Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 02-18 Meridian City Council Meetina Februarv 18. 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, February 18, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie. Members Present: William Nary, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless. Others Present: William Nichols, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Brad Watson, Ken Bowers, Bill Musser, Dean Willis, and Will Berg Item 1. Roll call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie Corrie: All right. I will open the Meridian City Council Regular Meeting, Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. and at this time, I'd like to have roll call attendance, please. City Clerk. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Okay. Item 2 will be the Adoption of the Agenda. Council, any additions, corrections, changes to the agenda? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Item 8 on the agenda has been requested by the developer to be moved until February 25, 2003. That's the Gemtone Center Subdiyision Public Hearing, and the Baltic Place Subdivision -- we just got that. What are they - oh, they request for two weeks on February 4th. I guess that's -- with that, I would -- with that one change. I would move that we adopt the agenda as published. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of January 14, 2003 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Dog License Agreement with Treasure Valley Veterinary Clinic: Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 2 0121 C. Dog License Agreement with Meridian Veterinary Clinic: D. Dog License Agreement with Intermountain Pet Hospital: E. Dog License Agreement with Pet Care Clinic: F. Resolution No. 03-399: Establishing a Cash Receipts Procedure Policy for the Finance Department for the City of Meridian: G. Baldwin Park Subdivision No.1 Streetlight Agreement: H. Cedar Springs Subdivision No.1 Streetlight Agreement: I. Approve I Award Bid for Drilling of Exploratory Test Well for Well No. 25: J. Approve Change Order for Well No. 14 Modifications - Star Construction: K. Agreement for Services, CiYiI Survey Consultants - Victory Road Water Main Design: L. License Agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District - Five Mile Drain Water Main Crossing: Corrie: Item Number 3 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as noted and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approye the -- all items on the Consent Agenda, A through L. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Department Reports Corrie: Number 4, Department Reports. Are there any Department Reports? Meridian City Council Meeting February 18. 2003 Page 3 of 21 Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Corrie: Okay. Moye to Item 5. There are no items moyed from the Consent Agenda. Item 6. Ordinance No. RZ 02-008 Request for a Rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R-40 zones for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell- 1425 Northeast 5th Street: Corrie: Item Number 6 is an ordinance. Number, please? 03-1010. Okay. If the City Clerk would read Ordinance Number 03-1010 by title only at this point. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1010, an Ordinance finding that the owners Creekside Arbour II, LLC, of certain real property generally known as 1425 Northeast 5th Street, has made a request -- excuse me -- has made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property that lies within the boundaries within the City of Meridian from R-15, Medium High Density District, to R-40, High Density Residential District -- Zoning District as defined under Meridian City Code Section 11-2-7 -2F, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho. Corrie: Okay. You haye heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1010, request for rezone. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to -- on the request. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve Ordinance 03-1010, request for a rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R-40 zones for the proposed Creekside Arbour II and to have the Mayor sign and Clerk attest, with suspension of rules. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approye the Ordinance Number 03-1010. Any other discussion? Okay. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Ordinance Number 03-1 010 is approyed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 4,2003: VAR 03-002 Request for a Variance to allow a one year Time Extension for filing the Final Plat for Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 4 of 21 Baltic Place Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., for LC Development, Inc. - south of East Franklin Road, west of South Locust Grove Road: Corrie: Item Number 7 is a Continued Public Hearing from February 4, 2003. This is a request for a Variance to allow a one-year time extension for filing the Final Plat for Baltic Place Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, south of East Franklin Road and west of South Locust Grove Road. At this time, I will continue the Public Hearing and Council -- have the P&Z Director -- acting director. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The Council's request or direction to staff at your February 4th meeting on this item was to look into a little bit more detail on the delays. If you recall, there was discussion oriented around the timing of the development agreement submittal to the applicant for signature and, then, a subsequent approval of the ordinance and how that might have related to the timing of the plat. The project -- I'm sorry. The City Clerk's office -- you should have received a memo by Sharon Smith, February 13th. She did provide a little background there as to the timing involved with Mr. Jon Wardle, who was at first working with Lee Centers on this project and, then, it changed over to Pinnacle Engineers. Sharon basically summarizes her memo by saying that she doesn't see how the delay in the timing was tied to the staff. I would point out that she also doesn't have a specific written record of when the Development Agreement was given to the applicant by the Clerk's Office, so there is a little bit of a question mark there. You did receive, just prior to this meeting tonight, a letter from Clint Boyle of Pinnacle Engineers, who also was giving a little bit of background on the timing. I did look into all of the Variances that the City Council has approved over the last three years. There have been eight time extension approvals given by the Council over the last three years since the beginning of 2000. Hartford Subdivision, Gemtone Subdivision, Merchant's Plaza Subdivision, Pintail Point, Turtle Creek No.3, Ashford Greens, Pack-It- Up Subdivision, and Olson-Bush Subdivision. All of those have received Variance approval. Of those eight, only two of them related to the submittal of the Final Plat. When we say Variances for Time Extensions, there is -- sometimes the Time Extension is for recording of the plat, Council's already approved it, and, then, we just give them one year to record. Then, sometimes the extension is for submittal of the Final Plat application so, six of the eight were for recording -- well, I'm sorry, five of them were for recording of the subdivision. One was for three -- and, then, three were for Final Plat submittals. This application for Baltic Place Subdivision is for Final Plat submittal. As Clint points out in his letter, you know, the findings have been fairly -- fairly broad that we have made when issuing these Variances and I think we heard last time -- at least I heard Council saying let's maybe try and think of another avenue to handle these, rather than just Variances. You know, these are either going to go null and void at the time or there has been maybe a waiver, maybe an appeal, we need to look into that, but at this point we do have a Variance application before us and it is for submittal of the Final Plat. I think certainly the case can be made, after looking at these last three years, that most of them had some reason that there was a problem with recording of the subdivision or submittal of the Final Plat. Maybe there was an easement that they couldn't get from the city or were trying to work out with the city -- drainage easement was one of them. The Highway District, in terms of working out the right-of-way dedication, that's been a part of it. If we were just to compare the previous eight with Baltic Place, I don't really see a substantial difference. I Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 5 of 21 mean Baltic Place has just as much reason as the others. Unless you have any other questions, I think that's what I had found. Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Any questions of Brad? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Brad, my recollection is that when we have granted these extensions, the extension is from when it was originally required to be submitted for one year from that date. Not from now, but from when it was originally supposed to have been done, In this situation, if we grant the year, it's still October of 2003 would that be correct? Hawkins-Clark: That would be -- yes. Right. Nary: It looked like that was the original date was October of 2001 was when it was submitted initially, so they had until October 2002. Now they want to have another year, so it would be October 2003. Corrie: Any other questions? This is a Public Hearing. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Boyle: It is. Corrie: Name and address, please. Boyle: Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho, I appreciate this opportunity to meet in front of you again on this project for Baltic Place for the time extension. We have -- I have been in contact with the City Clerk's Office and the information they have been gathering, as well as with the staff, Brad, and working through some of the issues on this. Brad did a very nice job in summarizing the Variances that have been approved. He, actually, has a spreadsheet that he prepared on the different Variances and I'd just point out that all eight of those Variances for Time Extensions have, actually, been approved within the past two years. He went back three years. The Variances have been all approved in the past two years. This particular project had a little bit of a history behind it, but before I get into that, I submitted a letter this evening. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points and Councilman Nary, I think, hit on one of them that I'd like to touch on. Basically, what I have submitted in front of you is the fact that there have been other Variances approved in the past for Time Extensions and that's typically how the Council has approached these when, for whatever reason, somebody is extended beyond their one-year time for submittal or recording. When we went through the research, the majority of those Variances were for a one - year period from the time that they were -- that they were up, so to speak. With that, the developer is indicating that he will back off and accept just the one year time period. As you recall from the last hearing, he was looking for two years originally. After looking through the other Variances that have been approved, this seems to be more in line with Council's actions previously on this type of request. He is only requesting a one-year extension and, again, that would be Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 6 of 21 from the October -- October 2nd date. Thank you. Some of the other items that have been brought up in the original request were related to ACHD issues and improvements on that roadway. As far as ACHD being in the process of obtaining right of way this year along Franklin Road in front of this property and others. In the fact they would be under construction in 2004 as a projected date on that, other factors that have come into place on this, obviously, were explained at the last meeting and that was some discrepancies in when the Development Agreement and annexation actually were adopted by ordinance. The history behind that, the City Clerk's Office did submit the memo. Again, nobody has a clear paper trail track record of who sent what when and when it was received. The City Clerk's Office indicated that they send these out -- send out the Development Agreements right after the hearing in their memo. I agree that that is what I have often seen from their office. In this instance, they don't have any record of it. The developer is under the impression that he never received it. Personally, I don't know who did what when, but, obviously, there were some discrepancies with that occurring. Not only that, but the original firm that the developer was working with, essentially, dissolved, disbanded their engineering practice with outside clients. Typically, the way these projects are tracked are by the engineering firm or the representative for the applicant, so I can certainly see how this was one that may have somewhat been lost in the shuffle with that circumstance as well. Based on the facts that have been presented at the last hearing, some of the testimony that we have heard tonight and at that hearing and the information from the staff then, reviewing the findings from other projects, we certainly believe that this is in line and an appropriate request for a Variance and believe that the justification that's been presented is an adequate finding in comparison to other Variances that have been processed. With that, I would stand for any questions and would respectfully request for your approval of the Variance for the time extension. Thank you. Corrie: Questions of Council? Pretty clear. You have approved all of those others that we talked about. Okay. Boyle: Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Council, any questions on the Public Hearing? If none, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Council, discussion? The question is to extend this until 2003 -- October 2, 2003, extension. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Mertdian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 7 of 21 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I'm not one to do something just because we always have, I am interested in taking a look at this Variance process and making a clear expectation and really setting policy that we can live by and like -- I think like Brad stated in his beginning, This seems like a reasonable request at this point, pending a better policy, and so I -- if no one had any other comments, I would go ahead and make a motion. Corrie: Step right up. De Weerd: Okay. I would move that we approve the request for a one-year time extension for the filing of Final Plat for Baltic Place Subdivision to October 2, 2003. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. No sense having Lee go through that whole process again. Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Public Hearing: PP 02-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 12.081 acres in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision No.5 (formerly known as No.4) by Thpmas T. Wright - west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue: Corrie: Item Number 8. There is a request to have this moved until the February the 25th meeting. This is a Public Hearing on a request for Preliminary Plat of Gemtone Center. Is there anyone here that wanted to issue testimony on this, this evening that cannot come the 25th? Okay. Council, the question, then, is to move this request for Preliminary Plat approval until the meeting on the 25th of March -- or February. Excuse me. Item 8. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we move the Public Hearing PP 02-028, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of seven building lots and one other lot on 12.081 acres in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision No.5, formerly known as No.4, by Thomas T. Wright, west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue to February 25, 2003. We haven't opened it, have we, Mayor? Corrie: I haven't opened it yet. Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 8 0121 Bird: No. We are not continuing it. We are just -- De Weerd: Do we have to repost it, though? Corrie: Well, we don't have to repost it if we continue it. Do you want to continue it? Bird: We have to open it. Nary: So, we should open the Public Hearing -- Bird: Okay. You open it, then, and, then we will -- Corrie: Okay. All right. Sorry about that. Okay. I will open the Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat by Gemtone Center. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to issue testimony at this time? Hearing none, Mr. Bird, your motion to -- Bird: I would move that we continue the Public Hearing PP 02-028, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of seven building lots and one other lot on 12.081 acres in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision No.5, formerly known as No.4, by Thomas T. Wright, west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue, to February 25th, 2003. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded twice. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. Item 10. Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 02-027 Request for zoning boundary modification of R-40 and C-C zones on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Public Hearing: PP 02-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.76 acres in proposed R-40 and C-C zones for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Public Hearing: CUP 02-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 74 townhouses and 2 office/commercial lots on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council Meeting February 18. 2003 Page 9 of 21 Corrie: All right. Item Number 9. This is 9, 10, and 11, with Council's approval, and not hearing any objections, I will open the Public Hearing on all three at this time. The first Public Hearing is a request for zoning and boundary modifications of R-40 and C-C zone on 11,76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. Item 10, a Public Hearing, is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 11 other lots at the Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. Item Number 11 is a Public Hearing, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development of 74 townhouses and two office commercial lots on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, Hearing no objections, I will open the Public Hearing on Items 9, 10, and 11 and invite staff's comments first and, then, we will have the -- Mr. Wardle will be here. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Item Number 9 on the annexation and zoning. What we have on this item is, essentially, an amendment of the boundary that's already been approved and the property is, actually, already annexed, The three existing parcels are here. Fairview Avenue is just to the north of the project. The auto- wrecking yard is in between Fairview and the north boundary. There are, actually, two waterways that kind of course along the north boundary as well, the Jackson -- the Jackson Drain and -- what's the other one? Settler's, right, Settler's. Thank you. Locust Grove Road is the frontage for the project. Locust Grove Road is in the Ada County Highway District's five - year work program for construction in 2006, this particular section. The Penn Station Apartments, also developed by the same developer, Lee Centers, is to the west. Here is the outline of the current division of the annexation or the zoning on the property. 9.1 acres is for residential. That was where the 180 - apartment complex was approved and, then, they had 2.9 acres with the Locust Grove frontage. That had, I believe, six commercial office lots. The proposed modification shrinks that commercial area to just around -- just around .8 acres. This is the area just right off of Locust Grove that would become the new boundary for the C-C and the rest would remain R-40. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended approval of that change. Item Number 10 on the Preliminary Plat, there are two points of ingress and egress to the subdivision. All the streets are proposed to be private. The commercial -- there are two commercial lots that would be within that modified C-C area that are here in the center of the project that would take access off of Locust Grove Road and, then, there is a parking lot between the landscape buffer and two proposed buildings here. They do have 74 building lots. They are proposing all townhouses for the project. The Scrivener Avenue is to the south. Locust Grove Place that - when it was previously approved, did not extend Scrivener as a vehicle - vehicular access. It was allowed to be platted as a pedestrian micro path. They have proposed to keep that same micro path and not extend Scrivener. The Highway District has granted that waiver. The Highway District has also granted a waiver for the distance for the offset of the private drives on this project. They are proposing to extend the pathway system that Penn Station has already built. It's an asphalt, 10-foot wide, and they are proposing to continue that all along the Jackson that would, then, come and hook up with the Locust Grove sidewalk. On the Conditional Use Permit, Item Number 11, they are proposing a few modifications to the zoning and subdivision ordinance as part of the Planned Development. They are looking for 18 and a half-foot front setbacks, instead of 20-foot, so it would, essentially, be 20-foot from the front sidewalk, but 18 and a half from the property line. Street side setbacks, they are Mertdian City Council Meeting February 18. 2003 Page 10 of 21 proposing a change from 20-foot to 10-foot. Then, the zero common shared walls for their townhouses are actually allowed, but that is also a part of their Conditional Use Permit. The lots range from about 3,500 to 6,700 square feet. They have a density of about 6.3 dwelling units per acre in the project. If Council chooses to move on this tonight, the latest plat is dated February 13th so, please, reference that date. There were two other plats that have been submitted. There was a position statement also submitted by Dave McKinnon that we request be referenced in any motion that you make. He points out, mainly, that the revised February 13th plat complies with the Planning and Zoning Commission's changes and their requested changes and modifications. Probably the main point of discussion that was somewhat unresolved out of the Planning and Zoning Commission had to do with fencing along this north boundary. Again, there is that 10-foot wide asphalt path that continues along the drain. The applicant is looking to have six-foot fencing along these townhouse lots here. The pathway is not deemed a micro path under our ordinance, so we do not have an ordinance that requires a four-foot fence. As a Planned Development, for safety reasons, that was discussed and recommended by staff, It was discussed at the Commission. They kind of left it up to Council and the Final Plat process as to whether or not the six-foot fence along that path would be appropriate or if the shorter fence -- or a clear vision -- open vision fence. The last slide is an elevation of the product type that they are looking at for this development. Two car garages and shared frontage entry side by side. I think that's alii have as a summary. Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Are there any questions from Council for Brad? Okay. Is the applicant here? Mr. Wardle. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Wardle: It is. Corrie: Name, please. Wardle: Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Millstation Drive in Boise. It's a pleasure to be here in front of you this evening. I think Brad did a very good job of capsulizing the project. Originally, it was an apartment project with a little bit more commercial. We have scaled that back to a townhouse project and with two office buildings. With these townhouses as well we have a number of these -- there is 22 townhouses, but they will just be single units, they won't be attached, they won't share a common wall, and I think the other 56 or 52 would be attached units, so there is kind of a mix of -- they just won't all be two units in a row, there will be a variety of singles and doubles. When we put the project together, one of the first things that Lee told me was we are going to connect that path all the way to Locust Grove, because they did at Penn Station and that's the promise that I made, so we made sure that we created enough space up there to have that pathway come along, as well as providing -- continuing to provide that micro path connection to Danbury Sub to the south, as was proposed with the original application. I really don't have much more to add than that, other than staff's been very helpful on this application and we request your approval, as well as including Mr. McKinnon's comments made in this position statement. I stand for any questions you might have for me. Corrie: Mr. Wardle, I had one. I'm sure they will have some. The six-foot and four-foot fence, what are you proposing to do there, six-foot or four-foot? Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 11 of 21 Wardle: We are asking for a six-foot fence and the reason that we are -- it's just given -- given the nature of that pathway, it's going to be more regional in nature. It won't be necessarily for the benefit -- although our residents can use it, it's going to really be connecting neighborhoods across and through, so we are just asking for the opportunity to do a six foot fence along there, if those individual owners choose to. Corrie: Okay. Council? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: So, you want to do the six-foot open vision fence? Wardle: No. Six-foot solid. De Weerd: You didn't hear the choice. Open vision or four-foot. Wardle: Mr. Mayor-- De Weerd: If you had a preference -- Wardle: If we had a preference, the preference would be a six-foot solid fence. Not to say that some may choose to do a four - foot site obscuring. Some might choose to do an open. It's really, I guess, a function of homeowner preference. I mean the fencing will be -- it will be a similar fencing all the way across. We just feel strong about the six-foot fence. De Weerd: I guess the concern is with that angle in there, you don't have clear open vision down it, and it is a safety factor. I also understand your point that it's more regional and it's not like a micro path, but it has the same issues that come along with a micro path and that is if you don't create the vision in kind of feeling, there is things that could happen. I think a neighbor would rather have the open vision and have more that deterrent, than create something that they don't want going on behind their fence, Certainly, the city doesn't want to set that up for it. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I might. Would the Council be looking for a completely open fence, so if it's a six-foot fence, you know, will it be completely open or is there a site obscuring component to that? De Weerd: I think that we saw a really good example just last week in Bridgetower. It wasn't -- it wasn't totally -- it wasn't solid, but you could see the shadows through. What would that have been qualified, a description of that fence, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Semi-private. De Weerd: Thank you. Semi-private. Meridian City Council Maating February 18, 2003 Page 12 0121 Nary: Quasi-open. De Weerd: Quasi-open fence. Wardle: If I might, just to clarify, the bottom half solid, with an open part on top or are we talking split rail -- or not split rail, but -- Corrie: I think it was four-foot and, then, you can have two-foot of lattice-type work so, you would have a four-foot fence, but you also have a six-foot fence, but they can see through the two-foot on the top. That was what was shown. Nary: In addition, the Bridgetower was that the bottom of the fencing had space in the fencing itself. De Weerd: It's was kind of slatted. Wardle: Along the top? Nary: So, it wasn't like your normal slatted fence that the slates are right adjacent to each other, but they are -- there was a two inch gap between them. I mean there is a fairly significant gap between them. You can see through the four-foot bottom, as well as the two-foot lattice top. Wardle: Give me just one second. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Is this the only rendering we have of the plat? Okay. I mean I know it's in on here, but is this the only -- Hawkins-Clark: To project it is. Nary: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: It is the only one we have. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if we could have a four-foot solid with a two-foot open -- you know, we may choose to do the lattice, but at least the bottom four feet be completely solid, I think we can do that. Corrie: It's better than a six-foot solid so many things can go back in the pathway that neighbors will eventually get onto us and the developer, so it's a lot better if you don't have the solid six foot. Okay any other questions? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting February 18. 2003 Page 130f21 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess last week -- or whenever we had the earlier conversation, the idea of the four-foot was palatable, because you still had -- it wasn't solid -- I guess with the lattice on top you still have some kind of screening. It still is not a real good vision into the pathway itself, so the way they had slatted that -- and it might have even been less than a two-inch opening. It was -- it would still give you a sense of privacy, but you could still see shadows or something passing by, and the question on that one was can we have the lattice on top, would that qualify. Well, because it wasn't a solid four-foot fence, it was more palatable. Anyway, that's the way my impression was coming out of it. I think even with the solid four-foot and putting the two-foot lattice on, is not sufficient. You know, if you have a solid fence, it's four-foot with nothing on top. If you want to do the six-foot with the lattice - two-foot of lattice, the bottom still has to have some sense of -- that you know what's behind there. That's my personal opinion, just to preserve the integrity of what those requirements were put on and those were keeping safety in mind. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, just to clarify. As I understand it, the option would be if we do a six- foot fence, there just -- from top to bottom there needs to be some visual ability through that fence, or if we do a four-foot fence, can it be site obscuring for that four feet, but nothing on top is that correct? Those would be the options? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Could you show me again exactly where the pathway is and where the fencing would be? Is it just that top eastern portion that comes and connects into that private road? Corrie: Take the mike over there, Mr. Wardle. Kind of point out there -- can you help him, Brad, with the arrow along there? There is the path. Wardle: Mr. Nary, can you just restate your question? Nary: I guess my question is -- just so I'm clear, where exactly is the pathway -- where is the fencing going to be in connection to Penn Station. That's where the rest of the path is; correct? Wardle: Correct. Up here is the common boundary between Penn Station and Locust Grove Place. The pathway comes right here and, then, it drops down -- sorry for being shaky here. There is a -- so it hugs pretty close up here along the entire way and, then, it just drops down to this point. The fencing would be here. Nary: And the fencing on the boundary to the northern property, the junk yard there, would just be a solid fence? Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 14 of 21 Wardle: There currently exists a solid fence along that complete area. We are talking a bout -- Bird: There is a drain ditch there, too, isn't there? Wardle: Pardon? Bird: There is a drain ditch there, too, isn't there? Wardle: There is. The Jackson is between us and that -- and their property and the fencing that we are talking about is right here, as well as right here. Nary: And the fencing that you're talking about -- I guess one of the things that we have had some issues regarding these pathways is that by having every property owner along that put in whatever fencing they feel like, four-foot, six-foot, whatever, it varies all the way down the pathway. Is that the intent here is to just let each property owner put a four or six-foot fence at their preference? Wardle: Let me turn a couple seconds over to Lee Centers and he can address this. Nary: And the reason I ask is because I thought you said we will leave it up to each individual property owner. That's what I'm unclear about. Wardle: We haven't put together the fencing plan yet, so, really, whatever that is, it will be detailed at Final Plat, but - Nary: Okay. Wardle: -- let's let Lee just address this issue and put it to rest. Nary: Great. Thank you. Bird: Lee Centers, 320 -- Corrie: Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Centers: I do. Corrie: Name and address, please. Centers: Lee Centers, 325 Meridian Street. No, I will install the fence all the way down, but that is a junkyard, and even though the city regrets Intermountain Arms leaving, that was a trash pile back there, loud speakers and all this. These are individually owned, these are all their patios, and I would prefer a six-foot high fence if I can or a minimum of a four-foot solid fence. This is not as beautiful back there as you think it is. There is dumpsters and cars stacked up higher than the fence next door and the people that are going through there -- it's not exactly residents, they can anybody. I feel an obligation to Meridian City Council Meeting February 18. 2003 Page1S of 21 these homeowners, even though there is a pathway through there, it's a bit like backing up to a busy road or a greenbelt and they are not all great citizens. If I were to have a barbecue back there, I would want a screened fence. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Lee, if you -- this fence we are referring to is over in Bridgetower and it really did a nice job of screening. It would filter out some of those harsher visions of what you're trying to cover up, but still provide a sense of security the way they had it. We could leave it somewhat open-ended if -- by saying if you have it a six-foot, it would be a four-foot open -- semi-open vision fence with the lattice - two-foot lattice on top, or you could do your solid four-foot fence. We could leave it up to you. The fencing that we saw a couple weeks ago was very attractive and I think it could screen that, because I do understand your point. You don't want your residents looking out on that, but we are trying to also look for not only their interests, but also the public's interest in making sure that that pathway has a sense of security on it, too. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes. I think, Mr. Centers, I mean a lot of the points that you raise are the main reClson why we want to have vision into that pathway, because it is open to the public, it's not just the residents of this subdivision, but -- because it connects to the apartment complex. It connects to Locust Grove, that it may be used by a number of different people, all the more reason we want to make sure the people can see in that, because you can't see it from one end to the other like a micro path. If you don't have that, that's the eyes and ears to help make sure there isn't problems. It isn't because we think it's pretty over there, because I understand what you're saying, but I think that those are the eyes and ears to make sure there is not problems, trash accumulation, those are the people that are going to see that. If they wall themselves off from it, they won't care what happens on the other side of that fence and that's not what we really want to have. Centers: Okay but we can do a four-foot solid fence, if we didn't put anything on top? Nary: Right. Centers: That fence you guys are talking about in Bridgetower -- Nary: Right there. See right there? Centers: -- is nice, but that's probably a 25 dollar a foot fence and there is -- those homes there are a little different price than what ours are going to be. Corrie: But the people will still want their privacy whether it's a 25-dollar or more square foot fence or not. If I were going to live over there, I would rather have a fence like that, Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 16 of21 than a four foot solid. It's going to give me a little more privacy. That's my own personal opinion. Not everybody is going to be that way. That looks like a nice fence and, yet, it gives you the privacy and you don't see all of that. That's -- we will give you -- well, we haven't done it yet, but it sounds like one of them wants to give you an option of a four- foot solid. You can see over the top of it and see everything back there or a six-foot and have a lattice in the fence and kind of a lot more house, so -- Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think the problem that you have, Mr. Centers, if you put a four-foot fence there, that probably would solve your problem for today, but we wouldn't allow those people to build another fence. I think if you're - if I was living there, I would have the inclination to want to build another fence. Again, provide me a little bit more personal feeling of security or at least some separateness between this pathway and we wouldn't let them do that. You know, I think this type of fencing -- style of fencing -- obviously, it doesn't have to be this vinyl fencing like that, but that type of fencing, the intent is just being able just to have some vision through that. Again, those people along that pathway, they are going to be the best protectors of that security of that pathway than anybody else. Corrie: But we also have to look out for the citizens and there could be some probability of anything going on back there. If the citizens can see it, it won't happen that much, so -- but that's a nice fence. I have got -- Centers: I'll grant you, that is a nice fence. De Weerd: Nice price, too. Bird: And a nice price. Corrie: Yes. I have got one and know what it costs. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Thank you. If you could just give us that flexibility, we can put together a plan and bring that back with the Final Pial. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Wardle? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Corrie: Is there anybody else from the audience that would like to issue testimony at this time? Okay. Hearing none, Council, any questions for the Public Hearing? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing, then, on 9, 10, and 11, Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 17 of21 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Move to close the Public Hearing. Corrie: Motion has been made. Is there a second? Bird: Second. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the request for modification, Preliminary Plat, and request for Conditional Use Permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Further discussion? Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't have a lot of discussion. I think we have probably said it all. I guess the only thing that would concern to me is, like I just said to Mr. Centers, if they build a four - foot solid fence, they can't build another one. They can't have -- they can't double fence this, it defeats the purpose of having it. That would be the only other condition we'd want to add, and, then, provide that alternative of fencing type, so -- Bird: That's correct. Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Bird: I would agree with Mr. Nary on that. Corrie: Okay. Then, if you like, we can start on Item Number 9, that's a request for zoning boundary modifications of R-40 and C-C zones for Locust Grove Place Subdivision. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move the approval of AZ 02-027, request for zoning boundary modification of R- 40 and C-C zones on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, to include all staff comments. I don't think we have any other Mertdian City Council Meeong February 18. 2003 Page 18 of 21 changes on the annexation or the zoning request. For Counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Item Number 10, request for Preliminary Plat. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary, Nary: I'd move the approval PP 02-026, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.76 acres in a proposed R-40 and C-C zones for the proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, to include all staff comments, including the position statement of Mr. McKinnon that's included in our packet. I don't see a date on this. Oh, there it is 13th of February 2003. To include the plat submitted as of the 13th of February, also 2003. I don't believe the fencing is part of this one. Correct. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, sometimes it's best to include on the plat a note with regard to specific lots if there is a restriction, such as fence height, on the face of the plat, because builders might not look at anything other than that plat note that comes -- Nary: That's an excellent suggestion. Nichols: And the -- potentially, the -- well, I guess the covenants could be covered in the CUP also. Nary: That's an excellent suggestion by Mr. Nichols. I would also include in the motion that all of the lots that are along the pathway that extends from Penn Station to the east to Locust Grove have a restriction on them that the fencing would have to be consistent with the Fencing Plan submitted. They could not be more than a four-foot solid fence or a six- foot semi-private open -- or I guess vision able with lattice on -- with lattice on the upper two feet along that pathway. Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 19 of 21 Bird: Second. McCandless: Second. Nary: And I would also like to add, too, that this -- something that we never did say. This is a very nice project. This is a very nice project. I like the change from what it was. I think it's very nice. I think it's a very nice addition. We got hung up on the fencing and never said thanks for bringing something in very nice. Corrie: Yes. All right. Any other -- Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Last is the request for Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Development. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move the approval of CUP 02-041, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 74 townhouses and two office commercial lots on 11.76 acres for the proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. To include all of staff comments, as well as the comments this evening and that also a condition be that the developer, prior to Final Plat, submit a fencing plan for the pathway and that the pathway shall either -- the lots adjacent to the pathway shall either have four-foot solid fencing or six-foot open semi-private, quasi-available-to-be-seen-through vision fencing with lattice on the top. I think all other staff comments, and for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 12. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Mendian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 20 of 21 Corrie: Last on the list are the water, sewer, and trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30, Tuesday, February 18, 2003, before the Mayor and City Council, to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend a claim made by this city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on February the 19th, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present that wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? You are hereby informed that you may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though you do appeal, your water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $25,673.98. Council, you have the list in front of you. Any questions? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turn-off schedule for February the 19th. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr, Bird. Bird: Do we just need the one-day? Corrie: Yes. That's what this -- most of these names, they come in tomorrow and -_ Bird: I would move that we approve the delinquency turn-off list, dated February 19, 2003, which will -- if not paid, will be turned off on February 19, 2003, in the sum of $25,673.98. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: That concludes the City Council agenda this evening. We do have a 7:00 meeting tomorrow for about 15 to 20 minutes and welcome our committee for the review. With that being said, glad to have Keith back with us and happy to be back. Bird: It's a lot nicer than a hospital bed. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. DeWeerd: I move we adjourn. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian City Council Meeting February 18, 2003 Page 21 of21 Corrie: Motion carried at 7:58. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:58 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: , J / 4- / ()3 DATE ATTESTED:~~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, J