledged that allowing for residential in this area in hindsight was a mistake. I
reason two wrongs don't make a right. This Council already rejected a prior request for
this subdivision and development, reasoning well last summer that a community
planned for this acreage should be established, calling for at least an 18 month planning
process for the area. That charrette planning process has been undertaken and at
those meetings I attended I was assured that residential was not the best use of this
area. The first development, whatever it is, in that acreage area, will affect all future
development in the area between 1-84, Franklin, Ten Mile, and Black Cat. Putting
residential, especially single dwelling residential first anywhere along an artery as busy
as Franklin Road is destined to be in Meridian's future seems an obvious mistake. Far
more appropriate is commercial development. Think of the property by comparison
along Fairview Avenue from Eagle to Main Street in Meridian. Isn't that the kind of
artery that Franklin will be in the future connectedness to Nampa's city limit -- city limits
and all the development in that direction? Residential require a buffer to commercial
and industrial south where it's been admitted tonight that south would include residential
-- or commercial and industrial and this development only steals more land from a better
use for this unique acreage. A school next to offices, warehouses, motels, seems poor
placement to me, especially an elementary school. Safety issues such as traffic
speeds, truck traffic that frequents commercial and industrial, mixed in with residential
seems a logical mistake. Kids walking and bicycling to school with trucks, delivery
trucks, tourist traffic, office, manufacturing traffic, seems very hazardous to me. If this is
a good idea, why don't we take an empty field like the Quenzer farm at Black Cat and
Ustick and reserve it for industrial and commercial in the middle of all the residential
growth northwest of Meridian. And why not have a business park with restaurants,
motels, et cetera, in the middle of a subdivision like Paramount Subdivision. Rather
much more wisely, just commercial and office space has been reserved along Chinden
Boulevard relative to the huge residential area. The answers to those wise, in my
opinion, are seemingly obvious. There is a good deal of public testimony given against
this proposed subdivision months ago. That rationale, in my opinion, still stands.
Please reread that testimony, if you have not, before approving this proposed
development. Though revisions have been made in this second proposal, it is still
primarily single family dwellings. I commend the city for the decision previously made to
reject this residential proposal. Please continue the excellent planning process with
resources committed, spent, in the next months to have a better Comprehensive Plan
for this unique acreage along Interstate 84, at least to Franklin between Ten Mile and
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 54 of 69
Black Cat. I recommend that you reject again with a view to a higher, more appropriate
use of this acreage.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Moore: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to
provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, Mr. Schultz, if you want to --
Schultz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska. I do appreciate
Mr. Moore's comments and the thought process that we go through and give people -- I
thought I was going to get through this tonight with nobody, because I haven't seen Mr.
Moore since last summer, but I do appreciate his comments and just would like to
respond to them that one of the foundational things that we and HGR discussed right
out of the gate of the planning is this residential and there was so much commercial
potential on that Ten Mile corridor, of which we are away from, that we are not
commercial, and the industrial -- this isn't the best spot for industrial from what
everybody has decided. So, it really is a good place to establish a residential base that
feeds the future commercial that feeds the future office, that is where people live and
that section, like I said, they wouldn't have to go out on the main roads and clog
everything up. So, we decided right from day one that this was, indeed, residential.
The existing Comp Plan shows residential on the west half, mixed use regional on the
east half and we have decided that it is all residential, there is just a higher use of
residential. And one thing that we are trying to keep intact is -- I'll admit it, we are trying
to keep intact a single family component, because people that live in Idaho like to have
a little bit of privacy, they like to have a little bit of yard, you know, so we do have some
multi-family, but we are trying to maintain some single family component to our
residential. We are almost a year into the 18 month process. I mean I think the process
has -- has fully evolved and fully went through the process. We need to go through the
final public hearings. But there is a big consensus to what we think that this area is
residential where we are at and that surrounding us there are compatible uses. That
industrial is not right across the street or right to the south of us, it is not incompatible in
this area. And I think the way we have -- we do have a semblance of density. That is
the highest and good use of our -- of our land, especially around these transportation
nodes. If we are going to put density anywhere, let's put it around the Ten Mile
interchange. If we are going to do it anywhere, let's do it here, so people can take
advantage of -- of the transportation opportunities on the interchange and also create
that energy to capitalize on the commercial that's going to go in along -- along that Ten
Mile corridor right around in here. That's going to be the highest commercial uses.
Probably on this side, who knows if it's a mall or whatever it is, but that will be the
highest use commercial and, then, there will be some other commercial here and, then,
it fades away, some residential, and we are -- we kind of have the opposite to what we
are used to. I'm used to submitting some where our perimeter needs to be lower
density, our perimeter used to higher density. I don't know if you have noticed that. It's
almost the reverse of what we usually see where we are transitioning inward instead of
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 55 of 69
outward. So, you know, I do respect his comments, but I do believe it is the right time. I
do believe it is the right location and that we are not jumping the gun by approving it,
because it does comply to the existing Comp Plan, as well as a large consensus of what
the future one is going to be, so I guess with that I will leave it at that.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Schultz: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Caleb, can you tell me on this -- on the road structure,
as we look at Franklin being a major east-west route, in the Comprehensive Plan that is
coming through the process right now, how is the transportation infrastructure set up to
minimize the access out onto Franklin and does this fit within that?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is a -- as I briefly mentioned
earlier, there is a transportation overlay scenario that we are hoping that development
follows as they come in and is a component of the Ten Mile area plan. The text -- I
don't have too much of the -- I don't have any of the text memorized, but I know that the
idea is -- like on a typical arterial is to limit the amount of access points, but we do
specifically show where those access points should be located. I wasn't part of the
discussions about talking about the accesses, particularly on Ten Mile, because of the
interchange, and where those were going to align between Franklin Road and being far
enough away from any on and off ramps, yet not too close to where Franklin comes in.
So, actual policies in there, again, I'm not too familiar. Maybe some of the others that
were at the charrette some more and have studied that as they prepare for -- but I do
know that that is a component and something, you know, essentially starting with a
blank slate that we are trying to do is limit those access points. It doesn't show up as
well on this map, but there are some -- and, basically, the connections between the
arterials do serve, as you notice, as buffers, if you will, between different land uses on
one side of the street and the other and are limited to thirds of a mile, to generalize.
Again, you know, this is a guide, like the Comprehensive Plan is, but -- but in order for
this thing to work the street layouts for these collector roadways will have to look
something similar.
De Weerd: Well, it looks like Mr. Schultz is just itching to answer that question.
Schultz: Mayor and Council, Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska. I was really involved in this
process from the beginning with the charrette process and Ten Mile plan. We proposed
roads. They adopted their plans to conform and vice-versa. So, we really are very
compatible. This is the road that lines up with Silver Oaks with the signal here. Here is
the transition between what they showed medium and high, we show medium, medium
high, and high. But here is the transition going into high. We have high and continues
high. The important component of this that I see as critical to the rest of this developing
down here is because some parcels are kind of land locked -- is this east-west collector
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 56 of 69
of which we connect into here and, then, also this is -- we have got this connection as
well leading down to these properties. We have worked real closely with this property
down here to make sure that this access would get to them and give them the
connectivity that they needed out to Black Cat without having to run all the traffic
through up to Franklin. So, we have really tried to spread the traffic out to Black Cat, up
to Franklin, and limit it to only two spots. But long term this is going to be crucial to
these properties really getting their connectivity out to Ten Mile and out to Black Cat and
spreading that flow around. But we did look at this. We made sure this did not need to
be a collector and that was confirmed, because it's not a collector, that's our internal
road and so we doing it the right way this time, I think, in terms of -- this is a 2,200 acre
master plan, I believe, and we are putting in the pieces where we think they are
supposed to go up front and people are matching it, instead of trying to fix it, retro fit it.
So, I really think this is the right way to do it and master planning it from the beginning
and we have done that.
De Weerd: And you have a pathway along that -- that canal?
Schultz: The regional pathway will continue. I think in the end this is going to continue
at a diagonal. I think he's thought about straightening this out, but I'm not sure what
he's going to do when he develops this. But, yes, this will lead all the way down, the
regional pathway, parallel to that. The sewer runs parallel to that. And, then, we have
also got a pathway leading here and a gray line we only have a little short section of
that, that's the Williams Pipeline. We have shown a segment of path in there as well
that as we continue that, you know, north, west, south, east, why not build those
sections, because that's just going to be 60 to 90 feet of open area. It may as well
beautify it and put a pathway in it, you know, that you could actually use. I mean at
least the drain is a visual usable space, but that's all flat space. So, they will let you
cross it, they just don't want you staying in it too long with a road, so you got to cross it
quickly and not run diagonally across it. They just want you to get across it quickly. So,
we really have, you know, looked at the long term picture and master planned a big
area and we fit right in as that foundational piece, so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any other questions? I guess I asked that one, so I
don't have anymore questions. Do you? Okay.
Rountree: Well, yeah, I guess I have one for Caleb.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Caleb, what's the rough estimate of the Ten Mile plan to get
to Council?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Rountree, as I mentioned earlier, it's on this
Thursday for the Planning and Zoning Commission. I don't believe they are probably
going to take action, they are going to probably need to sleep on some things before
they take action. At least that's what staff is going to recommend to them.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 57 of 69
Rountree: I'd rephrase that that they are going to have to think about some things.
Hood: Yeah. Think about some things. We have got not only Ten Mile, but South
Meridian is also on the agenda, so there is some big Comp Plan amendments coming
up and there is just a lot for everyone to take in. So, that being said, we are asking
them to continuing it for two weeks, so that would be the 19th of April. So, probably the
first part of June, first week of June, something roughly in there. Projects are usually
running four to five weeks after Planning and Zoning Commission to get to the City
Council. Yeah. There will be -- the clerk is saying -- you know, we are going to have six
or seven of these, so we are going to have to do them probably two at a time, so they
will be spread out four or five, six, seven weeks. So, I don't know who is going to get
priority. I'll have to talk to Anna about that, but anywhere between four and eight weeks,
probably. From the 19th. I should clarify.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess, Mr. Schultz, I do have one last question for you. Well, I
won't promise it's the last one, but it's the only one I can think of right now. As staff
showed us some of the -- the housing product, they hit on probably one of the areas of
concern that Council has about with the dominants of garages on the street side and
they did offer some -- some examples that they don't all have to look that way and I
guess that's been -- I won't speak for the Council, but I can speak for me personally,
that's been my major concern is the products for the higher density that have come in
front of us that have not alley loaded have lacked imagination. And I know you have
tried to break it up with different treatments and paint colors and that sort of thing, but is
there anyone that builds something different out there that you could find to build in this
development? You know -- and that's a frustrated question and maybe rhetorical, but --
Schultz: I haven't seen this before, so to me this is different, but I know that, yes, the
garages are in the front, so in that way they are similar, but you have two options, the
garage in the front or the garage in the back. I guess you could do one on the side, but
when you get to the higher density, that alley loaded is an option. There are a lot of
quirks when we start dealing with alleys, as you're aware, with the fire department
issues and some of these other no curbs are allowed in them and they have to be
straight in, so you get into some geometric situations where we are doing alley loadeds
and they get very complicated. Which is unfortunate, because they do deemphasize
the garage. As you noticed in some of our alley loaded products that look good. I think
the architect has done a good job of differentiating every part, so it looks like a different
house, at least, different materials, you could do different colors. We could modulate
the front some and my concern, when we start to talk about enforcing architecture, is --
and the Planning Commission took this tact, was, Matt, here is our four criteria that we
wrote down, like stucco, stone, or brick, you know, emphasize the windows, create
shadows, usable porches, deemphasize the garage. Does that mean do all of them
non-garage? No. We suggest that 20 percent. Now, .is that 40 percent? Is that 50? I
mean we are just looking for some number, because the most efficient way to build a
house is this way and we start adding costs, but we like to provide a variety, we like -- I
think the danger is if he show pictures and say you have to build it this way, is the next
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 58 of 69
guy going to build it that way and the next guy going to have to build it that way and, you
know, at what point do we tell people exactly what to build. I'm okay with -- with making
-- you know, like Planning Commission and staff did, making -- and Peter Friedman did,
your regional planner, some -- it's in the guide -- Baraya design guidelines. It talks
about stucco, stone, or brick and varying the fronts and things like that and we can do
that. I mean we have done that. We will continue to do that. It's just when you start
getting these -- can you do exact picture, yeah, we could do that exact picture, but how
many do you want, what color do you like -- houses are a very nebulous thing to pin
down when it comes to architecture --
De Weerd: So, the answer is no?
Schultz: What's that?
De Weerd: I just thought I would help simply your answer.
Schultz: If you want us to do those townhomes in an alley component, we could do
that.
De Weerd: Well, I'm not saying alley, but have you looked into different ideas, like has
been shown to you up here? I was just out at Mountain Home Air Force Base --
Schultz: I'm not sure those --
De Weerd: -- and I swear if the Airforce base can build attractive housing, I think the
development community can.
Schultz: I'm not sure these are four-plexes here, Mayor. I'm not -- I'm just not -- I
haven't looked at these close enough to see what these are, you know, that they are
shown us. I see pictures that look kind of -- this looks like a single family residential to
me that's -- and we have --
De Weerd: Well, I just asked if you had looked at other ideas.
Schultz: We are trying the best we can --
De Weerd: And that was just my question.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We can get rid of those garage dominated fronts by not allowing 30 and 40 foot
wide lots. Anytime -- I mean I will guarantee you that these aren't on 30 or 40 foot lots
that you're showing right here. When you get a 30 foot garage, what are you going to
have on a 40 foot lot and you got a four foot setback? That's not the -- in defense of the
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 59 of 69
developer, that's isn't their fault. That's the four people's fault right here. And that's
what the planners are shoving at us now.
Schultz: You know, if you say we don't want 30,40 foot lots, we can live with that, too.
We are just trying to make everybody happy to get --
Bird: If I had my way we would have hundred foot lots on everything.
Schultz: I know.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I would prefer half acre myself, but--
Schultz: So would I.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: A question for you or Kent. Thinking out loud, it's important for me -- and I
know for the rest of the Council, with regards to this particular area and the Ten Mile
plan, we think that we have got it pretty much pinned down. But there is still a public
process and review from Planning and Zoning is of critical importance. To me the rest
of the Council I'm sure -- and my thinking out loud is if this matter gets continued now, it
might be two months. To allow that processing to go through -- because I'd hate to --
De Weerd: Undercut.
Borton: Yeah. You sort of -- you sort of might be undercutting that process and the
valuable input that the Planning and Zoning provides to us -- and I don't expect there to
be any drastic changes. I think the Ten Mile plan has been combed through extensively
well, but that is an important part of what we do and so do you have any reaction to --
Schultz: It's disappointing, but I'm not going to stand up here and draw a line in the
sand and say you either got to vote for me or against me tonight. I'm not into those kind
of runs anymore. My whole -- I'd rather -- if it's important that we -- that we wait to make
everybody feel a hundred percent sure and, then, let's do it. If we can say it conforms to
the existing, you have done a good job of transitioning, now, you have done all those
things, then, let's move forward. But I'll leave it up to you to -- I would ask for either a
vote of approval or a continuance, obviously. Those are my choices.
Borton: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Schultz: In that order.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 60 of 69
De Weerd: I guess there is three, but he only wants two.
Schultz: We have been at this way too long to let it go down.
Bird: My thoughts', thinking out loud, is I agree with Councilman Borton. If you want a
positive one out of me we are going to continue it. We can sit here and say, yeah, Ten
Mile plan is going to bought off, but we don't know what the public is going to come and
do and we are going to -- we are charged to do what the majority of the public and
what's best for the deal. I might like it, but the public don't. So, if you want a positive
vote out of me, it's not going to be tonight.
De Weerd: And just because Mr. Nary will say -- and it doesn't mean if it's continued
you will get a positive one out of him anyway.
Schultz: Well, I think we found that out earlier; right? I was here for the first one on that
one, so -- yeah, there is no guarantees and we --
Bird: We do like what you have done, Matt, don't get me wrong.
Schultz: In the remand we acknowledged that there was no guarantee when we came
back for you tonight we would get anywhere, but we have --
Bird: We have the cart out and we are waiting to get the horse.
Schultz: But we are so close. The timing has been a little bit unfortunate on my end on
this thing twice now, so they are so close you should wait. If they were six, eight apart,
maybe you can move ahead, but I understand. I do understand.
De Weerd: See, staff reads Council pretty well, don't they?
Schultz: They do. They are getting good. So, as soon as I can get back in front of you
the better. We'd like to be on -- I don't know if it's possible to be on the same hearing or
if it matters to be on a different hearing as that plan or if there is anyway to -- because
we'd like to, if possible, to get going this year still and that would just be our preference
if we could, so--
De Weerd: Well, you're a member of the public; right?
Rountree: He can testify.
Brown: Kent Brown. 1500 East Iron Eagle, Eagle, Idaho. And the only reason I want to
speak is that you talked about the small lots and getting around the garages and other
things and, you know, I think from research we find that people want to live in a
detached home for the most part. I mean Idahoans like their garages, they like their
cars, and they like to be in a detached home, but as these property values for raw
ground have gone up, the challenge that we as planners and developers and City
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 61 of 69
Council face is how do we provide that in a smaller piece of property, because that's
one of the bigger elements in them buying a lot and when you're spending a hundred
thousand dollars in Meridian for a lot to build your house on, you know, you're kind of
pricing a lot of the market out of those and so as I go to the different city councils and
different planning and zoning commissions, we are faced with trying to look at that. One
of the things that make it kind of difficult is the zoning ordinances and the building
setbacks and where you're allowed to do that. In some parts of the country one of the
things that they have done and you guys have allowed it, you have even approved one
of my projects where we are proposing to do that, is that in between the homes you
grant an easement to your neighbor to allow them to use that ground. So, instead of
having ten feet, five of it being on one lot and five of it being on another and having a
fence down the middle and not being able to use that ground, because we are building
-- we are meeting a building code requirement, we now grant that to one and allow them
to use up to that area. The key to those things is can we provide privacy. If we can
orient our windows and do those things and so the building community needs to be a
part of the plan approval and I -- you know, I hear Councilman Rountree saying we want
to see elevations and that's going to be a part of making that work. The garages -- you
know, ask ourselves why is the garage out front? Well, the reason the garage is our
front is that they are trying to create the private space behind, that's where your family
room usually is behind your garage and you have that private space in your area and
you kind of go along with having that garage out front.
De Weerd: Well, see, but, Kent, even in those they build the living part of the house in
front of the garage, so the garage is a little bit tucked back, it's not the first thing you
see. So, you know -- and, like I said, we have been -- I have been collecting pictures,
so I could offer different ideas and, yeah, they are not built in this area yet. It's
frustrating. But I know I have heard it from a number of people -- those are ugly places.
Now, they are not ugly to everyone, because someone buys them. Usually they turn
into rentals and the ugly ones I have seen are rentals. So, I just -- I ask that question to
-- and I will continue to ask that question, because it is a challenge that I have to the
development community, find some products that are different, you know, let's see
something different.
Brown: And I know that -- I have got clients that are trying to adapt to that. You have a
building setback for your driveway against your property line. If you can, again, use a
shared driveway and go back using the same space, now you're making that a part of
how you can accomplish that. Doing the key shaped lots or flag lots and, then, making
those face so that the garages are all in that back space and you don't have any
garages facing the front.
De Weerd: Well, we are always looking for new ideas.
Brown: I understand. And it's not that we are not trying. I mean it's -- there is a little
give and take I think in this process and we are listening, it's just going back to the
builders, because they have to be a part of that process. Instead of making a product
that is salable to all generic builders -- I don't how many years -- the nine years I sat at
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 62 of 69
the City of Boise, how many times I had the builder come in with his plan and said, you
know, this doesn't fit on that lot and I said, well, change your plan and he says, well, you
understand I do this, I flip it over, that's the only thing I do to this plan and -- and so, you
know, it takes -- it takes a -- kind of a trickle down effect in trying to make that happen
and not that you're not being heard, that's the reason that I stood up, is that we are
hearing you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just would comment that I see some refreshing changes in
this, as opposed to the previous application. I'm encouraged to hear Matt say that they
continue to work on the design, the elevations. I'm appreciative of the elevations you
brought and, staff, I appreciate your comments on those. I think you reflect to a large
degree what you have heard from us over the past few months and I would hope that
you got that much of an edge -- probably more of an edge than most people get in
what's going to sell and what isn't. I, like the rest of the Council that have spoken, think
that, you know, we spent a fair amount of time and you spent a fair amount of time in
what was considered a public process to come to a conclusion on the Ten Mile plan.
We are not there yet and it seems to me if we were to take action on this tonight in the
affirmative that we would tell those folks that it was all for naught and we are going to go
ahead and do whatever and if you want something different when you see the Ten Mile
plan in June or in April, whenever it goes to P&Z, this is already taken care of, you can't
comment on that. So, I would like to see us consider deferral and that also gives the
applicant more time to work with their architect and put together some things. I have
got genes that came here from Missouri -- and that's g-e-n-e -- and show me what you
want to do, so we are comfortable with it. We have taken the word on a lot of things
that are out there that we have to look at every day right now and that's probably why
we are getting -- become more sticklers on what it is we are wanting to see in our
community, because we have seen some things that have come to our community on
trust and it didn't pan out. And so I appreciate your effort, Matt, and it was nice to see
driving by there this evening that they have reclaimed the topography out there and you
can hardly tell that there has been anything going on out there.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Unless there is further discussion, I'd move that we continue Items 11 and 12 --
I'll pick a date that might have wiggle room based on what takes place with P&Z. Let's
say June 19th. That's two months after P&Z's had their two weeks to chew on it and if it
is earlier, that's fine. But for now say June 19th.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Rountree: I'll second that.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 63 of 69
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Items 11 and 12 to June
19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Amendment to Ordinance No. 07-1121 A: AZ 04-027 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 4.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Christian
Family Matters. Inc. by Don Weber - east of South Linder Road and
south of West Overland Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Amendments -- Item No. 13 is amendment to Ordinance No. 07-
1121 A. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is one here because they had the
wrong attachment when we passed it, so when it went to the -- to the recorder the
attachment had gotten lost somehow and a different attachment was sent, so that's why
it's back in front of you. To clean up.
De Weerd: So, would I just need a motion to --
Bird: Approve the amendment?
Nary: Right.
De Weerd: Uh~huh.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the amendment to Ordinance 07-1121A, request for the
annexation and zoning of 4.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Christian Family Matters,
Incorporated.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg was there something that we needed to do on Item 9 about a
resolution?
Berg: Well, Madam Mayor, this item here -- this is an amendment -- amended
ordinance that we are wanting to pass. The legal description was not correct. It didn't
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 64 of 69
close. So, we got a corrected legal description and so that's why we are amending this
ordinance.
Nary: Yeah. I'm sorry.
Berg: So, maybe the wording was not quite right, but it's an amended ordinance that we
need to approve.
Bird: So, we need to read the title.
Berg: Yes. I'm sorry. I was trying to look through the memo that I found and that's
refreshed that maybe I was correct when I thought it was amended. So, if I could do
that.
De Weerd: And, then, maybe after we move off this item I do need you to -- did we
need to do something on Item 9? It approves the vacation --
Berg: Yeah. I just questioned you what we -- what the process we needed to go,
because if we needed to change the note on the plat, if we are vacating the setback.
Hood: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Yes.
Hood: Members of the Council, usually an order is prepared for those vacations. There
is no findings with the vacation, so I believe the legal department usually does those.
So, we took the motion to mean that that would occur. I don't think that needs to be a
specific action. We will take care of that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, occasionally when we have done
those we have also included the direction to bring a resolution back. Even when you
don't, we bring it back anyway. So, if you don't do it, we just do it, because that's how it
gets recorded, so-
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read Item 13 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 07-1121A, an
amended ordinance for property located and described in Attachment A of this
ordinance 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 as R-8 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall
be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 65 of 69
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.
Item 14:
Ordinance No. 07.1307 AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt
Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432
& 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Item 15:
Ordinance No. 07-1308 : AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandv
Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road:
Berg: If you would like me to read the other two ordinances for one motion?
De Weerd: That would be excellent.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 07-1307, an
ordinance for annexation of property being along -- being all of Lots 1, 2, 4, and 6 and
roadways within Golden Eagle Estates, Book 33, Page 2017, Ada County records and a
portion of Section 28, 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.
Berg: Ordinance -- excuse me. Item 15, Ordinance 07-1308, an ordinance for
annexation of property being a portion of the southeast quarter of Section 30, 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 -- I'm sorry. It's R-8 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies
of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder,
and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary
of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an
effective date.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to hear any of these ordinances read by title
-- by more than title only? In its entirety? Okay. No. Thank you. No. Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 66 of 69
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve ordinances 11 -- or 07-1121A, 07-1307 and 07-1308, with
suspension of rules.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. A motion and a second--
Zaremba: I would request that we vote on them separately.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve all three and a second. So, in discussion
you would like to ask them considered separately. Maybe you can give a reason and
we could ask the motion giver to withdraw it if you would so desire.
Zaremba: My reason is I don't intend to vote the same way on all three.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: I must be the only person planning to do that, so it may not make any
difference.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think it would be great for this, because I think it shows us that we need to go
back to the old route where you did them one at a time. It costs us about five minutes,
but I'm with you, we can vote on it separate --
De Weerd: So, would you withdraw your motion?
Bird: I would withdraw my motion.
De Weerd: Second agree?
Borton: Yes, he does.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for the five extra minutes that we would have saved
otherwise. Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 67 of 69
Bird: I move we approve 07-1121A with suspension of rules.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 07-1307 with suspension of rules.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second to approve Item 14. Is there any
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Item 15.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Now that the question's been answered on which one he was going to vote
no on. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 07-1308 with suspension of rules.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. 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.
Meridian City Council
April 3. 2007
Page 68 of 69
De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 --
Zaremba: Sorry to make it difficult, but thank you all.
De Weerd: Well, next time you do that you have to explain why, so --
Rountree: At least make an argument, so somebody else might go with you.
Zaremba: That's the one, as I recall, that has four cul-de-sacs that I was not attracted to
and an access to Eagle Road that I think is in the wrong place.
Item 16:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) - (to conduct
deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real
property, which is not owned by a public agency):
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c).
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Once again discussion. If we are likely to discuss the continuation of things
we were discussing earlier, do we also need to include (1 )(a) and (1 )(b)?
Bird: Probably wouldn't hurt.
De Weerd: I don't know.
Bird: Then we are under the umbrella. We need (1 )(a). (1 )(a).
Rountree: (1 )(a).
Bird: I include (1 )(a) if the second agrees.
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. So noted. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Meridian City Council
April 3, 2007
Page 69 of 69
De Weerd: Okay, I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :43 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
4- / 2-1-/ 0 7
DATE APPROVED