Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 09-24 Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 24, 2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless and William Nary. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Brad Watson, Will Berg, Ken Bowers, Rita Cunningham, John Shawcroft, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird __X Mayor Robert Corrie Corrie: At this time, then, I will open the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, September 24th, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and have the city clerk give us the roll-call attendance, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: . Corrie: Council, you have seen the agenda, Item No. 2, and the adoption of that agenda, we have changed Item 12 on the executive session, as we have already had that, so we can delete No. 12. Are there any other changes or additions? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we adopt the agenda as published, with the exception of removing Item No. 12, which was the executive session, since it has already been taken care of. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the agenda as stated, with the exception of Item 12, which was already performed on the agenda. If that is -- any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 2 of 53 A. August 22, 2002 Approve minutes of City Council Special Meeting: B. August 27, 2002 Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting: C. September 10, 2002 Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02- 013 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.48 acres from RUT Meridian Middle School to R-4 zones for a for Joint School District No. 2 by Lombard Conrad Architects – east side of North Linder Road, north of West Ustick Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02- 014 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.39 acres from R-2 to Treasure Valley Baptist Church L-O zones for by Treasure Valley Baptist Church – 1300 South Teare Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 02-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,406 square Sonic Drive In foot restaurant with a drive-thru in a C-G zone in an existing shopping center by Boise Food Service, Inc. – 2150 East Fairview Avenue: G. Sewer Easement for Meridian Settlers Park – Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation: H. Addendum to Agreement for Professional Services – Waste Water Treatment Plant Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Project, Carollo Engineers: I. Reimbursement Agreement to G.L. Voigt for Sewer Service – Sundance Subdivision / White Drain Sewer Trunk Project: J. Award of Contract – Well No. 10 Landscaping Project: K. Change Order No. 2 (final) – Waste Water Treatment Plant Laboratory Project: L. Resolution No. 02-391 : Approving Annual CPI Rate Adjustment for Solid Waste Collection Services by Sanitary Services Company: Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 3 of 53 Corrie: Item 3, the Consent Agenda. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move we approve the Consent Agenda as noted and for the Mayor -- to authorize the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest on all ordinances and resolutions and change orders, contracts, and et cetera. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as written. Any further discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I just want to point out to the Council I had left a copy of a sound pressure decibel level that I was to secure off the internet. We have had that as part of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of Sonic Drive-In and I wanted to simply have this for Council's example as to where we set that decibel level, that 55 decibels is reasonable in light of what it shows, what the range of different types of noises are. I would also report we had set that at 55, because that had been the city of Boise's requirement for speaker systems such as that. At the time Sonic was approved in Boise that was the standard on their CUP. They no longer have such standard in Boise, they don't allow them at all within 300 feet of residences, so they wouldn't even be allowed in this particular circumstance, so I think, again, this is very reasonable that we set it and I just wanted to give you a copy of that so you could see that. Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please, on the Consent Agenda. Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Department Reports: A. Finance Department: 1. Finance Report : Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 4 of 53 Corrie: Item No. 4 is a department report. Financial department. Rita. Cunningham: Mayor and Council, Stacy couldn't be here, so she told me I had to be here. So I'm here to answer any questions if I can on the August -- Nary: Pull it down a little further. Cunningham: Okay. Did you guys have any questions? Did you have a chance to go through -- Bird: You bet. Cunningham: Okay. Did everything look all right? Bird: Everything looked fine. Cunningham: Great. The only thing I had was -- as far as the detail goes, we had 65 pages and we can consolidate that to about 35 pages, if -- would that be good? Would you like that? Okay. Then we will start that next month. Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you very much, Rita. Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Corrie: Okay. Item No. 5 is items moved from the Consent Agenda. There are none. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from August 27, 2002: Wastewater Pretreatment Program Fees and Adjustments: Corrie: Item No. 6, continued Public Hearing from August 27th, 2002. This is Wastewater Pretreatment Program Fees and Adjustments. Brad. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Before I get started, I'm not sure that you have this in your existing packets, but I did hand it out about a month ago. It's ago just a schedule of proposed fees and I'll come back and introduce this. To introduce this Public Hearing, just a little background on it. These are fees intended to recover a portion of the cost associated with running the pretreatment program at the wastewater plant. The estimates that we have at this point are that these fees will recover only about ten to 15, tops, percent of the pretreatment program cost. These were developed by Mr. Shawcroft, superintendent, and his pretreatment manager Celeste Vialette. I think I got it right that time. And I brought Mr. Shawcroft along with me to provide any technical explanation. We can run down these real quickly. Well, as quickly as you would like. As you may recall from the sheet, the first couple of fees are associated with new commercial construction, plan review, and follow-up inspection. Each of those items are proposed to be billed $150 for both the plan review and the follow-up inspection. The first one is a new commercial building where we know what Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 5 of 53 the tenant is. The second one is a -- where there is an existing building and a tenant moves in and applies for a tenant improvement permit. And please stop me if there is any questions on any of these and then I will give that question to John, so he can answer it. The third bullet point is for a follow-up inspection fee and this is one that is imposed only after a commercial account has not -- has not completed the agreed-to pumping schedule of their sand and grease or their grease interceptor. They are sent a notice of violation and there is a follow-up inspection and my understanding that's not what is billed for, unless they have still not completed that pumping operation. If they completed it after the initial notice of violation, that's not billed, is that my understanding? Shawcroft: Correct. Watson: And if there is a third visit required after a second notice of violation or whatever is equivalent to that second warning, then they would be billed the $42.50 per site visit. The second category that's underlined on that page is a sampling fee that is a lump sum fee or a fixed fee of $85.00 per sample. This includes, from my understanding, if there is a notice of violation of chronic violations or indications that a discharger needs to be monitored, the wastewater pretreatment staff goes out and sets up samplers and sends the results of those -- or sends those samples to a lab for analysis. This includes two trips, one to go set it up and one to retrieve the sampler. The third category is the one that I may need some help from John on, is surveillance. The way this was explained to me is if there is a report of a violation in the sewer system from either a construction crew or maintenance crew or someone from the public that something is not right with the sewer system and the pretreatment staff goes out and investigates, if they determine there is a problem, first of all; second, they try to find out who is responsible for that problem. If they can prove who caused the problem, then the time they spent investigating the person, if there was a problem and, second, who was responsible, is back charged to the person violating the ordinances. Am I off base on that one? Shawcroft: No, sir. Watson: The fourth major category of fees has to do with issuing what essentially amount to discharge permits to several different -- well, two different types of commercial accounts. The first one is a significant industrial user. These are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations very specifically. There is certain types of industry that are -- that must have a significant industrial user permit. This requires pretreatment staff to write up the permit specific to that industry, so it's somewhat time consuming, but the term of the permit, from what I understand, is five years. There is a parenthetical there that says unless otherwise specified and maybe John can talk to that a little bit more. Shawcroft: Mayor and Council, significant industrial users typically are industries regulated under 40 CFR regulations under -- from EPA. To date we've issued one permit, which mandated that we apply to EPA for a certified pretreatment program Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 6 of 53 under EPA, which we have done, but that permit that we issued is good for one year, renewable after that, and the reason that was done instead of setting up to the five years as specified is that, unfortunately, we are new at this permit issuing business and if we left something out we didn't want the city's liability to be increased because of our inexperience. It's issued for one year and will be re-issued a year from now. Watson: The second type of permit that pretreatment staff would have to write and issue is what's called a minor industrial user. These are industries that are not specifically listed in the CFRs, but by virtue of either their volume or their waste load or a contaminate, the significant industrial user kicks in and the permit has to be written for them. Again, those are very industry specific and there is not really a number that we can say fits them all. The one thing that perhaps would need to be elaborated on in this ordinance is that that type of permit would have to perhaps come before Council as part of -- if there is some sort of land use application, a CUP, or -- I can't even think of what it would be, something that would kick in so that that wastewater pretreatment permit would be evaluated and be a part of the condition that Council imposes on their application. My only hesitation with these is there is no sideboards on the limit of the fees that can be imposed and I probably should have discussed that at length with John, but I didn't. But perhaps that's something we can discuss after this presentation. The third type of permit is simply a septic hauler permit, $50.00 per calendar year. This helps them create a database and track the septic haulers that are coming out to the plant and dumping into the facility out there. On the billing side of things, the way that we intend to handle this is through the existing billing department. I have talked with Leslie Howard and Rick Clinton about billing through their normal procedure and while there are a few details that we will have to work out, they don't see any fatal flaws in using the billing system and imposing these fees on the monthly bills. I was very concerned that if there -- if someone contested any of these fees that they would show up in the delinquency list and get their water turned off, but Leslie tells me that we can take care of that, so that they aren't turned off simply because they are contesting a pretreatment fee. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: As part of these fees, Brad -- and I guess I just don't remember where our discussion has gone on this up to now, but -- so the contesting process is something that's going to be part of the ordinance process, assuming you have something to contest to have surveillance or sampling or something like that, is that what the intent is? Watson: Council Member Nary, Mayor and Council Members, I think there may be some provision for that in the existing ordinance, but that may be only specific to water and sewer bills and I'm not well versed in the pretreatment ordinance and if there are any -- there are no existing fees in the pretreatment ordinance, I'm not sure that there is Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 7 of 53 an appeal process within specifically that ordinance, unless Mr. Shawcroft has another idea. Shawcroft: Excuse me, Mayor and Council. It is written within the pretreatment ordinance that if there -- if the entity that is being fined or say being -- what's the word I want -- given this fee does not agree, they do have ten days to contest that in writing to myself. I have then ten days to answer that and then it goes to -- if they still don't agree, then it goes to the Public Works director and then ultimately the City Council. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: A couple other things, Brad. I noticed in the -- that we have had so many discussions about fees lately and so, you know -- so correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been previous discussions about basically using a -- sort of a set amount here. You know, we use 25 dollars per hour operating a vehicle, that's our basis for these frees originating from. Has there been any -- at this point has there been any input from any of the users or any of the other people in this industry as to whether those are reasonable figures to be using for our formulas or -- John? Watson: Let me just start, first, John. Council Member Nary, Mayor, Council Members, to my knowledge there has not been any input. However, these base -- these unit costs that wastewater volunteered to me, I have not moved them one bit since they submitted them to me -- are lower than what I think they probably should be and Council Member Bird discussed this or brought this up at the previous presentation, they are low and as -- when we were going through the Public Works inspection fees -- I can't remember, last year or earlier this year, we are starting out low, because we really want to monitor this program and not appear to be doing a money grab. As for public input, maybe John has some more. Shawcroft: That's exactly what -- you're right. Watson: That's what I was going to say also. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: All these are based on cost, but it's like your personnel down here, based on a $3,000 a month -- or 3,000 a month employee, that's maybe 65 percent of that employee's cost, so -- and I understand where you're coming from, so I think we are very fair in saying that these fees are reasonable fees, because we truly haven't got our true cost out of these, as I stated earlier, which is fine to monitor and stuff to see how they are coming. We will for a year or so, so I see no problem with that, but we need to make sure that when we do -- after we have monitored and if we have to change or Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 8 of 53 something, we can get our true cost back up, because an employee with that -- or their actual cost is going to be more like $27.00 an hour to the city. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just one other question, Brad. On the one that's called surveillance, it almost sounds like a penalty, it doesn't really sound like a fee, because it appears to me that what -- at least what it's saying here is that you find someone in violation, then now you're required that -- you're requiring now to have to watch them to make sure they are not continuing to put the wrong things into the system and this -- it sounds like a fee -- I mean a fee is for some type of service that you want to have -- or this isn't for anything they wanted, so I guess I'm curious as to how we are going to have to deal with this? We deal with that from a perspective of somebody contesting the fee. It really sounds like a penalty to me. Shawcroft: Councilman Nary, I do not dispute that point. The way that this pretreatment ordinance ordinarily is administered is that if we do have reasonable belief that someone is, in fact, violating this ordinance. Then we go out and we do surveillance and then if it comes out that, in fact, they were, then we actually give these costs back to that entity, so that the city isn't stuck with the cost of, if you will, proving that they were the bad player. So, right, it could be not called a fee, but something else. Nary: Is that common in Nampa and Boise to do that -- Shawcroft: It's very common. Yes. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in the sewer pretreatment ordinance there is a wastewater discharge appeal slash procedures provision in that ordinance itself that Mr. Shawcroft was referring to, so there is a means whereby somebody can appeal their assessment, if you will, on these permit fees. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd ask a question of Mr. Watson and Mr. Shawcroft. We have prepared a draft resolution to adopt these based on these numbers, but I notice we don't have in minor industrial user -- we do address in that resolution significant industrial users. Do we need to address the minor industrial user Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 9 of 53 or is that covered under the pretreatment application fee for new commercial construction? Shawcroft: Yeah. In fact, no, we do not need to address that. A minor industrial user is anybody that does not fit under the 40 CFRs as a significant industrial user, either by falling under the 40 CFRs as per their business or if they don't fall under the flow requirements, so anything else will be a minor, but just by definition. Nichols: So, Mr. Shawcroft, then, is the proposed resolution okay in terms -- assuming the Council adopts the numbers that you have put forth, is it okay or do we need to make some changes there? Shawcroft: Mr. Watson was telling me that we do, in fact, need to add that in here, the minor -- I failed to see that. Excuse me. Corrie: Thank you. Any other discussion? That's pretty clear. Hearing no other discussion, are you ready to -- is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this issue? Thank you. Mr. Bird. I jumped ahead of myself there. Okay. If there is nothing else, I will entertain, then, a motion to close the Public Hearing. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move we close the Public Hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the Wastewater Treatment Program Fees and Adjustments. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion, then, on the Wastewater Pretreatment Program Fees and Adjustments. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we adopt the proposed Pretreatment Fee as stated. Bird: I would second that. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 10 of 53 Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Wastewater Pretreatment Fees and Adjustments. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Would that also include to have the attorney draw up the resolution -- McCandless: Yes. Bird: -- with the changes as noted by Mr. Watson? McCandless: Yes. Bird: Okay. Second agrees. Corrie: Motion made and second. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from September 10, 2002: Proposed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System and Action Plan: Corrie: Item No. 7 is a continued Public Hearing from September 10th Proposed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System and Action Plan. Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I see no reason, unless the rest of the Council people have any problem -- I do not know why we cannot proceed on with adopting the comprehensive plan. We have had numerous testimony, which everybody has got a record of, and what we were waiting for was getting the new impact fees, which have to come through another process anyway, that really, basically, isn't part of the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, as I understand. Is that right? So I would like to proceed with it and get it adopted. I mean I have no questions on it. I thought that the Parks and Recreation Commission did a very good job of presenting. I went back through all our old minutes and with the plan and everything, I think it's definitely a workable item for us and I think it's something that we need to get adopted and proceeded with. Corrie: Okay. With that being said, I will open the continued Public Hearing on the Proposed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Action Plan and at this time I will invite staff if they have any comments, other than that -- okay. Is there anyone from Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 11 of 53 the public that would like to issue further testimony in this? Okay. Hearing none, Council, your pleasure on closing the Public Hearing? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Before we do I just had one question and, David, I don't want to put you on the spot, but it's a little hazy to me, but I remember when we had this discussion awhile back about this plan, there was some comments from Planning and Zoning that -- I don't know if incorporated into that plan -- it would appear to me we need to incorporate those additional comments into what has already been presented to us as part of the plan. Is that correct? McKinnon: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, Mr. Mayor, many of the comments that we had from P&Z were of a clerical nature correcting some errors. Some of them were clean-up language regarding sentence structure and some ordinance compliance with the ordinances that we have in place right now and I would suggest that those be included as well as an addendum to the proposed park plan. Nary: Thank you. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Also, as I recall, there was some comment between the parks and the Planning and Zoning regarding our Comprehensive Plan locations of parks and stuff, too, that I think was incorporated between the two of them. Am I not right on that, David? McKinnon: That's correct. In fact, there was a note that was placed on the Comprehensive Plan before it was adopted to say that those items could float. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Two items that were -- that I believe the staff before the Parks Department worked on. One was that there is a pathway committee recommendation out there somewhere that was just to be referenced and not appear in detail in this comp plan, so there was a little bit of language to change, as well as they did some language change to partnering with the school districts, but I can't find the notes or memo that was written in regards to that and I do believe -- I remember seeing it and I just couldn't find it in my material at home and it's not in the material that we have in our packets. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 12 of 53 Bird: It's back in the -- I believe I found it in the March 12th minutes. De Weerd: Okay. But it's not in here. Bird: It's just -- yeah, it is in here. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Maybe what we can do -- because I would agree with Mr. Bird that we probably need to move this item along, instead of continuing it forever -- and, Mr. Nichols, on this particular item would we need an ordinance to approve it or a resolution -- we need some other action, but -- Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, we do have to adopt the plan in accordance with the impact fee statute and even though I looked at it again today, I can't remember off hand whether that's a resolution or ordinance, but it would be a specific Council action that would be required to do that and then -- it may well be just by resolution, but there would be a specific action required to adopt it and I -- Nary: So what we could do tonight would be to approve the plan with the additional comments and then request between Parks and Planning and Zoning that a completed plan that would be a part of whether it be resolution or ordinance, be brought back when the impact is brought, so we have a document that we have passed is the document the public would see and not a piece of a part that we are talking about now. Is that correct? Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, it's always a great idea to have the final document in one piece and not to have an addendum of some sort, because it's something you want to be able to give out to developers and those that are impacted by it. So would suggest that it's best to have it in one piece. Nary: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All ayes. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Further discussion? Bird: Mr. Mayor, now we are going to pass on it and -- Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 13 of 53 Nary: You can move to approve it and then ask for the final completed with all the comments included in one document will be brought back and -- we can approve the plan as presented, but then we ask for the final document and the further resolution or whatever final action we have to take with regards to that. We don't have to continue having hearings on this, but with all the notes and with all the comments from Planning and Zoning and all that. Bird: And the pathway committee and that kind of stuff. Nary: Right. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we have no more discussion, I would move that we approve the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan as presented and to bring forward comments from staff, pathway committees, to be incorporated in it and give the final draft of it, so that we can then pass on a resolution or ordinance for what we need to do. Nary: Second. Corrie: That's kind of open-ended there. Bird: Yeah, it is. Corrie: We have a motion been made and seconded. Is there anymore discussion? Bird: It's open. Corrie: And then we got a person over here that got it all. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: AP 02-001 Request for Appeal to allow gate on rear property line for access to rear yard of residence from NMID access road behind lot for Todd Burlile Todd Burlile by – 4881 West Tournament Drive: Corrie: Item No. 8 is a request for appeal to allow a gate on a rear property line for access to rear yard for residence from NMID access road behind lot for Todd -- is that Burlile? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 14 of 53 Burlile: Burlile. Corrie: Burlile. 4881 West Tournament Drive. At this time I would like to have staff comment, if we can, and then we will have Mr. Burlile's comments. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I assume that you all have had a chance to review the report that's been given to you concerning the background information. I'll go over it really quickly. In February this year Todd Burlile, the appellant, who is here tonight, purchased the property that's highlighted on the overhead at 4881 Tournament Drive in Turnberry II Subdivision. The property itself is a pie-shaped piece of property. As you can see, Mr. Burlile's home is situated in such a manner that he does not have access to his rear yard. It's not wide enough to get passed the house and the fence in order to bring a boat or a trailer into the backyard and he's requesting that he be able to put a fence -- I'll have to steady my hand here -- in the southwest -- actually, it's the southeast corner of his property and he would -- in order to do that, he would have to remove existing landscaping -- I wish it was a little bit brighter. Essentially one pine tree and a number of small bushes and grasses that need to be removed in order to accommodate this. On the final plat there is a plat note, item number seven on the plat note, that says that there shall be no direct lot access from any lots within the subdivision to Black Cat Road. Mr. Burlile, in order to access Black Cat Road from his backyard would have to cross over the existing landscape lot, removing the landscaping that's there and relocating it to another location within the landscape buffer, leave that lot and cross over onto lot number 16, he would cross over the landscape buffer, which is lot number 17 at this location, then cross over the common lot, number 16, which is being used as a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District access road for maintenance of the ditch that runs on the south side of the subdivision. Because of the requirement on the plat that ACHD and the City of Meridian grant approval prior to anybody taking access from any lot out of the subdivision to Black Cat, Mr. Burlile has contacted Ada County Highway District. The Ada County Highway District has granted a license agreement pursuant to Mr. Burlile receiving approval from the city and from the homeowner's association and from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to cross over both these common lots to utilize the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation easement lot. We felt that as staff, that because the -- because it states that the city has to approve this, that you, as the governing board, should be the body that makes that decision. As Planning and Zoning staff, we felt that for other reasons, other than that note on the plat, that we should not allow this to happen and they are outlined in the report for you, but briefly they are that the existing landscaping would need to be removed and that a driving surface would have to replace the exist landscaping. The second item is that when Black Cat is widened and when the sidewalk is continued to the south, then Mr. Burlile would have to cross over existing pedestrian accesses. The roadway is currently 20 feet -- well, right now -- upon widening of Black Cat, the edge of the right of way is now 20 feet from Mr. Burlile's property, so he would be accessing almost directly onto Black Cat when the road is widened. The Ada County Highway District license agreement also states that it can be removed upon -- that the license agreement can be revoked upon the widening of Black Cat. And the final reason that Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 15 of 53 staff felt that this would not be the most appropriate thing to do would be that all 13 lots that run along this drainage easement, if we allow Mr. Burlile to have access to this easement in order to access Black Cat Road, it would become very difficult in the future to say that none of these lots would be able to use this access road in the future or any of the lots that front on common lots within the subdivision to gain access. If we allow one, we possibly would be placing it in a position to allow all of them. That's the staff report I have for you. If there is any questions or comments, I would be happy to answer them at this time. Again, the applicant is here tonight to address you. Corrie: Any comments? Questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Todd, would you like to address the Council? Give us your name and address, please. Burlile: My name is Todd Burlile and I live at 4881 West Tournament Drive and I would like to thank you for your time tonight. I'd like to address the five reasons that you have given to -- that was given here. The first one -- on the final plat it says that you cannot access -- the homeowner does not have access to Black Cat -- or just -- it says it is prohibited unless ACHD and the City of Meridian gives approval on that and I got ACHD's approval and simply it doesn't say that I can't, it says that I need your approval. The second reason he has, the removal and relocation of existing landscaping and placement of driving surface in the southeast corner of the subdivision is not an adequate visual field of streetscape. I have gone through the homeowners association and they have given me their approval and put me in contact with the president of the landscape committee for our subdivision and I don't think that it would be done on a -- you know, I want to do it to make it visually appealing. I would want to do it in good taste. There is one pine tree and five or six small rose bushes that need to be removed and there is plenty of pine trees and rose bushes you could move it and blend it in without looking bad at all. To add to that, I would be coming out at an angle, because my property is pie shaped, so we could leave -- we could leave some of them bushes there to even hide me going in and out of there if we wanted to not make it so noticeable. The third reason, the new driveway into Mr. Burlile's backyard will cross over the existing future sidewalk. I will be going onto the Nampa Irrigation road there and they are going to need a ramp there for their grader to grade the gravel road there and their men need to get back there to do any work that needs to be done. On top of that, I have got three water valves, two in our subdivision in my backyard and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation needs access to the backyard to turn the valves on and off and if there is any repairs or anything that need to be done, they could also get their heavy equipment back there fairly fast and the get the problem fixed, if there was a problem. The one problem that I could see possibly down the road is I have got -- I have got two mature trees in my backyard and I'm in the process of taking one out. The second one is -- I'm planning on leaving it and I don't know if you know, but the roots from the trees can grow along the trench line to the pipes and lift them and break them. I'm sure it's plastic pipe. The fourth, the future expansion of Black Cat Road will place Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 16 of 53 the gate only 20 feet from the edge of the future right of way, I don't really see where that would be a problem. I can go around in front of my house, open the gate, and then drive around and not cause any problems whatsoever, I don't believe. I'm coming out of the property at an angle and as you can see, it's actually -- coming out at an angle I would actually have 33 feet instead of 20. And the fifth reason with the other neighbors wanting access to the road, all the neighbors but the one next to me have access and he is in the process as of right now of landscaping his whole backyard and he has no intentions of needing access and his yard is not big enough for him to do that. I have pictures -- better lighted pictures, if you would like to look at them. The other thing is -- I have a thing here that the city clerk gave me from fire department saying that they didn't see no problems with -- no concerns with the gate. One thing I thought of was I bought one of the largest lots in the subdivision, so I could have my camper and my boat and my car trailer. The realtors told me that it would be no problem and that I found out differently. They -- Nary: Realtors will tell you lots of things. Burlile: Exactly. We didn't take their word for it, that's why we are here today. I have spent the last seven months going through red tape to get everybody's approval. I want to do this appropriately, you know, go through the right channels. I really don't think that I'm being unreasonable by asking for 16 foot of a common area to drive over. Any questions for me? Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Burlile, when you said the other properties have access -- Burlile: Right. Nichols: Do you mean that they have gates in their fences or they have access to the backyards from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District road? Burlile: No. Everybody has -- that wants gates have gates, have plenty of room on the side of their houses for gates and probably half or more of them have gates that go into my subdivision from their property. Nichols: From the front yard into the back? Gates? Burlile: Right. Right. I want to be able to do that and I have five feet on both sides of my property and one side has to be landscaped to meet the homeowners association. Nichols: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 17 of 53 Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't think -- I'm not sure this question is for Mr. Burlile, but there is no prohibition to you having a gate on the back of that property, is there? There is nothing in your -- there is nothing on the plat saying you can't have a gate there. Burlile: Right. Nary: And there is nothing in your CC&R's that prohibits you having a gate in that location, the whole issue is whether you can drive a car through it and drive a car over that and have a cut -- and have a driveway; right? Isn't that the -- Burlile: The only thing in the CC&R's is on the plat map and it just says that we need ACHD and Nampa-Meridian -- or, excuse me, Meridian's approval -- City of Meridian's approval, that I'm aware of. Nary: David, exactly what is -- I know he's appealing a Planning staff decision, but what is he really -- what are we doing? I mean are we amending the plat? Is that what we are actually being asked to do, amending the plat note? Because he can have a gate, he just can't drive a car over the grass and he can't cut out the sidewalk and make a driveway out of it without the ACHD approval, so I'm not sure what we are actually being asked to rule on. McKinnon: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, what you're trying to rule on is in number seven -- I have got a copy of the plat. It says there shall be no direct lot access to Black Cat. This is a common lot that would be being driven over to give direct lot access to Mr. Burlile's property. The reason why the note is in there, the reason why it's ACHD and the City of Meridian, is to limit the number of access points onto Black Cat Road. Within the plat notes itself it says that Mr. Burlile can ask for permission from ACHD, which he has received. But he also needs permission from the City of Meridian to have an access point to Meridian Road. It isn't the homeowners, it says direct lot access. Nary: Not just his property that's given that, but all the properties, right? McKinnon: That is correct. Nary: It's not just related to this piece of property. McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 18 of 53 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: But as I understand it, he would be accessing via the Nampa-Meridian access or easement road or access road. McKinnon: The access -- Councilwoman de Weerd, lot number 16 is used as an easement for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation and there is actually a sign out front that says that the only people that can use it are Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. It's an easement in favor of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, but it actually is a lot of the subdivision -- of Turnberry Crossing No. 2 Subdivision. De Weerd: But by all visual aspects it's a dirt road. McKinnon: It's a dirt road. That's correct. Burlile: It's plenty wide. I don't see why there would be any problem for any of the homeowners to have access, other than Nampa-Meridian's approval -- Irrigation's approval and dealing with John Anderson, I don't think he would have a problem with it, other than he said that the homeowners would -- farther back would probably need a license and an agreement. The access was already there. Corrie: You are not trying to make access off of Black Cat Road into your property, are you? Burlile: That's the only way I will be able to get in is I would have to go in and out off the ditch rider road onto Black Cat. That's the only access. Bird: It's already accessible if they try to -- Burlile: And I have pictures to show that right now it's got plenty room from the road. I don't know how soon they plan on widening Black Cat, but from what I gather it's at least five to ten years down the road, at least. Corrie: When they widen Black Cat Road, you wouldn't go that way anymore? Burlile: The lease -- the license agreement I received from ACHD said it was temporary, because they may widen it some day and that if I -- if it's not possible for me to have access because of widening it, then it would be terminated. But it also says in there that, if possible, they would be willing to work with me. And, you know, all I've got to do is drive around in front of my house, open the gate and drive in, I don't have to stop on the road or nothing like that. I would unhook my trailer, turn around, and back out. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 19 of 53 Nary: And I recognize, Mr. Burlile, that that's at some point in the future, but what it sounds to me, at least at this juncture, ACHD is saying they are only in agreement with this up until the point they widen the road. Bird: Correct. Nary: So at the point they widen the road you won't have this access any longer. Burlile: If it's not possible -- you know, I don't see why there wouldn't be -- why I wouldn’t be able to. They are still going to have that ditch rider road and, you know, they are still going to have to have access for the road grader and the maintenance vehicles going through there. Nary: Well, the reason, maybe, is because they don't want a car driving right out that close to the roadway in that location. They just may not want it in that location. That's the reason, but I guess I'm thinking of the future, then. You may have this for -- if we were to allow this, you may have it for five years and then they will turn it off and you can't have it anymore. Burlile: Right. Like I said, with my property being at an angle, I measured 33 feet to the sidewalk -- to the common side of the sidewalk and I think that's plenty of room for me to drive out and see a car coming. On top of that, there is the pump house right there. I mean the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation is always there with their rigs on a weekly basis cleaning the screens and what have you and they are going to have to be going in and out of their themselves. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Mr. Burlile, then how would you be pulling into that lot? Would you be backing into it? Burlile: I would just pull in forward, unhook my trailer, and then I would have enough room in my backyard to turn around and come back out forward. I have pictures of my backyard if you would like to see them and see much room I actually have and everything. De Weerd: Well, I was just more concerned if you're going to attempt to back into it. That poses a whole different situation. Burlile: Right. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 20 of 53 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: David, I guess I'm still unclear. If we wanted to grant this, that plat is recorded, that plat that is recorded, we would have to record an amendment to the plat; right? Because every other property owner along that -- along that landscape strip doesn't have access to Black Cat Road and we would be -- Mr. Burlile is asking us to grant access just to him and if he sells that property, that subsequent property owner would have the same access, I don't know if he would know -- how would anybody know that, unless it gets recorded and they are going to look at that plat. So again, we would have to amend the plat only for him and I guess that concerns me, just amending it in regards to one piece of property. But I don't know how else we would do it. McKinnon: Councilman Nary, if I could confer with our city attorney. The way the plat note is written is that there shall be direct lot access unless permission is received from the City of Meridian and Ada County Highway District and in your opinion would we be required to have an amendment to the plat? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that's why I think it doesn't need a plat amendment, because it does contemplate that there might be a process for obtaining permission and I think the way that you would -- I mean I think there is -- if you're going to grant this, there is several things that you need to look at and one is will it -- or do you want or do you care or what's your policy going to be for anybody else whose lot is on the southern boundary of that subdivision that butts up against that access road, because even though they might have a gate -- they might have like ten foot along their garage so they can open it up and drive into their backyard, they also might want to put a gate in the back, so just drive straight through and then they do not have to back up -- you know, I mean you have got to think about that issue in terms of the volume of traffic that you might have -- and it may not be significant, but I mean you at least have to think about that for one. Secondly, I think a finding and a decision on this appeal, if it grants it, it could be recorded and be specific to that lot only and that, then, would serve as notice to anybody that would buy the property from Mr. Burlile, in terms of what the conditions of that approval are, so that the next person along isn't just relying on what the realtor said and I think the other issue that you have got to look at is you have a landscape strip, a landscape buffer, and to what extent as a policy matter do you want to allow any lot access, vehicular access, across the landscape strip? It may be insignificant here, because it's right on the corner, and that might be something that you can differentiate this one from the next one and the next one and the next one down the line. Those are just some thoughts to consider. Mr. McKinnon appears to have something, Mr. Mayor. McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just a thought and a question. Because this property is actually crossing over a piece of property that Mr. Burlile does not own, I don't know if, Todd, you have had an opportunity to talk to the homeowners association about receiving a cross-over access easement from the homeowners Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 21 of 53 association, because such an easement would have to be recorded and once you got a recording with it, that recordation would come up every time you do a title search. I think that might solve the problem and then we would have something that would be recorded that would run with the land. Burlile: Yeah. I don't have anything that was recorded from the homeowners association. The only thing that they had done is had me sign a release releasing the homeowners association from any liability that may result from this easement. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: That would -- that would actually constitute an easement -- the granting of an easement to go across that and at that point, like Dave said, it would have to be recorded and everything and you are -- and the homeowners would have to grant that, because that common lot is their lot; am I not right? McKinnon: Correct. I think that would solve the problem of having something that's recorded, something that would run with the land. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess that also would make it specific to only that lot by -- with that being granted with the cross-over easement -- access agreement, whatever. Okay. Well, it's not a public hearing, but I really don't have an issue with it. I don't know how to write up findings that would reflect ACHD's temporary access. I guess that's what concerns me most is when the road would be widened, how you can word that. You run it concurrent with ACHD's comments or approval. I think the fact that Mr. Burlile has gotten permission from the homeowners association, ACHD, and Nampa-Meridian, that he has pretty much covered all the bases, he's working with the homeowners landscape committee and they are certainly going to want to keep it attractive and so they will be looking out for their own interest in that regard. But as far as -- and we can ask that he gets the cross-over easement access agreement by the homeowners association, but how you word it as far as what ACHD has stipulated, I don't know how you would do that. Bird: That's why we have attorneys on both sides. De Weerd: Well, then I don't have to do it. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if you were to grant this request, you could make it so long as ACHD approves of the access; at such time as they revoke their license agreement, then the City of Meridian's permission to access the lot would Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 22 of 53 also be revoked. That's one issue. The other thing in terms of avoiding the floodgate argument -- that's a bad pun, I guess, but because there are Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District facilities in his backyard that may require repair, clean out, so forth, that may be another reason to allow vehicular access across that strip into his backyard, so we can include that as a finding and a reason to grant the appeal, if that's your choice, but it would also, then, allow you to say no to the next person that doesn't have a similar situation. So it's kind of a combination of factors: Corner lot, still has access to the ditch rider road, has facilities in the backyard that potentially need access, that sort of thing. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: David, do you know if this language about this direct access, is that common in most of our plats? McKinnon: It's very common on most of our plats. It's not on all, but it's very common. Nary: What's the reason we have that? McKinnon: To control access points, so that we don't have people with driveways all over arterial roads. You want to have those focused in certain locations, so the traffic is not pulling out from each location. It's a safety issue. Nary: And this particular lot, if we were to grant this, then, would have two driveways? McKinnon: Essentially. That's correct. Nary: And although Mr. Burlile's intent is to use it for his boat or his motorhome or whatever at this point, if he sells that property that's a driveway for the next property owner to use all the time; right? McKinnon: I can't find any reason to say no. Nary: Why wouldn't this make this lot have a double front? Isn't that prohibited by our subdivision ordinance? McKinnon: The reason why this does not have a double front is because it actually would cross two common lots before it actually hits that road. In true reality it is direct lot access to Black Cat, but if you were to look at it in legal terms, there are two other lots that separate Mr. Burlile's lot from Black Cat and so we don't have the double fronted lot, because of the landscape lot. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 23 of 53 Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: If I may ask another question of Mr. Burlile. Mr. Burlile, if I recall, it's just for the trailer and -- or, excuse me, maybe an RV and your boat. What do you intend to use the access for? Burlile: I have got a boat that -- that was my grandfather's and he passed away and left it to my uncle and he's paid storage for two or three years now and he's paid for the boat over and over again and so he gave it to me. So if I use the boat a couple times a year, the camp trailer I have, if I use it a couple times a year, and my car trailer is probably the most I have that I would use, I have a race car that I go out to Firebird dragstrip with, and I probably would use it once a week in the summertime and then in the winter I wouldn't use it at all. At the most it would be used four times a month. Sometimes the races are only two to three races a month. Nichols: Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you could restrict it for RV access. It wouldn't -- actually, you could say there wouldn't be a carport or a garage back there or you might do some other things that way if you wished to limited it so that a future owner -- that that would also appear in the recorded document. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: He can't park all these things on the grass; right? I mean he has to improve the back of this to park all of those vehicles and trailers and boats and all that back there; correct? McKinnon: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, Section 13 of the zoning ordinance talks about parking standards, but nowhere in the code does it address parking standards in a backyard. It just talks about how vehicles shall be parked on an improved surface and so that could be a requirement for it to be improved, but as far as directly stating that it has to be on an improved surface in a backyard, there is nothing that directly states that. Nary: I guess my concern, Mr. Nichols, I mean that sounds good, but I don't know how to enforce that later. If someone else comes in and Mr. Burlile doesn't own that property anymore, someone else is just driving back and forth, because he has paved that so he doesn't park all of his vehicles on the grass and on dirt, so they require some sort of surface to be there, and the next property owner just thinks that's an extra driveway and I guess that's my concern, but it ends up being another driveway and there is a whole reason why we have the landscape lot and why they have this language in our subdivision plats, is because we don't want two driveways on people's properties. You know, we don't want necessarily people using it that way. I mean I can understand the hardship you are concerned with here, but all of those conditions existed when you Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 24 of 53 bought this property and you knew when you bought this property it was on the corner and it doesn't have a rear yard access and doesn't have all of those things that already existed and so I guess I appreciate you bringing it to us, because the majority of the public would have just built it and did it and not asked us about it and so I appreciate that, but I guess that's my concern is that we have -- we have a difficult time in turning it off on other people -- if you weren't there, we would have a hard time enforcing it on the next person. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would think that we really -- it would be his CC&Rs that would say whether he has to put asphalt or something to park his deal on and I don't know whether it does or not. I don't think there is anyplace in the city that says that you can't park in your backyard on your grass that I know of. I agree with Mr. Nary on that aspect of it, but basically he -- by letting him use this he isn't going to get -- we aren't going to get the backyard -- we are not going to mandate the backyard is going to have to be asphalted or paved or rock put in or something like that, because -- unless his CC&R's say that, there is nothing we can do, I don't believe. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: In reading this ACHD temporary license agreement, it's with Mr. Burlile, and so I'm wondering why all of the concern about another owner. I would assume from this that the next owner would have to get the same type of agreement. That this is specifically between him and ACHD. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Well, the problem all this ends up being is like what Mr. Burlile was told by his realtor. Somebody else goes there, there is a gate and a driveway, and they don't ask us, they just keep driving on it, they just keep doing it and that's -- you know, that's the problem is not everybody probably is -- may be as responsible as Mr. Burlile in asking, but that's a condition that we are going to allow to exist, which is different than what was on the plat and, you're right, I guess in the city code here at this juncture we don't have any prohibitions, necessarily, to parking on the grass or in the yard. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Okay. Mr. Nichols. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 25 of 53 NIchols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the license agreement does include what's called as successors and assigns clause, which is on the last page where the signatures are, so it would bind any future parties to it. I don't see a reference to the lot number, but that should have been in there, but apparently it wasn't put in. McCandless: Would it have to be consented by ACHD? Burlile: Mr. Mayor, some of the -- if I could address one of the issues. As far as the -- when I was planning on parking on those, I was planning on putting rock down, so it wouldn't be mud or anything and tracking mud out onto the road or anything. Second of all, I think that if we are going to make an agreement, I think we could add in there that on the condition that I did sell my property, that I would notify the new owners that somehow they would have to re -- come in before you or the city Planning and Zoning or what have you and get the things okayed and have things put in their name or something. Another thing with -- the attorney pointed out awhile ago was people wanting to drive in and out of their properties and having a gate going to the ditch rider road, the subdivision as far as I'm aware of, has been there for two or three years now and I would have thought by now some of them would have come forward, if that's what they wanted. Corrie: Did anybody else have any comment? We can talk about this all night, but we need to make a decision. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: There is just one other thing I noticed in here in the city code, under yard requirements about parking in yards, in rear yards, and it only addresses commercial districts that are adjacent to residential districts, so it doesn't have any particular, other than residential homes are supposed to all have a garage and I suppose you're supposed to park a car in it, but it doesn't have anything particularly -- that I can fine, anyway, David, about parking in your yard. McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, I looked at that same section of the code and then I just flipped over one more page and it talks a little bit about paving and it's subsection D, 13-4, it talks about how all open off-street parking areas shall be paved in accordance with the standards established by the city. I don't know the exact definition of what open off-street parking would be per that section of code. My guess is that we are dealing with a private residence and not open off-street parking, so there are no true standards that I can find in the code either. Nary: And the only other reference I can see is the original parking and parking out front yard and that's -- De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 26 of 53 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I'm just going to make an attempt at a motion and it's not a Public Hearing, but I would move that we approve the request for appeal to allow a gate on the rear property line for access to the rear yard of a residence, Block 1, Lot 8, of Turnberry Subdivision, to restrict to an RV type access, not to be use for a carport or a driveway, as long as it is approved by ACHD or until revoked; to ask the applicant to submit proof of a cross-over easement access agreement with the homeowners association and that this use be allowed because of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District facilities on this particular property and ask the attorney to make sense of it for some Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Bird: Second. Corrie: I'm glad you got that. Bird: That's almost as open as my last one, too. Corrie: Any other discussion? Motion has been made and seconded. Okay. Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, nay; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. Three to one. Motion is carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY. Corrie: Items 9, 10, and 11 is all under Lochsa Falls Subdivision. I would like to -- while they are preparing there, let's take a five minute break, if we may. (Recess.) RECONVENED AT 8:26 P.M. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 02-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of Lochsa Falls 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson – south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 02-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 856 building lots and 59 other lots on 354.38 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision proposed by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson - - south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 27 of 53 Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 02-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 862 single family dwellings, 171 multi-family dwellings, 11 office buildings, one commercial building, one fire station lot, one city park and Lochsa Falls Subdivision one private park for the proposed by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson – south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Corrie: All right. I will end the recess here and start the public hearings on 9, 10 and 11, since they are all Lochsa Falls Subdivision. No. 9 is the annexation and zoning. No. 10 is the preliminary plat. And No. 11 is the Conditional Use Permit. So we will take them all and you can have your testimony on all or separately, however you want to do it. So at this time I will open the Public Hearing on 9, 10, 11 on Lochsa Falls Subdivision and we will have staff comments first. What I will do, staff, after comments, is give the developer ten minutes to give a presentation. We probably will take -- if there is any questions from the Council, and then any other public testimony will have five minutes apiece. So, David, go ahead. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the big one. This is the largest subdivision that we have seen before the City of Meridian for approval. It's a 354 acre parcel of -- well, actually, it's a number of parcels of land that are going to be improved as Lochsa Falls. This project is 856 single family homes, 171 apartments, 11 commercial lots, one commercial lot, a fire station lot, numerous park and open space lots and a large 25 acre plus park. It's located, as you can note -- as you can see on the overhead, in between Ten Mile Road bounded on the West, Linder Road on the east, Chinden Boulevard on the north, and McMillan Road on the south. I have got some pictures showing the property in and of itself is a relatively large, flat piece of land. The two structures -- well, there is three structures to note that need to be discussed tonight. One of those is the church that's located essentially in the center of the park; the Martin home, which is located on the opposite side of the park, and then there is another site looking northeast to the park at Ten Mile, this is the park land, it's relatively flat farm land right now. Go back to the original drawings. The original picture is -- the picture on the left that's on the overhead right now shows a long dirt road in the far left side of the picture. You can see that there is a large home -- I wish the picture was more to scale, but there is a large home back there and that's the Moss property. This piece of property -- there is a long driveway -- is actually a part of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision, but Mr. Moss has an access easement to his property through the Lochsa Falls property. I'll get into the site plan proposal. This first picture is a quarter of it. It's such a large project we have had to view it in four match pages and so this first one shows the southern boundary on McMillan Road. As you can see on the south -- the southern portion of the property is located approximately a quarter mile back from Ten Mile. The property along the south is all office uses. Directly above that there is a private road with a turnaround at that location that would stub into the commercial property to the west. There is an apartment unit -- an apartment complex lot that's proposed as 171 apartments, as I noted earlier. As you enter from McMillan there will be a water feature that's located at the entryway. It's a split entryway. On the far right-hand side -- east side of the property is the Moss easement that runs directly north-south to the Moss Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 28 of 53 property, which is located here. It's essentially an enclave of the county, which is not part of this project. Mr. Moss is here tonight to testify and the applicant will have some information for you concerning the Moss property and some negotiations that have gone on between Mr. Moss and the applicant. The property abuts the apartment complex. It's connected to the apartment complex by a pathway lot that enters into the subdivision. This portion of the subdivision. It has numerous smaller, but deep lots. This subdivision is being approved as a planned development, which means that they can ask for reduced frontages, reduced lot sizes, and the applicant has done so. This is an R-4 proposed zone. In this R-4 they have asked for reduced side setbacks for multiple story buildings. Instead of ten feet, to be allowed to have seven feet for a two story building. They have asked that the minimum lot frontage is 60 feet, rather than 80 feet as required in the R-4 zone. In addition to that, the applicant has requested the 20 percent land use exception to allow for the office uses and/or allow for the apartment uses, in addition to the fire station, the commercial properties up on the north of the project. I'm going to go forward to the second match sheet. This is the parcel that shows the large park. This park is a 25 acre park. The applicant has proposed that they dedicate five acres of the lot for free to the City of Meridian. The other acres of the park to be purchased at the developer's cost. The two parcels that we spoke about, the pictures, the Martin property is located here centrally in the park, and the church property is located up in the northwest corner of the park property. Through the Planning and Zoning Commission there was a great deal of discussion as to whether or not there should be a collector street located from Ten Mile into the subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that a collector street would not be necessary. However, because this property will receive sewer service from Ten Mile, the sewer service will have to run along the southern portion of the park and that sewer line will be covered by a hard surface pathway, it will be a continuation of the pathway system. That pathway system will continue on from Ten Mile all the way over to Linder through the subdivision. It will be a five foot wide detached sidewalk from this location to here and then from this location to the very central -- to the traffic circle in the middle. It will continue all the way over to Linder Road. One aspect of this site is that there is no school facility within the subdivision. Again, this is an 856 home subdivision, 171 apartments. There will be a lot of children dedicated -- that will be needing to go to the dedicated school someplace in the area. I'm sure the applicant can address the issue that they are dedicating a large park and typically they don't ask for a park and a school from the same developer. Continuing on to the next match sheet. This is the northern portion of the property. You can see the office uses, again, on Chinden Boulevard. An item of note for you is originally when this property was proposed for the commercial development there was another access road to Chinden Boulevard. Idaho Transportation Department said we will only allow one half mile access, so they have eliminated the access here, so there is only access to the major arterial or the state highway at the half mile section, which is located right here. There is some discussion about locating a school in this area. That's reflected in the staff report that if there is a school to be located here, these stub streets would be able to be either eliminated or used to access the school in the future. There is another private road that will be dedicated along the southern portion of the commercial and office lots, the one commercial lot would be this lot up in the northeast corner. This corner piece of Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 29 of 53 property is not part of the property. However, the private road would stub into this portion of the report and this road located through the subdivision would also access that piece of property, giving it access to public streets. On the west side of -- adjacent to Linder, the property has proposed a dedicated piece of land for a fire station. In talking with Kenny Bowers, of the fire department, it appears that that piece of property is large enough to place a fire station at that location without modification. Through the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing process there was an additional pedestrian access, emergency vehicle access, that was added at this location. And you can see that there is a six acre park located centrally next to the traffic circle. This is the southern -- I guess this would be the southeastern portion of the property. There is a traffic circle. One of the nice aspects of this project is there is three continuous collectors that run through the entire project. Those continuous collectors come together at this traffic circle. It's a one way traffic circle that people can access to travel around. It's like I said, a six acre park with a basketball court and other amenities would be at this location. Another one acre park would be located along the southern boundary of this subdivision. This is a county enclave, not part of the property. They have two collector roads that are actually designated to Linder. There is a collector at this location and the collector designation ends at this location and there is a collector designation, like I said, that terminates at the horse circle, as it's called. It's a big project. There is a lot of homes in here. It's been through three Planning and Zoning hearings, so there is really not a whole lot to report, because most of the items that we requested to be changed have been changed to match with the staff requirements. The staff report has been revised and the recommendation follows suit somewhat directly with what was agreed upon at the Planning and Zoning meetings. However, I have a stack of information here that -- some from Becky Bowcutt, some from Mr. Moss I'd like to address really quick. If I could have you all grab the letter from Becky Bowcutt, Planning Services, September 23rd, 2002. It's her response to the recommendation. I have had the opportunity to review this this afternoon and I agree with the recommendations that Becky has made to change the recommendations and I can go forward just on the first page. It talks about in B, the bolded B, the recommendation to Ada County Highway District, it talks about how Ada County Highway District has allowed for a 38 foot street section dedication of the sidewalk and easement. I received a letter today from Ada County Highway District stating that they are okay with that. So that would be something that I would ask Becky to address to tell us tonight how that would modify their plat, whether it would change the dimensions of the lot enough for her to do that tonight. But I see no reason why that should hold up approval of this project. Item number C from the Meridian -- recommendations from the Meridian Fire Department, I did have a chance to sit down with Kenny prior to this meeting to discuss these issues and he said that he has no problem with item number eight, that they allow a 33 foot roadway, rather than a 34 foot roadway with parking on both sides. As you will remember and as Becky points out, the Heritage Commons project was approved with 29 foot street sections with parking on both sides, so I don't see that there is any issue with a 33 foot road section with parking on both sides. Item number 11, the fire department requesting two points of access for more than 30 homes. I had a chance to talk with Kenny about that. He felt that that would be okay to do what Becky has requested with the 100 lots. If I could back up right here. There has been some Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 30 of 53 discussion -- let me go back to here. This property is being required to provide sewer service from the east -- from the far western portion to the eastern portion of the project. However, the applicant is doing something that's kind of counter-intuitive, they are phasing from east to west and so they will be providing a 14 foot wide gravel access road over all of their installation, and so there will be a 14 foot wide gravel improved road that will run where ever the sewer runs within the subdivision that would provide access to the fire department. The fire department and Kenny stated that they have no objection to changing item number eleven to be reflective of what Becky has requested. Item number D on -- I guess I got page two of Becky's letter. It's the recommendation of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. We received news about our parks director today. He doesn't have an opportunity to -- the parks department hasn't had an opportunity to review what Becky has stated at this location. However, the past discussions with Planning and Zoning Commission discussing -- discussions with the Planning and Zoning staff that the applicant is proposing to dedicate five acres of the property at raw land cost and the remaining acreage at the developer's cost. The numbers that have been placed in here do seem acceptable. There may be some modifications that could be required to this. However, I am not with the Parks Department and I'd ask the applicant to clarify that just to see if she's had any correspondence with anybody from the Parks Department concerning her recommendation. If you can turn with me now to the third page. Staff has no problems with any of the items that Becky has requested. However, item number E, recommendations of the Meridian Parks and Rec Department, Becky has noted in the final sentence of the recommendation that in parenthesis it shall be based upon 862 single family lots. The actual application has now been modified and should read 856, other than 862. Item number four beneath the preliminary plat comments, same page, under A. Staff has no objections to allowing a five foot non-sight obscuring adjacent to pathways. However, solid fencing is used to more than four feet in height in accordance with the landscape ordinance. Staff has no problem with the modifications that Becky has requested there. Item number seven is an issue that we may run into more and more as we get into the economy of the present. Becky has requested, essentially, that she be allowed to have flexibility in the phasing of her project. We as staff have no concerns with the phasing being modified. However, we would not like to see any open space that is in any of the preceding phases, such as if there is open space proposed in phase three, that that open space not be removed and placed in phase five or six. And if it's promised up front, it should be delivered up front, but as far as modifying the number of housing, staff has no concerns with that. We can make modifications to that and we can make arrangements through the staff for procedures to allow that. Item number eight on the next page. Becky has asked for some clarification on language for the requirement of the ten foot asphalt pathway leading to the horse circle. I'm going to direct your attention to the overhead. The property that she's referring to and the item that she's referring to here is the -- the applicant has proposed a ten foot wide asphalt pathway in lieu of providing sidewalks on both sides of the collector that runs from Linder to the horse circle. That would be a continuation of the path system that the City of Meridian has shown in our Comprehensive Plan and the newly adopted parks plan. That pathway would continue through to the horse circle, follow down through the common area to this location. At this location the pathway Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 31 of 53 would cross the street -- backwards now. Cross the street at the horse circle and once it reaches this location it would become a five foot wide detached concrete sidewalk, rather than an asphalt sidewalk and the reason for that is it becomes -- it no longer is part of the collector system and would rather have the concrete sidewalk be part of the subdivision, rather than the ten foot wide asphalt pathway. In addition to that, Ada County Highway District would prefer to see that there is an asphalt -- that there is a concrete sidewalk installed at that location, rather than a ten foot wide asphalt path. We, as staff, have no concerns with that. The pathway should be noted at this location. There should be some sort of marking saying this is a continuation of the pathway and it should continue on through to the park. So proper notification would be appropriate. In discussions with the applicant in the past all of the crosswalks within this area will be of a stamped concrete type of crosswalk and otherwise colored so that people traveling in vehicles will notice that there is some break there and they should slow down for pedestrians to cross. Hopefully that will offer some clarification to the applicant and for the City Council. Item B, C, D we have no comments concerning those. Item number F on the next page we have no comments. However, once we get to the last recommendation of the dispute with Mrs. Bowcutt, the recommendation of the Meridian Water Department and Becky has asked for some clarification or some language to be included per the timing of the extension of the second water main, can it be determined by the Public Works staff. I have had an opportunity to review this question with Brad Watson and he's here tonight, he can address that issue. I'll turn some time over to him really quick to address that issue before I continue. Watson: Thank you, Dave. Mayor, Members of the Council, I met with the Public Works staff this afternoon to discuss this and I guess I don't have particularly a problem with this wording, but it's very likely that the timing of the Ten Mile water main would be required up front as is planned. Right now they would just run one up Linder Road. With all the pending development going on up there and all the demand that's going to be on that single line, we feel a project this size probably needs second feed just from a demand standpoint, a redundancy standpoint, and because it's already approved, although that may not be an overriding reason. We reviewed a water main going up Ten Mile Road earlier this year and maybe even late last year. It's been through our department, through DEQ, and it's approved, all it's waiting for is preliminary plat approval by Council to go to construction. If that line that has already been approved is not the one that they want up front, there is an alternate route from Ten Mile Road along McMillan Road to the southern boundary of the project, up into future phases to their initial phases. The one thing to point out is if there are any plans to develop the park site on Ten Mile Road, I would assume that it needs water service sooner rather than later. And that's all I have. McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I can continue at this point in time, unless you have any questions for Brad. Okay. I will go ahead and continue. I have in front of me a letter from Mr. Moss that was dated -- date stamped today, received September 24th, 2002. You should all have a copy of that. It's a hard copy, it's not on your computer. I had a chance to review this in small part and I believe that it's in the reflection of an item that was discussed at the last Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 32 of 53 meeting and I'd ask your cooperation in locating the preliminary plat recommendation from White Peterson and turning to page six -- actually, page eight of the preliminary plat recommendations. Give you a chance to get to that. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting the applicant, Ms. Bowcutt, presented a letter concerning the Moss property and what concessions the applicant was willing to make for Mr. Moss and his property pertaining to the fact that he will be completely surrounded by this subdivision and because the piece of property, the easement that runs up the backside of the subdivision and asking him to release the easement and if he would release the easement, the applicant would grant him the following -- the following -- following -- I guess they are easements, but the following conditions and they are located on page eight of the preliminary approval -- recommendation for approval and they go down items one, A through H, number two and number three, and Mr. Moss has requested that you review his letter. In lieu of these requirements he's requesting that those be modified per his letter and he's here tonight to testify to that. Originally, before the -- I guess the conditions were made by the applicant, the project did not have a water feature located at this entrance, it was a nonwater feature, and the applicant granted Mr. Moss that these lots that are highlighted, 11 and 12, that number 13 would be an open space and that these two lots, located to the northeast of his property, would be single story homes and that they would make these lots all large lots. The smallest lots that actually abuts up to Mr. Moss's property is 9,475 square foot, which is not necessarily a small lot. And the other lots in that area are around anywhere from 16,000 square feet down to that 9,400 square foot range. So they are big lots that surround Mr. Moss's property. Hopefully you will have the time to review Mr. Moss's request and the applicant will have a chance to look at those as well tonight and we can make some sort of arrangements to modify -- either modify or to improve the language that's in the recommendation. With that I would state the staff strongly supports the approval of this application and would ask if there is any questions. Corrie: Okay. Any questions of staff. I'm sorry. Any questions from staff -- of staff from Council? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. The developer first. As I said, I'll give you ten minutes, plus any questions we might have. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Bowcutt: I do. Corrie: Your name and address, please. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. As Dave indicated, this is one of the largest -- it is the largest project you guys have ever seen as far as the number of dwelling units. It's coming before you for annexation, rezone, preliminary plat, and Planned Unit Development. This particular property was submitted for application I think a little over a year ago and Mr. Goldsmith Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 33 of 53 withdrew that application and retained me. We sat down, met with different departments at the City of Meridian, kind of regrouped and redesigned the project. We incorporated comments from, obviously, the Parks Department, Planning Department, also Public Works, ACHD, and some of the North Meridian concepts that were evolving at the time. We have been working on this for about a year now come next month and we are quite proud of the result. What you see here is a mixture of multiple uses. We have office uses along McMillan corridor with a continuous collector roadway coming up. This is the half mile, which meets with a lot of the suggestions in the North Meridian plan. This intersection here at Chinden Boulevard is a collector. It's also at the half mile. And then we also have this third leg of the collector coming in off of Linder Road at approximately the half mile. Over here to the east will be the future high school, so hopefully they can line up with that intersection, so we have the possibility of signalization. And that's what we created. With the three leg collector concept we have terminating in this large collector or rotary here, it captures about ten percent of the traffic, according to ACHD and other traffic engineers. That would take in consideration like the office uses, the commercial uses, and so forth. In the center of this rotary is about 1.8 acres, so it's real large. It will have like a water feature, landscaping, be very attractive. It's a passive type amenity, not an active amenity. In this center core area we have roughly about 11.8 acres of open space and this private park here has six acres. We will be utilizing some of these areas for storm drainage, but we have allocated a lot of open space, so we have made sure that esthetically they are going to look good, they will be dual function, but yet they will meet the criteria under your landscape ordinance and your Planning Department and Public Works will review them. We have roughly around 30 acres of open space in this project and that's excluding this park area. Here we have 25.5 acres. This is designated as a community park on your parks plan. Your parks plan talks about 25 to 30 acres as the target for the community parks and asks that it have frontage along either an arterial or a collector, that it has at least two sides open to a public roadway. Ten Mile Road is a collector. We have got roughly a little bit less. This is a couple hundred feet here, a couple hundred feet located here. Along the eastern boundary this is a single loaded local street with homes that would front here. This would allow us to have some type of parallel parking for the park. You can even come in with a parking area. Mr. Goldsmith had his landscape architect come up with just this pseudo concept, it does not reflect any input from your Parks Department as far as how it's situated, but it does reflect like the standards say like Boise Parks Department uses for the number of parking spaces needed for the numbers -- based on the number of fields and so forth. This would be an excellent area for like the handicapped, the elderly, to be able to park and come to one of the rear diamonds in the park to watch their grandkids play or whatever. We have got an access drive, you can come in with some parking, tennis courts, but we think that we have got a nice predominately rectangular, usable park area that we will provide a void out in this North Meridian area. We are the only project that I'm aware of that has made this commitment to providing a park within their project. As David indicated, we will be donating five acres of the property. The raw land cost was around 30,000 dollars, so that's 150,000 dollars worth of property. The remaining acreage we have asked for future park impact fee reimbursement on that in a zone -- designated zone area. We have a mixture of lot uses, this being office along the arterials, transitioning to Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 34 of 53 multi-family. This is only conceptual approval for that. It would have to come back as site specific conditional use for any uses other than the single family residential. So it will come back before your staff and this body and Public Hearing. We have 60 foot lots coming here and as we move northward those lots increase to 70 in width, 80, and then 90. We have 110 by 150 in depth. We have done the same thing out on the Chinden corridor. We have these office lots here and then one commercial lot intersecting public and private with this not a part parcel here. These lots are smaller 60s transition to the 70s, 80s, and over here we have 70s and 80s. We have a real nice mix. I'll go ahead and move real quickly to our Powerpoint presentation. We put this together to kind of give you an idea of what this project will provide. One of the questions that I think everyone asks on these larger projects is what will this project provide the community as a whole and the City of Meridian. So what we have done is we have calculated, based on the impact fees at the time, how much monies would be contributed to ACHD. As you can see there, those are the impact fees that would be paid by the builders and taxes generated by those property owners that will be going to Ada County Highway District, $1,648,000, approximately. Here you will see the sewer and water location right now is just south of McMillan Road on Ten Mile. This project will require the applicant to go down and pick up that sewer about 400 feet south of McMillan Road, extend it north to the half mile, and water, and extend it eastward into the project. The dollars generated by the builders for hook-up fees will generate about 1.8 million dollars in sewer hook-up fees for the city. Capacity does exist, since you guys have spent considerable amount of money upgrading your plant. There will be about $844,000 in water hook-up fees. We would be extending 12 inch mains through the project in the collectors. That has been one of the requests of your staff. Based on your general city fund, the tax revenue at build out would be about 1.1 million dollars for police and fire protection and other essential city services. For the city -- the park, the project will generate about $526,000 in future park impact fees and that's based on the existing park impact fee, not on the future fee that you guys have been considering. We evaluated -- one of the questions that arose was how are we going to pay for these parks, how are we going to afford to improve these parks. As you can see, based on a 15,912 dwelling units that are anticipated in this ten square mile area, about 80 acres of city park land is going to be required for acquisition to service this area. We utilized the 529 dollar impact, calculated that based on the number of estimated dwellings out in that area and as you can see, it generates about 8.4 million dollars, with leaving a little bit of excess, about 400,000 dollars above and beyond what it costs to develop and purchase the land. If we go down to the next section, that figure is based on if you raise those park impact fees up to 729, which has been the suggested number, factor in an increase in park development to 80,000 per acre, plus 30,000 per acre for a park acquisition, as you can see your excess impact fee is about 2.7 million dollars. Oh, crud. That gives you just basically a breakdown of what we are providing. The applicant has purchased the property that the park will be sitting on, so he does own it in fee simple. This is the area that we requested be the reimbursement zone. We did go before your parks commission, we agreed on everything but this issue, and the parks commission determination was that this project would only be eligible for future impact fee reimbursement from the dollars generated within the project only, even though it serves the community beyond that. You want to switch to that annual tax revenue? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 35 of 53 There we go. There we go. If we start looking at the annual tax revenue generated by the project, it's about 5.4 million dollars and that breaks down by each tax category. If we switch to the next one, those are the fees that will be paid by the builders. Those are like your building permit, hook-up fees, et cetera, and impact fees. So about 5.8 million dollars would be generated to the project as a whole. That's the entry amenity waterfall that we would be constructing along the Chinden and Linder corridor. That gives you the six acre neighborhood park. As far as our amenities, we will be providing a gazebo, a picnic gazebo in our park, some type of a fountain feature in the rotary and three playgrounds and these would be like your more commercial park-like playground facilities. They cost between 20 and 25 thousand dollars for the large one. The two smaller ones, one in the north, one in the south, cost around 12 to 15 thousand dollars. We will have detached sidewalks with trees along that corridor, creating a parkway. Is that it? McKinnon: It's thinking. Bowcutt: Oh, it's thinking. McKinnon: It's not thinking very fast. Bowcutt: One thing I would like to mention for the record, when we were designing this project we came up with our amenities to meet the requirements of the PUD ordinance. We would, however, like to have some latitude to expand those amenities if we work with the staff, like upgrade the amenities, not decrease the amenities. So say if we wanted to add like a clubhouse or a swimming pool, we would like to have the ability or the latitude to work with staff. Obviously, we go back to ACHD, make sure that they would approve any access if a parking lot was involved with that and then go with your staff as far as siting. A lot of the projects now are looking at upgrading. We have got a good project, a good mix, we've worked really hard to get where we are with this project. We have done -- we did a neighborhood meeting, I have met with Mr. Moss multiple times, and we have tried to work out all of the issues that we have had in the past and this is probably one of the best projects that I think has come before this Council as far as diversity and the amenities that are being provided. Do you have any questions? Sorry. Bird: I have none. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Becky, I know -- I remember David saying and I remember the school district previously saying they don't like to I guess double dip from developers when they are offering park sites and school sites, but this is somewhat extraordinary for Meridian, the size, the number of people, and I guess I hear a whole -- I hear a whole bunch from people about approving these things without school access and I recognize the high Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 36 of 53 school is across the street on one side, but has there been any discussion with the school district of where elementary schools are going to be located. I'm going to guess a lot of children are going to be generated in this development here to have that school access to. Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen Nary, that's a very good question. When we were designing this project, the Parks Department has this area asterisked as -- or designated as a community park. The asterisk sat kind of in this vicinity right here. At that time Mr. Kuntz and Mr. Bigham had had conversations that they would not go after the same project to try to get either an elementary and a large park site, because they felt that the impact on that development would be too great. So they kind of had just a verbal agreement that if a park was in one project, then they would look elsewhere for the school site or vice-versa. The best location for an elementary would be right here. With this collector roadway being constructed, they would have access to that, access to utilities. The stub street could either be moved, eliminated, ped path put in there, whatever they needed. So that's probably the best location. I tried to talk to the Parks Department and the school district about like some joint sites where it was a park combo elementary. I did that -- I did a project called Edgeview Estates with the Meridian School District and Boise Parks Department, it was mid '90s, worked out real well, very successful. But that was a neighborhood park and not a community park and one of the requirements of the school district was that there be no restrooms installed. Well, since this will obviously have ball diamonds and soccer fields, you're going to have to have restroom facilities, so I can't see that it would meet the school district criteria to - - next to restrooms. There are -- there is the Hobbs property. There is another large parcel here. There is an 80 acre parcel here. And another 80 acre parcel here. So we do have some options for trying to site an elementary, but it's -- they are limited, obviously, as you can tell by the map. It's just too hard -- you can't take 25 and a half acres out of a site and then another 12 or 13. Do you have any other questions? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Without -- without the open space or park that the city would purchase or reimburse impact fees or what have you, how much open space do you have? Are you counting the five acres donated as part of your open space? Bowcutt: No. De Weerd: Okay. And without the park, then, how much open space do you have? Bowcutt: Thirty -- just a little bit over 30 acres. It's like 30, 31 acres, I think. De Weerd: Okay. Usable open space for the open space requirement? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 37 of 53 Bowcutt: That would be total open space, excluding -- excluding any of the park, within the development that includes the collector buffers, the arterial buffers. As far as eligible open space, I did a calculation for your staff in my application. We have got -- I have got it listed. We have just a little bit shy of ten percent open space, so that's why we have multiple amenities to meet the PUD requirements. When I -- we have 10.5 acres of arterial and collector landscaping, which is required, so it's not considered eligible for five percent calculation. Our eligible open space is about 20 acres or 6.6 percent of the site. And the eligible open space into the five percent has to be usable open space. So I can't -- I can't include any of this open space along the arterials or lining these collectors or the arterial here or here. De Weerd: Right. So your eligible open space was how much? Bowcutt: About 20 acres. De Weerd: And just another question. Did you get a copy of Mr. Moss's request? Bowcutt: Yes. De Weerd: Would you -- do you want Mr. Moss to testify first or -- Bowcutt: That would be fine. De Weerd: Okay. I have nothing further. Corrie: Anything else? Okay. Thank you, Becky. I believe we have Tony Moss signed up to testify. Tony. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Moss: Yes. Tony Moss, 2400 West McMillan. I'm the infamous Moss property that has been spoken about in the P&Z meetings and also the Council meetings in the past. A big development and since the line is not all the way out the door with people to testify against it, I am basically the only person involved directly with this development and a development of this size. I don't think I'm going to put much pressure on the Council to cancel it or change it too much, so I'm really going to work off of what the developer gave me at the last meeting -- when I was testifying I got this information, so I didn't really have a chance to comment on it at that point in time and also there is some things on here that aren't correct, but I'm going to just basically give you my interpretation of what this means and this was a letter that was given to the P&Z before the last meeting. I don't know if you all have copies of this or not, but I'm sure the staff does over there. I'll start to go down the list here and kind of give you my interpretation of what this means. The first one is move a park lot to the east side of the Moss parcel. Well, I interpret that as lots -- the developer agrees to leave lots 13 and 14, which is the east side of my parcel, adjacent to -- for a small open park. That's the way I interpret it. I have no communication with the developer since the last P&Z meeting when it was set over to City Council, so this is really how I see it. It's agreed to three single story lots on Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 38 of 53 the east side of the Moss parcel to retain his view. One of the three will be an open lot. I interpret that as providing two large lots to be specified exactly on both sides -- on both the north and south boundaries of the Moss parcel no more than two large homes to be built on this site. That's my interpretation of large lots. Since I don't have any more information from the developer, this is what I came up with. Provide large lots on the north and south of the Moss parcel, that's kind of an interpretation of the first one, but I'll continue on. It says designate a common area -- or yeah. It says provide a common area on the west as agreed to retain Mr. Moss's plum trees and this one says on the east side if possible. I interpret that as designate a common area on the Moss parcel, west property line, agree to maintain the plum trees, grass, and landscaping -- they aren't my plum trees anyway, they belong to Mr. Gibson. They just happen to be next to my fence line. Agree to pipe any irrigation ditches continuous with Lochsa property is the last statement. I interpret that as agree to -- let's see. All irrigation ditches that will be piped continue to Lochsa Falls property, including removing and paving the ditch to the east side of the Moss parcel, which is a cement ditch that travels along the east side of my property line for irrigation purposes for the Gibson turf farm, of which they have a pipe in it and we have given them an easement to be able to pump water from that side of the turf farm to the other side of the turf farm along our property at road line. And I will continue on. The cement ditch on the east side of the Moss parcel is a ditch that Gibson is currently using across our property line to water the nursery stock, which is located on the west side of our property. The cement ditch needs to be either removed or filled or paved and incorporated into existing driveway. Well, when it says agree to pipe any irrigation ditches continuous along Lochsa property, that's how I interpret that. Ms. Bowcutt just recently mentioned the water features in the development, of which she said this is a picture of the one on Chinden and the one on Linder. Well -- and what I have got here is agree to construct a water feature at McMillan Road entryway. I guess that means that that's not going to be the same kind of water feature as the other entrances to the piece of property, which is counterproductive to my property value, so I interpret that as constructing a water feature equal or greater -- or greater than all other water features in the Lochsa property development. Have to hurry here. I guess the last I have -- I will finish up with this one. Agree to Lot 1, Block 2, to Mr. Moss to obtain driveway across the lot if Mr. Moss relinquishes his easement. That is incorporated in number six that I just mentioned as far as the paving of the area across to the north -- yeah, to the north boundary of Lot 10 on the Lochsa development and also re-installing all utilities on the edge of the south side of the parcel up to the edge of the south side of the parcel, that would be water and sewer and everything else. The fencing north, south, east, and west will be wrought iron fencing, stained wood. There is a picture on page 20 in the Lochsa Falls brochure. And maintained by the -- and maintained by the association. What I got last time was agree to coordinate boundary fencing with Mr. Moss consistent with the Lochsa Subdivision. Those are the things that I think are -- and the way I interpret the developer's statements to me and I wouldn't want to see it any other way, because -- I'm not trying to be selfish here, but I'm really the only one out there and I just -- I'm amazed at the size of this development, I'm amazed at the lack of roads and the lack of things that are not provided out there at this point in time. McMillan, Linder and Ten Mile two lane roads. Unbelievable traffic. Everything backed up on the freeway. They want the easement, which is what I interpret their direction Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 39 of 53 was, having no communication with them since the last P&Z meeting. That's all I got. Any questions? Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony in this Public Hearing? Okay. Hearing none, Becky, rebuttal? Or not necessarily rebuttal, answering his questions, too. Bowcutt: As Mr. Moss indicated, this project does wrap all the way around his property. We have from the very beginning been very concerned on how -- the impact of this development on his parcel and how to mitigate that impact. Right now Mr. Moss currently has an access easement across this property. This is an 80 acre parcel owned by the Gibsons. The easement comes up and then it -- his home is oriented facing east. What we have suggested -- and I had this same scenario happen in a project called the Legends in Boise, with the exception that that property owner owned the 25 feet. We try to eliminate those types of flag driveways, if at all possible, to try to give interior access to those properties. So what we have offered Mr. Moss to, one, try to mitigate and, two, make -- obviously, make his property part of this development as far as access is concerned, is we would -- if he would basically vacate or relinquish his right to that easement, then we would deed this separate lot off this public street, pave the driveway across that lot to intersect with his existing paved driveway. So in the future when this cul-d-sac was constructed, then he takes access here. One of the things he wanted was some type of open space to the east. His view corridor is in a northeasterly direction of the Boise front, so we blew this lot out here and then what we did, what P&Z asked us to do, is see if we could find a lot and some open space over here and then make this open space to buffer Mr. Moss and that's what we did. So did not lose a lot, we moved that buildable lot to that location. We also said that this lot and this lot would be single story, obviously, to help preserve Mr. Moss's view. When we designed this we wanted to make sure that we provided larger lots adjoining him and so we came in -- this particular lot depth here is 161 feet and then it decreases to about 125. So the north of him, these lots range from 12,000 up to 15 and a half thousand square feet. This dimension is 165. I made this lot 100, 90, 94, 90, and this is 86, 85, 85, and 85, and these range from 9,400 up to 16,800. So I tried to do the best I could to make these as deep and as wide as possible without them being unlike the other lots that are adjoining them. Mr. Moss has some plum trees that are mature along his western boundary. He believes that those are just off his boundary or very close to the boundary, so we stated that we would preserve those trees and I have got a 20 foot landscape lot between the collector roadway and his parcel boundary and so we would locate those trees in that 20 foot, so he would -- he would have those retained mature trees as a buffer to the west. We also stated that we would provide sewer service, which would be required by your public works, sewer and water hook up for his property. Any ditches that adjoin him or -- when I say contiguous to him, would be along his boundary, being shared by either this property or our property. Obviously, under your ordinance we are required to pipe. He wanted a water feature at this McMillan entrance. We got the Gibsons and their representative to agree to a water feature. Why I did not list that as being -- this water feature here being representative of what would be constructed here is because I do not know what will be constructed there, but it will have to be some type of a waterfall type feature. Mr. Gibson owns the Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 40 of 53 80 acres. They agreed to include that 80 acres in this project -- one, it made this whole project contiguous to the city limits; two, it made for a better project, because we could go in and design the collector roadways coming into McMillan and just do some master planning. So I think what Mr. Moss wants to make sure is that he has a decent water feature at that entrance. As far as fencing, I showed Mr. Moss some pictures, like wrought iron with wood posts. He did not want to be boxed in with solid fencing all the way around him, so that he's just like a little enclave. He wants something more open like the wrought iron. We agreed to that. That's fine. So we have tried our best to, you know, try to find some middle ground with Mr. Moss. I think I have met with him at his house a couple times, his office, and we met out here before the hearing, so I know we have had at least four or five different discussions. I think we are about as close as we can get. Do you have any questions? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, Becky, what on this -- on this one that we have before us is September 24th. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Nary: I don't know if it's different than the one you're holding or not. Bowcutt: Yes, it is. Yes. Nary: Okay. So on this one are there things you disagree with? Bowcutt: Yes. Nary: Okay. And I guess I'm not sure which ones those are, then. Bowcutt: Okay. On item one, we agreed to leave Lot 13 as an open space lot. That's the lot to the east of Mr. Moss. He's asking for Lot 13 -- in addition to Lot 13, he's asking for Lot 14 right here to also be an open space lot, which we disagree with. Item two we disagree with. He's asking that there be no more than two lots north of him and two lots south of him, which would mean elimination of two of these lots, two of these lots, and have some excessively large lots on his north and south boundary, which we disagree with. He asked that we designate the common area, maintain those plum trees, item three. We agree. Item four. He just kind of went into some detail. I think item four we are in agreement. Any ditch that's on his boundary that adjoins any of the parcels that are part of this development we will have to pipe the ditch. So I think we are in agreement. I just -- I don't agree with the language that he has, because I'm not sure if some of those ditches are solely on his -- there is a couple ditches I know that they are inset into his property. As far as the water feature, we agreed to the water feature. That's one of the amenities that's part of the PUD. Equal or greater than, I think that's excessive. I don't think he can put a dollar amount. I think it's going to be Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 41 of 53 up to the staff. They are, obviously, going to be looking for a water feature. They have got to market this 80 acres with this concept. They are going to have to come up with something. They can't put a 20 dollar, you know, water fountain there or something. It's just not going to happen and that's not what we are going on the record and stating as part of this package. Item six, as far as deeding that lot, we have agreed that if he would relinquish his right to his easement, that would be deeded and we would pave in and intersect that pavement with his existing pavement. He's asking that we go repave his existing driveway, which was not part of what we were offering originally. He's asked that we reinstall his mailbox, take it from McMillan and move it northward. A standard mailbox -- but I can't remember if his has brick -- if it's one of those expensive, fancy, masonry ones or not. A standard mailbox, I don't think that's problematic. We, obviously, can accommodate along the sidewalk for some type of a mailbox cluster. Fencing --- so we are in agreement on eight, utilities be stubbed. Nine, the fencing to be wrought iron stained wood posts. We are in agreement with that. Item ten, eleven, and twelve would be single level. So we are -- you know, on part of these I think we are in agreement. It's just on some of the details we disagree. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Any questions while we have the Public Hearing -- Bird: I have none. Corrie: We have shaking of heads, so I'll entertain a motion at this point, then, to close the Public Hearing on items, Items 9, 10, and 11. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I still have a question for staff. Corrie: Okay. De Weerd: I'm getting back to the eligible open space requirement. How far off are they? McKinnon: Councilwoman De Weerd, Mayor and Council, they actually meet the requirements for the open space. For a subdivision they are required to have five percent in the subdivision they have proposed. In the planned development ordinance requirement for amenities, they can use ten percent open space as one of their amenities. However, the applicant has proposed a park, there is a traffic circle, numerous other park-type amenities, the playground equipment, and the pathway to satisfy the needs of the planned development for the two amenities. So they do meet the five percent requirement for a subdivision. And one special case to point out, the 170 unit apartment complex will be required to provide ten percent open space within Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 42 of 53 that complex, as well as there is going to be additional open space that Becky and Justin haven't actually included in their open space requirements and that's an ordinance requirement for all multiple family uses, so that that parcel down there won't provided additional open space, so they do meet the requirements of the five percent open space. However, they don't meet the requirement for the ten percent open space that would be used for a PUD, but they have provided additional other amenities that would agree with the code -- De Weerd: Okay. McKinnon: -- as amenities. But they do have approximately 20 acres that they can call -- you asked Becky a question earlier tonight, how much of this is usable. And there are portions of it that aren't usable and Becky alluded to that with the traffic circle, there is 1.8 acres right there that they can't really use, other than to look at. So that wouldn't be usable acres, but they have the park, plus the two pocket parks that would have the playground equipment, plus the large six acre park in the middle. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I also have a question for the attorney. In the presentation they do suggest once the impact fee is amended. The impact fees collected, is that based on the current impact fee or the impact fee at the time the subdivision was approved? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not -- I think what we are looking at for reimbursement is their acquisition cost for the acreage, so that if those park impact fees are adjusted upwards, if I recall the presentation, it had no interest, it had -- so, essentially, it would be a reimbursement of the cost to the developer. So whatever zone, if you adopt a zone for those -- for this particular park, then once you get up to the point that they are reimbursed, then that takes care of it, as I understand the way it would work. De Weerd: I guess my question is -- I don't know if the park impact fee that would be collected in a subdivision, once approved, can be adjusted as a park impact fee is adjusted. If it's approved at 529 for every lot in that subdivision, would it be 529 when the city has adjusted it or not? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that you have to look at the park impact fee at the time the building permit is pulled. De Weerd: Okay. That was my question. Nichols: So -- I mean if that's -- De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 43 of 53 Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: This is a request, this reimbursement zone, Mr. Nichols, and what they requested is essentially expanding the area of reimbursement, is what I have perceive that to be and is that different than what was done with Bear Creek Park? Was that just the impact fees from just the development goes to pay -- to reimburse the developer for those -- for that cost? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as I understand it, Bear Creek used impact fees which were collected essentially city wide. At this point the city does not have zones with regard to its park impact fees. It has been a discussion item, in particular with the north Meridian area. As to the extent that there is a -- that they create a need for community parks in their area and they build subdivisions, they like to see some -- you know, rather than their park impact fees going south of the freeway, for example, and that's an issue that Council is going to have to look at in connection with the park impact fees and whether you create zones. Mr. Kuntz -- and I think this may have been -- I don't know how Boise city does it, but his preference was to not have zones, because then you could have -- you could have development in one area, you have funds there to develop something in that area, but maybe you have need in another area and you couldn't move the money around to help do it. You couldn't loan from one zone to the other and it would create kind of a financial nightmare. There is probably some -- there might be somewhere in the middle where you have zones that are so large, you know, north of the freeway, south of the freeway, north of Franklin, south of Franklin, or something where you might be able to achieve some of the things that the development community is looking for and still be able to do what you need to do as a city. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess to answer Mr. Nary's question, additionally, is Bear Creek agreed to -- the land was -- included sprinklers, drains, and a parking lot in exchange for impact fees and then the rest was a donation, so -- and that was just only per the park impact fees collected in that specific subdivision. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: A question. We are only looking at reimbursing of the cost of the land and not the cost to be developed; is that correct? McKinnon: That's correct. De Weerd: Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 44 of 53 Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: And as I understand, we will put a -- they are donating five acres and we will then put a value on the other 20 acres that we are buying and then when the impact fees come up to that, then the impact fees are coming into us for development. Corrie: That was 30,000 an acre. Bird: I believe that -- I'm not sure that Mr. Ward -- or Mr. Goldsmith or Becky had an exact figure, but it was around 30,000, I believe. Was not to exceed 30,000. Corrie: Kenny. McKinnon: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, just a couple of issues that you brought up that I want to comment on concerning the land out at Bear Creek. The land at Bear Creek and the raw value of the land at Bear Creek was somewhat less than what the land value is out here, because the land in Bear Creek was actually not sewerable and so the land valuable was actually lower, they were actually getting -- you were actually getting more park for less money because of the value of the land. So that's something that should be brought up. This land is sewerable, it has development potential and so it's actually more valuable land that we are getting. Corrie: Kenny. Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council Members, I would like to give just a little bit more information on the property that has been donated for the fire station lot. We have worked with Becky on this several times, to my knowledge. Deputy Chief Silva has. As we have found out with the property on Locust Grove now, with the new city landscaping ordinance it takes quite a bit of that property away. Also, with Ada County Highway District going to widen that road, will take quite a bit of our frontage off. So what I'm saying is I -- maybe, possibly, we could work with Becky, if this property isn't going to be quite big enough, we have got ZGA at this time setting some different station plans on this property to see how it will come out, so I just wanted to let you be aware of that at this time. It's 1.4 acres, I believe, and I'm not sure how much all the landscaping and the highway district will take out, so -- Corrie: Thank you. Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: David, with the donated lot where it is, I would imagine that the ACHD requirements are probably already taken out before the 1.4 calculation? McKinnon: That's correct, Tammy. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 45 of 53 De Weerd: What would be buffering requirements, because it's platted and people know what they are meeting up against? Is it somewhat different because it's all platted and zoned or would they still have the 20 foot buffer and that sort of thing? McKinnon: I believe that that's a minor arterial at that location and if I had a copy of the Comp Plan I could see if that was actually an entryway corridor, which would require 35 feet. I believe the entryway corridor goes a quarter mile down to place it essentially right at that location. This is a planned developmental, they have asked for the setback they have got. And through the planned development you can ask for reduced buffers. And if you'd like, we could go with the reduced buffer at that location. Will just handed me a Comp Plan, so I don't have to grab mine out of my book. The new Comprehensive Plan shows that area as an entryway corridor, which would require a 35 foot landscape buffer in that location. However, because this is a planned development, if the Council wishes, they could reduce the landscaping requirements in that location. This project was actually begun prior to the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. So that issue wasn't addressed as much, because the new Comp Plan wasn't in effect at the time of application. So it does show this as an entryway corridor with a 35 foot required landscape buffer. The applicant has shown on their site plan -- open it up really quick. They show a 30 foot buffer at that location right now and 30 foot buffer does not include the area that's included as part of the landscape -- as a part of Meridian fire station lot, so they have got essentially 1.4 acres with the landscaping already provided on that. I have met with the ZGA architect that's working on the Linder project and one of the problems they are having is being able to bring the trucks in, circling around and entering the rear of the building, so that the fire engines are heading directly out onto the arterial and they need a wide area to turn and according to our landscape ordinance, a fire station adjacent to a residential subdivision requires a 20 foot landscape buffer separation, which is a large landscape buffer and that can be reduced somewhat by the depth of the lot administratively at staff level, but reducing it by more than ten percent of the depth of the lot would require a variance, which would require approval by you. However, I think right now would probably be the best time to address this. They have shown a 30 foot buffer out there, which seems adequate to me as staff. The depth of that lot maybe something that Kenny needs to work out with Becky and one of the ways, maybe, that we could handle that would be the final plat process, if there were modifications to the depths of those lots at that location, that would not be considered a significant change and that it could be approved -- not necessarily approved at a staff level, but not be required to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional -- additional approval of the plat if those lot depths change. De Weerd: Now do I understand from your comments that the subdivision will do that buffer area? McKinnon: The subdivision shows the 30 foot landscape buffer in that area. Have to break out the landscape plan for that to show if -- Becky, do you know off the top of your head? Becky? Becky is actually able to address that. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 46 of 53 De Weerd: The Public Hearing was closed. Bird: No. It's open. McKinnon: It's still open. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor, Council Member De Weerd, the applicant has indicated that we will work with the fire department if they need a little more depth in order to make that work. I think we sized it at 250 by 250, which was the criteria they gave us. We have already taken off for future right of way, we have already showed a 30 foot landscape buffer in front of it. The applicant said they would be glad to build that 30 foot landscape buffer along that frontage, as long as they knew where they wanted those approaches to be for the fire station and we did locate this fire station at a location where we did not think they would have a conflict with approaches across the roadway and that is a donated site also. De Weerd: Okay. So would you be willing to work with the fire department to make whatever necessary adjustments? Bowcutt: Yes. We have got some additional lot depth there that we could allocate to that to make it a little deeper or wider or whatever they need. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Becky, I also notice there was a recommended denial from the police department in the packet and I didn't know if you had any further discussion with them. This was June when this was prepared. Bowcutt: I think -- wasn't that prior to your budget hearing when you allocated some additional monies to the department? At that time we were seeing that type of response on almost all the projects that were being submitted, because I think they were looking for Council's support, trying to make a point that they needed some funding. Nary: And I would agree. I just wondered if you contacted them? Bowcutt: Yes, I -- no, sir, I did not go to speak with them concerning that. They just had concerns about the size of their department. Corrie: Council, any other questions? Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 47 of 53 Bird: I have none. Corrie: No other questions from Council, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Nary: So moved. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Okay. Well, I don't want to -- if Council doesn't have any objection. Moss: I apologize. I just had one more thing to say. Corrie: Okay. Moss: And that is that it seems to me that the developers and the city work together very well and the developers in this city get just about everything they want and that's kind of my little city out there and if I ever decided to sell that piece of property, as was mentioned in this meeting earlier, things change. Real estate agents say different things, all the complexities have changed, and this being a ways out, if I decide to sell this piece of property in the next four or five years, I'd like to be able to hand somebody a document that says this is what's going to happen, this is what they are going to do, this is what the City Council and the developer decided on. That's all I have. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Corrie: All right. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move we close the Public Hearing for the request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Daniel Gibson, south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 02-010, Lochsa Falls Subdivision, annexation and zoning. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Okay. The Public Hearing is closed on AZ 02-010. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 48 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing for PP 02-009, request for preliminary plat approval of 856 building lots and 59 other lost on 354.38 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for the proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Daniel Gibson, south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on request for preliminary plat PP 02-009. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing for CUP 02-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 862 single family dwellings, 171 multi-family dwellings, 11 office buildings, one commercial building, one fire station lot, one city park and one private park for the proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Daniel Gibson, south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit 02-012. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: I believe we will take them one at a time. The request for annexation and zoning. Comments? Discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: You know, this is a great development and I think the Planning and Zoning Commission has resolved a lot of the issues. I don't think that making a separate document for Mr. Moss, if he chooses to sell his property, is a big issue. Some of the other items have been resolved. I guess I question why on earth we went through this Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 49 of 53 North Meridian Planning Area if the area is all planned before we ever see a plan. That's my primary concern when we entered into the -- the process with the development community and Mr. Wardle. There were some extremely important issues in front of the city, as they continue to be, that this plan was the answer. This development fits everything that that planning effort is being directed to, but I still question why are we doing the North Meridian Plan if we continue to approve subdivision after subdivision and before we even see that plan it's all going to be zoned and annexed and whatever recommendations will come out of it, really is all speculation at this point, but I do think that this development, as proposed, is conforming to everything we wanted. So I'm really at odds within myself, just because I do believe that it conforms to everything we wanted to accomplish. They have the open space, they have great amenities, they have mixed use, they have a fire station identified, it resolves -- and the presentation showed how the impact will be mitigated with tax collection, impact fees, and we can put, of course, the same requirements that whatever ACHD comes up with from the North Meridian Planning effort can be adhered to by the subdivision, I just still question how we can continue forward with these subdivisions when that plan is not complete. I don't mean to say that to sit on the fence, because I would like to approve this, but it does provide a little conflict. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: And I guess I'm sort of in the same quandary as well. And I agree with Council Member de Weerd, I think this is a very good project and I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the developer in trying to mitigate the impact of this development that would be of any concern to anybody and the green space I think is a terrific addition to the city. I am concerned about the north Meridian area and I'm also concerned about schools and I hear -- and, again, the school isn't here and that's their choice and there is an informal agreement between the city and the school district as to who gets there first gets the piece of the pie and I guess I'm just bothered that -- that we have a policy in place and a practice in place that we are going to build something that's going to add two or three thousand residents to the city and I don't know where the elementary school is at all. I don't know have a clue where it's going to be. The school district isn't here to answer that, because they have opted not to fight us over the same area of ground and I think the policy has some sense to it, but when you're talking about 800 homes, it doesn't compute, it just doesn't -- it doesn't work for me to say the elementary school might be three miles away from this, for all we know, and that concerns me. But, again, I don't want to fault Lochsa Falls, they put in a great effort here and it's not their fault that the city and the school district have come up with this agreement. So I'm not -- I guess I'm torn as well, because I think it's a good development and I think this is certainly much more positive than anything that detracts from it, but it concerns me, because I have people telling me all the time why do we approve these things when there is no schools anywhere near it and there is no property taken into account for that. So I guess I'm torn. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 50 of 53 Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: A couple items. I think that this plan is -- what they have shown here conforms very well with the north Meridian plan. I think that it would come in as this development shows here. Mr. Nary is concerned about schools. I am, too. Very much so. The school would be here if they didn't have some ground located out there. The biggest problem, as I see, they worry about the City of Meridian worrying about development for the schools, but I think about 29 percent of the students are within the City of Meridian. Boise, Star, Eagle contribute a lot more students to the school district than Meridian -- than Meridian does. So I, for one, think this is a nice jump start in the north Meridian area. All the planning and stuff that I have seen in North Meridian's Plan, the unit is that, I, for one, don't think that within a year it's going to develop and we are going to have all 800 and some houses and stuff like that. I think this will probably be closer to a ten year overall development. At that point there is other land around there that I'm sure the school district, if they need an elementary school, can purchase. I think it's an ideal location for a park and I, for one, think that it's a nice, well-planned development that ten, 12 years from now the City of Meridian would be very proud of. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I certainly agree with Councilmen de Weerd and Nary on their concerns and mine are -- the study of the Ten Mile area out there -- or the north Meridian area was also including the roads and I'm wondering where in the world they are going to put all the traffic in a large development like this, if they don't include widening the roads as they go. I mean you have Chinden is two lane, Ten Mile is ten lane and McMillan is ten lane -- or two lane and Linder is two lanes. That's my biggest concern right now. But I agree, it's a marvelous development. Everything we wanted out there. But I agree with Tammy when she says why are we going through this North Meridian Plan if we don't complete it before we put these projects in? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I do have a question for staff. On the phasing of this project, where are they starting from and how is it flowing? McKinnon: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, it's somewhat counter-intuitive. The sewer line is going to be starting from the west side of the project and then moving to the east. However, the project would be phasing from the east towards the west, towards the north and south. The first phase is approximately in this location. I'm sure you have a copy of the preliminary plat that has the phase lines Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 51 of 53 drawn on that. I believe the second phase -- Becky can nod along with me. This is the first phase, approximately second phase in this location and then the third and fourth phases and then they kind of branch out from there into the numerous other phases. It's a multiple phase project and, like you said, there is ten phases and -- oh, yeah, ten years. I don't know the exact number of phases, but this is approximately a ten year project. It's a very large project De Weerd: So they’re phasing in where it's not even contiguous to that? McKinnon: That's correct. De Weerd: You know, I guess at this point, rather than to -- I just don't feel comfortable denying it at this point. I would like -- because I like the project. I would like to hear from the school district. I would like to have Council consider reopening the Public Hearing for two things. One would be to get a response from the school district on what the school -- where a school would be sited in this square mile. If they have plans and if negotiations are in effect, what have you. The second item would be in reference to the north Meridian planning effort. Where are we in that effort? What recommendations are coming out that would reflect that. I do agree with Mr. Bird, as I stated before, I believe this is in conformance with everything the North Meridian Plan has attempted to do, but I would like to know kind of where we are in roads, because like Council McCandless stated, that was one of the primary issues of the North Meridian Plan. So those are the two items I would like to specifically open the Public Hearing for, limit testimony to those items, and try to get some answers to make us feel a little bit more comfortable with moving ahead with this. Nary: Is that a motion? De Weerd: That would be a motion. If there isn't anymore discussion, I would move that we reopen the Public Hearing, specifically for response from the school district as far as placement of an elementary school in this area to service this square mile and, two, to get an update on the North Meridian Plan and what recommendations are coming forward with the traffic impacts in particular. McCandless: Second. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Okay. We have a motion made and seconded. Mr. Nary. Nary: Councilwoman de Weerd, on the North Meridian Plan -- and I don't -- and I also don't know where we are at in that, but on the roadway issues would it be something for both of those things that if we were to set this matter over for a week or two weeks and then ask either the school district -- or both the school district and either a representative from the North Meridian Planning Group or ACHD to come to the Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 52 of 53 Pre-Council before that meeting to give us that or have that scenario on either one of those -- I mean that's fine. De Weerd: I would like that at the hearing. Nary: That's fine. De Weerd: Where the public regularly comes and a representative of the school district -- Nary: Would the Highway District be okay, if that's -- I don't know where the north Meridian plan is, or the people that are involved with that, but the Highway District would have that same conversation as to road planning and they are part of that North Meridian Planning Group as well. De Weerd: And I think Becky has been involved with the North Meridian Plan more in depth. So what ACHD can't give us, Becky can, and the school district can be here to respond, too. Nary: Okay. Corrie: Just to clarify the motion, Mrs. de Weerd, is this a motion to reopen the Public Hearing and continue it to a limited input from the North Meridian group and the school, as well as ACHD? Is that -- De Weerd: Yes. Specifically to those issues only. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is that opening all three? De Weerd: Yes. It would need to be, since it would be pretty much a part of all three applications, in particular zoning and annexation. You can't do much if you haven't approved zoning and annexation. Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, let me restate that to make sure that we have got it on record here. The motion made by Ms. de Weerd is to have the three -- all three public hearings reopened and continued to have limited testimony from the north Meridian group, the school, and ACHD, all -- De Weerd: And probably need a date. Corrie: A date. Meridian City Council Meeting September 24, 2002 Page 53 of 53 De Weerd: Would one -- two weeks -- would need to be two weeks. Corrie: So October the 8th? De Weerd: So to October 8th. Corrie: All right. You have heard the motion as stated. Be October the 8th. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye? Opposed no? Bird: Nay. Corrie: Okay. It's three to one. Then we will have the Public Hearing continued on October the 8th and for the input from the north Meridian area people and the school and ACHD. Okay. And with that, that does conclude the agenda for tonight. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we adjourn. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourn . All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:02 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED ___________________________ / / ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTEST: ___________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK