HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 03-18Meridian City Council Meeting _„_ March 18, 2008
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, March
18, 2008, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and David
Zaremba.
Members Absent: Jae Barton.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, Tracy Basterrechea, Mark
Niemeyer, Thomas Barry and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba O Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I will go ahead and open tonight's meeting. It is, for the record, Tuesday,
March 18th. It is 7:30. We apologize for the delay in the beginning of this meeting.
When we have Pre-Council it sometimes bleeds aver, so we apologize and thank you
for your patience. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mrs. Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is our pledge of allegiance. We will ask you to,
please, rise and join us in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation:
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is typically our community invocation. Since our pastor is not
here tonight and neither is our backup layman, we will go ahead and skip Item No. 3.
We would ask you, though, to, please, reflect on your place of faith and remember that -
- that we are all a community and we all want the best thing for the City of Meridian.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: So, with that said I will move to Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 1$, 2008
Page 2 of 69
De Weerd: Mr. zaremba.
Zaremba: On the Consent Agenda, Item I, the resolution number is 08-603. Item P has
been requested to move off of the Consent Agenda to Item 8. And item -- on the
regular agenda, Item 12, has been asked to be vacated from the agenda. And Item 22,
the ordinance number is 08-1353. And with those indications, I move that we adopt the
agenda as adjusted.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as changed. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of February 12, 2008 City Council Special
Workshop
B. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting:
C. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Regular City Council
Meeting:
D. Approve minutes of February 26, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: SHP
08-001 Request for a Short Plat to create 4 building lots on 2 acres
in a C-G zone for Destination Place Subdivision No. 2 by Boise
Valley Commons, LLC - 2295 East Cinema Drive:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: SHP
08-002 Request for Short Plat approval for 4 commercial
condominium units in an existing building in an L-O zone for
Medical Millennium Condominium by The Land Group, LLC -
1828 South Millennium Way:
G. Findings of Fact and Gonclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07-
013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone far
Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial,
LLC - NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 3 of 69
West Victory Raad (Lots 2 ~ 3, Black 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1
Subdivision):
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 07-
019 Request far Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking
establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by
Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark:
Resolution No. 08-603 Proposed Fee Increase for
Plannin De artment:
J. Renewal of Contract for Prosecution Services with the., City of
Boise • ~~~~~
K. Chan a Order No. 1 for Black Cat Road Water Main Extension
Phase 2 Design Project with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for
$3,000:
L. Water Main Easement Agreement for EI Dorado Building No. 6
by Kimball Properties:
M. A rove Standard Form of A regiment with Irmin er
Construction for Bower Street Water Main Improvements
Construction Project for $37,774.00:
N. Chan a Order No. 1 of Contract with Treasure Valle Drillin
for Construction of Well 27 for site Grading, Fencing, Artesian
Flow Well Head Assembly and Drilling Material /Labor for
Artesian Well for a Cost Not to Exceed $35,000.00:
O. Public Right of Way Easement between the Citv of Meridian as
Grantor to ACRD for Sid~,walks at the new Meridian Citv Hall:
De Weerd: Item Na. 5.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda with the following notes: That
Item I is resolution number 08-603 and that Item P is removed from the Consent
Agenda. And for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 4 of 69
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? You're removing
Item P to the regular agenda item?
Zaremba: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Since there is no discussion, Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Presentation of City of Meridian 2007„ Environmental Excellence
Award to Sunbelt:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 6 is a presentation of the City of Meridian for the 2007
Environmental Excellence Award and I will ask that our pre-treatment manager, please,
come forward and introduce our business that we want to recognize tonight.
Maneck: Well, thank you. It's my pleasure to introduce Sunbelt Rentals, located at 483
East Franklin Road as a recipient of the 2007 Environmental Excellence Award. This
annual award is presented to a company that displays outstanding environmental efforts
that greatly impact city services and the general public. The specific reason why this
company was selected is because they have built a new building and in that new
structure they put a -- a very nice high tech water reclaim system that's associated with
their operation, their washing of the construction equipment, and they reclaim and use
the same water over and over again. So, we estimated they save several thousand
gallons of water every month. So, that greatly impacts our natural environment and our
city services. Established in 1983 and headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, metro
area, Sunbelt Rental has evolved from a small local operation into the second
equipment rental company in the United States, with sister companies operating
worldwide. Sunbelt Rentals has -- now has aver 450 locations nationwide, including
one hundred Sunbelt Rentals at Lowe's locations. I'm pleased to present the
Environmental Excellence Award plaque to Sunbelt Rentals and Everett Evans, the
project manager, is here to receive that award.
De Weerd: Okay. Everett, I will ask you to come forward and we will both present you
with your plaque. I will read what this plaque says. It's City of Meridian 2007
Environmental Excellence Award, presented to Sunbelt Rental for adopting
environmental friendly practices, equipment, and technologies. This is a very important
program in the City of Meridian. We appreciate the good stewardship your company
has shown and we are thrilled with your new building. You're not a new business to our
community, but we certainly appreciate the standards that you have set, that you have
set the bar high, and we are thrilled to have you in our community. Thank you so much.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 5 of 69
Item 7: Department Reports:
A. Mayor's Office
1. Proclamation for Fair Housing:
De Weerd: Okay. I see we have a couple of Boy Scout troops here. We have
someone from Troop 138. Thank you far joining us. And what troop were -- Troop 28.
Thank you for being with us tonight. Okay. Item No. 7 under departmental report, I do
have a proclamation to read this evening. The proclamation pertains to fair housing and
we have here: Whereas the year 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the passage of
Title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known as the federal Fair Housing Act
and whereas the Idaho Human Rights Commission Act has prohibited discrimination in
housing since 1969 and whereas equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, disability, national origin, is a fundamental goal of our nation, state, and
city and whereas equal access to housing is an important component of this goal, as
fundamental as the right to equal education and employment and whereas housing is a
critical component of family and community health and stability, and whereas housing
choice impacts our children's access to education, our ability to seek and retain
employment options, the cultural benefits we enjoy, the extent of our exposure to crime
and drugs, and the quality of health care we receive in emergencies and whereas the
laws of this nation and our state seek to insurance such equity of choice for all
transactions involving housing, and whereas ongoing education, outreach, and
monitoring are key to raising awareness of fair housing principals, practices, rights and
responsibilities and whereas only through continued cooperation, commitment, and
support of all idahoans can barriers to fair housing be removed. Thereafter, I, Tammy
de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim the importance of fair
housing in the City of Meridian to promote awareness of equal housing opportunities.
And this is signed and dated the 18th of March 2008. This is one of the programs that
we have with the City of Meridian as an entitlement city, that we are committed to fair
housing for all and it is the month to proclaim that.
2. Resolution Creatin Affordable Housin Task Force:
De Weerd: The next item is a resolution creating an Affordable Housing Task Farce
and I have it under the Mayor's office, but I was thinking that maybe the city attorney
might have a report from our City Attorney Emily Kane. Since he is not here right now,
we will delay that item until he is present with us.
B. Planning Department
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 6 of 69
1. Discussion of Elevation Changes for Verona
Commercial, Bridgetower Crossing Office and
Bridgetower Crossing Commercial:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: RZ 07-017 Request far Rezone of 5.29
acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L-
O zone (3.67 acres) far Verona Commercial by
Primeland Development Group, LLC - Northeast
Corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile
Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on
18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning
districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland
Development Group, LLC -Northeast Corner of West
McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of
12.64 acres from R-4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower
Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group,
LLC -Southwest Corner of West McMillan Road and
Narth Linder Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat
appraval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on
10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for
Bridgetower Crossin~,~ Office by Primeland
Development Group, LLC -Southwest Corner of
West McMillan Road and Narth Linder Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: RZ 07-022 Request far a Rezone of 7.37
acres from C-G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone
of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower
Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development
Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south
of West McMillan Road:
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 7 of 69
F
proposed C-N zone for
Commercial by Primeland
east of North Ten Mile
McMillan Road;
Approval: PP 07-028 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Bridgetower Crossing
Development Group, LLC
Road and south of West
De Weerd: So, I will skip to Department Report under the Planning Department, Item 1,
and turn this over to Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- is this on? Oh, it is on? It doesn't
sound right. I'm sorry. Okay. Goad. Thanks. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council,
when you heard all the Verona and Bridgetower projects, we suggested at that time that
the Council review some additional photos that you wanted included with the
development agreement at the time the development agreement was signed. The
findings are before you tonight. We had the photos. We thought we would go ahead
and get them into the findings, rather than wait until the development agreement. So, I
have several images just to show you for the projects associated with the Bridgetower
and Verona development agreements. You may recall that most of the photographs we
had were of smaller buildings and the applicant wanted to include some larger buildings,
so I have six or seven. If there is any you would like to take out, just let me know. They
are numbered, so that you can easily reference them. Building one. Building two. I
think the yellow vehicle in the front is a temporary. So, all of these show larger buildings
with different styles of development. A lot of these appear to be taken from the Black
Eagle Commercial Center. Would you like me to go through them again? Were there
any you would like to take out?
De Weerd: Council, I guess we could have gone like, don't like, but what would you
like?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would just suggest that we take out the tenth example.
Canning: Okay.
Bird: Bring it back.
De Weerd: You were counting? Good job.
Rountree: They are all numbered.
De Weerd: Oh, yeah. I don't have my glasses on. I didn't like that one either.
Zaremba: I would be happy to have that one removed as well.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 8 of 69
Rountree: Was that a test?
Canning: You passed if it was. With that done, I think that the findings could be
approved with adding those images, just removing item -- or building number ten from
the approved images.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything further'?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we need a motion on the findings.
Rountree: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the findings on 7-B, 1- A and B. Does that also
include Bridgetower?
Canning: It's for all of them, sir.
Rountree: C and D.
Canning: E and F.
Rountree: E and F.
De Weerd: Okay. And to include the exhibits as shown?
Rountree: Including the exhibits as shown.
De Weerd: Okay. Second agree?
Zaremba: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion? Okay. We have a motion to approve item
7-B-1, A through F.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 9 of 69
P. Amended Agreement for Bittercreek Meadows:
De Weerd: Okay. There was an item removed from the Consent Agenda. That was
Item P.
Bird: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: We need to put that to the end, if at all possible, because they are negotiating
right naw.
Item 9: Request for Reconsideration for Denial of RZ. 07-019 for Rockin KB
Saloon by Patrick McKeegan at 3163 East Lanark:
De Weerd: Okay. We will go ahead and move on to Item 9. There is a request for
reconsideration for denial of RZ 07-019 far Rockin KB Saloan. You do have a letter in
front of you, Council, and you do have a transcript of a phone call we got after this
denial was made. Is there any information you would like from the applicant? Would
you like to hear from them, if he has any clarification on his letter, or what would you like
at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, seeing no further informatian required, I would mave that we
deny the request for reconsideration for Item No. 9.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny ar not consider the request for
reconsideratian. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07-019
Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for Rockin
KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of RZ 07-019.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we approve Item 10, RZ -- the denial of RZ 07-019.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 200$
Page, 10 of 69
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to accept Item No. 10 and the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: FP 08-002 Request for Final Plat approval for 52 single-family residential
building lots, 2 commercial building lots and 8 common lots on 19.80 acres
in an L-O zone for Mea~wlake Village Subdivision No. 1 by Touchmark
of the Treasure Valley -Southeast Comer of Franklin Road and
Touchmark Road:
Item 12: FP 08-004 Request for Final Plat approval for 65 single-family building lots
and 5 common lots on 20.51 acres in an R-4 and R-8 zone for Olive Tree
at Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -north of
West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Spurwing Way:
De Weerd: Items 10 and 11 are final plats. Anna, have the applicants agreed with the
conditions placed by staff?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have a letter from Meadowlake
Village Subdivision No. 1. That one is -- we have a letter from the applicant stating
they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. We asked that the Item No. 12
was actually vacated from the agenda.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 11, Meadowlake Village Sub No. 1 with
staff and comments from the applicant.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 11 of 69
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second on Item 11 to approve. If there is no
discussion, Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. So, Item 12 has been requested to vacate. Do I need a motion?
Bird: Yes.
Rountree: Yes.
De Weerd: To do that? Okay. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we vacate FP 08-004 from the agenda.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. I'm sorry. Item
12. I almost jumped ahead of you. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13: Public Hearing: TE 08-001 Request for approval of an 18-month Time
Extension to record the Final Plat for Redfish Subdivision (aka
Whitewater Subdivision) by Jake Miller -- 4120 North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is a Public Hearing on TE 08-001. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the Redfish
Subdivision project. It's also known as Whitewater. It's located at 4120 North Linder
Road, just north of the Sawtooth Elementary School. And the application before you is
a time extension for a final plat. We previously granted an approval and an 18 month
time extension to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat for Redfish
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 12 of 69
Subdivision. That was granted at the director level. The preliminary plat consists of five
commercial lots and two other lots on 2,52 acres in an L-O zoning district. The
preliminary plat was approved by City Council on July 12th, 2005. Then, the applicant
applied for and the director granted an 18 month time extension on January 12th -- or
up to July 12th, 2005. I'm sorry. I skipped a line. With the previous time extension, the
applicant was given two months to enter into a development agreement far the site.
And I did want to just note that, because they did go and get that development
agreement. So, that was recorded on October 19th, 2006.
De Weerd: Anna, excuse me for a minute. We can't hear you. Can all of you hear
staff? Is there a volume thing that we can turn up?
Canning: Testing. Testing. Testing.
De Weerd: That's much better.
Canning: Is that better? I thought it didn't sound right earlier. There we go.
De Weerd: You can all hear that; right? Thank you.
Canning: Shall I start again. No?
Rountree: We heard enough.
Bird: We heard enough.
De Weerd: It was very interesting.
Rountree: It was very inspiring.
Zaremba: Is it going to change from what you said the last time?
Canning: The applicant did file far the second time extension prior to the project
expiring. I just wanted to make that clear. Because a little time has gone past since
then. The applicant states the primarily reason for the time extension is to resolve
issues related to the sewer service and to our knowledge there are no outstanding
issues far City Council. With all time extensions, the city may require compliance with
the current provisions of the UDC as a condition far granting the time extension.
However we did not feel that there were any additional conditions we needed to place
an this project. With that, I will answer any questions Council may have, now that they
can hear me.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 13 of B9
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Zaremba: No.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Bird. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience who would like to provide testimony on this application? Thank you. If you
would, please, state your name and address for the record.
Miller: My name is Jake Miller and the address is 4120 North Linder Road. That's the
address for the property.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Miller: Our major concern on this is the sewer system and I have been working with
Public Works trying to figure out -- because on the original construction drawings it was
supposed to be stubbed across the ditch -- or the drain ditch there into our property and
I have got a -- I have got this, but it never was done. And we thought it was the
subdivision, Baldwin Park, which is behind the property, but I think that that line was
provided by the City of Meridian.
De Weerd: Staff, do you know who was supposed to provide that line?
Dalsby: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it was my understanding that
Baldwin Park put in the sewer that was to and through their development. We put in
that trunk line through there a little while back that goes -- I think it's an 18 inch line that
goes just to the south of Baldwin Park that goes through there. I wasn't aware of any
stub that we had planned to go underneath the canal. I know that -- I know the
applicant's been working with our development services department pretty -- throughout
this whole process to get sewer to his development, to drag it either from -- there is a
position out -- in Baldwin Park where he could bring sewer from -- that's a little bit to
the -- I guess it doesn't really show it. It's a little bit to the east of his development down
near the southern tip of the development. He can run through the common lot there
that's south of the properties is one option that we had presented to him. Beyond that
he could grab it from the 18 inch as well that goes -- it isn't shown on there, south of the
development a little bit. And there is not a sewer going on the frontage on Linder Road
at the moment, but another option would be if that property develops off to the west of
the property, we would require them to run sewer down Linder Road and, then, he could
just pick it up right there. But that would require waiting for them to develop. I'm not
sure exactly why sewer wasn't brought -- or whether sewer was promised by someone
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 14 of 69
else that maybe was brought underneath the canal. I'm not aware of anything that we
planned to bring under there, though.
De Weerd: Yeah. Typically, our policy has been neighboring developments bring it to
and through.
Dolsby: Yeah.
De Weerd: And stub it at their property line.
Miller: On the original construction drawings that I have it shows them coming across
the ditch. I have got this right here.
De Weerd: That was probably a staff level issue to work out with staff.
Miller: Okay.
De Weerd: But, typically, whoever that ditch property is on is typically responsible for it.
So, if the ditch is on your property you will bring it under.
Miller: Well, I don't think that the ditch is on our property. I think that's -- I think that's an
easement. I'm sure that's not on our property.
De Weerd: I can guarantee you Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will not pay for it to
go underneath their canal, if that's --
Dolsby: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, typically when we put in those
trunk line, sewers, too, we just put the trunk in and we don't stub out to individual
properties or under canals when the trunks go in. It looks like that's an 18 inch trunk
that runs through there that goes to Baldwin Park. So, we would have to put the trunk
in. I wasn't involved in the project, but typically, you know, the trunk -- the sewer
projects that we do, we put the trunk in and, then, the individual developments are
responsible for coming off the trunk into their developments.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Clint, I think we surely have the set of prints at the bid when this trunk line was
done and --
Dolsby: Yes.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 15 of 69
Bird: -- and we should have the as-builts also.
Dolsby: Yes. Correct.
Bird: So, they should tell us -- if that was in the print to go under --
Dolsby: Then, they should be there.
Bird: -- we should know -- we should know why it didn't go in there.
Dolsby: Uh-huh.
Bird: And we should have the as-builts. So, I'm like the Mayor, I think this is something
that Nampa can't and Public Works can work out. I don't think it's a level that we need
to be involved with much on that.
Dolsby: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would agree that with. We
could get the record drawings for that trunk line and figure out exactly where it went and
work with them on that.
Miller: That would be super.
De Weerd: Fantastic. Anything else?
Miller: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Miller: That was it.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anything further by any member of
the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council,
seeing none --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing far TE 08-001.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 16 of 69
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. I'm sorry. To
close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Any further information needed from Council?
Bird: Not me.
Rountree: I need none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve TE 08-001.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. Any discussion?
Mrs. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, absent.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2008: ZOA 07-002 Request
far a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in
Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11)
and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for
Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment by the Meridian City Planning
Department:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 is a continued Public Hearing from March 4th on ZOA 07-
002. I will start this item with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is an amendment to the Unified
Development Code regarding temporary uses. Mrs. Kane came and spoke to you
about the proposed changes we are recommending to Title 3 of our City Code that
would house all the temporary uses. So, what this is -- this is the follow up to take them
out of the Unified Development Code, so that they can be in Title 3. So, it was a longer
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 17 of 69
process. We started it a long time ago and we are just kind of bringing them together
here at the end. Staff is -- as I mentioned, staff is proposing to remove the temporary
use provisions from Title 11 in anticipating -- okay. I can talk. In anticipation of
consolidating them all in Title 3. The Commission did recommend approval of the text
amendment at their December 20th, 2007, Public Hearing. Caleb Hood spoke in favor.
There was no one in opposition, commenting, or providing written testimony. The key
issues of discussion by the Commission were timing the application to make sure that
there is not a time when there are no temporary use standards and there were no key
changes to staffs initial recommendation. You did receive a memo since the staff report
was written from Mr. Hood and it was with regard to construction sites and that brings
me to the outstanding issues. There is two outstanding Issues I need you to -- if you're
in favor of this amendment, one, I need you to include the items from Mr. Hood and I
also had in my notes. Do you have that in Section 11-3-E2? And that's in bold and
underlined there. Not the color edits. The second thing I would ask Council to do, if
you're inclined to approve the -- this text amendment, is to structure it so that we direct
staff to bring back an ordinance to coincide with the ordinance for the Title 3
amendment, so that we can adopt them simultaneously. And with that I can answer any
questions. Basically, the only two items we are leaving in the UDC is we are calling out
trailers and other construction related equipment associated with an access
construction site and, then, temporary uses that are conducted as part of a curricular --
or extra-curricular programming of an education facility. We would deem those
accessory uses. So, what that would mean as far as construction sites is you may see
larger construction trailers and you may see more of them. This has been a constraint
for a lot of folks. We have got some remodels going on of grocery stores that requires a
lot of -- a lot more tents and places to store the food while they are remodeling as well.
So, it seems to address that concern for the construction sites as well. And with that I
will answer any questions Council may have. And Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Not on this one.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there a member from the public who
would like to provide testimony on this application?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Seeing no public testimony, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item
-- well --
Meridian Ciry Council
March 18, 2008
Page 18 of 69
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: Okay. We will close it on Item 14.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item
14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rountree: Question for Mr. Nary. Mr. Nary, we haven't taken action on Title 3 at this
point. Haven't requested resolution. I think we have asked for clarification and some
additional information. If we were to approve these amendments and, then, have a
resolution and timing at such time as we get that ordinance, is that appropriate and still
keeps us with the definition of temporary use?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yeah, what
we would actually bring back -- when you approve this tonight, if that's your direction,
we will, then, bring back an ordinance that deletes that from the UDC --
Rountree: Okay.
Nary: -- in conjunction with the ordinance for outdoor sales and temporary uses.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything fiurther?
Rountree: I need nothing.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the UDC text amendments as
proposed in Item 14 and Anna --
De Weerd: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Zaremba: I'll second that for discussion.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And I would ask the maker of the motion if he would add --
Rountree: Mr. Hood's --
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 19 of 69
Zaremba: -- the question that he asked that would direct staff to bring this back with the
Title 3 Amendment.
Rountree: That's part of -- that's part of Item 13 -- 14, but the thing I would add is that
we add Mr. Hood's comments.
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council or staff? Mrs. Clerk, will you, please,
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15: Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4
to R-40 zoning district for 5elway_Apartments by Meridian Apartments,
LLC -west of North Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 15 is a Public Hearing on RZ 07-020. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Selway Apartments
project. It's located on the west side of North Goddard Creek Way, approximately 500
feet north of McMillan Road and about a quarter mile east of Ten Mile Road. The
application before you tonight is a rezone. Staff asked the applicant to submit this
rezone. This is one of those clean-ups far the planned developments that allowed the
use exceptions and we wanted to make sure we got the appropriate zoning on the
property for clarity in the future. So, the highlights of the proposed development is that
they are requesting the rezone to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation of high density residential and a previous approval for the 171 multi-family
dwelling units in 2002 with the Lochsa Falls planned development. The DA for the
property currently requires Conditional Use Permit approval prior to construction of the
multi-family units. The final plat was approved in June of 2007 and the City Council
recently approved the Selway Apartment CUP on December 18th, 2007. The property
is approximately ten acres in size and is currently zoned R-4. Commission
recommended approval at their February 17th, 2008, Public Hearing. Lisa Bochman
spoke in favor. Linda and Jim Ohlman, Sandy and Jlm Freeman, Chris Freis and Glenn
Titerman spoke in opposition. No one commented, nor provided written testimony. Key
issues of discussion by Commission were the R-40 zoning designation -- was the R-40
zoning designation appropriate for the density, which is about 17.1 dwelling units per
acre approved for the site and the Commissioners discussed the potential that the
rezone may increase the potential for denser development on the site and with regard to
those issues, you go back to the original DA, it specifically approved for 171 units and --
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 20 of 69
and it does require CU approval far the multi-family. So, there was no key changes to
staffs initial recommendation. As far as written testimony, since the staff report we do
have a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the staff report.
And with that I will answer any questions that you have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Bochman: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Lisa Bochman with JUB
Engineers, 250 South Beachwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, Idaho. 83709. I think
Anna did a good job presenting the project tonight and I don't really have much to add.
We are requesting to rezone the property from R-4 to R-4D, as it was a condition of
approval of the Conditional Use Permit. And I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bochman: Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. I do have a number of people that have signed up in opposition of
this application. When I read your name and indicate either opposed or opposed, if will
you, please -- if you would like to provide testimony, please, come forward at that time.
Sandy Freeman signed up against. Jim Freeman signed up against. Okay. Linda
Ohlman signed up against. Okay. Jim Ohlman also against. Thank you. Glen
Titerman signed up against. Okay.
Titerman: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Titerman: Glen Titerman, 2432 West Los Flores Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. This --
JUB was required to apply for the change as stated -- as stated for the CUP approval.
Zoning -- a zoning change is not required for the Selway go ahead, however, in this
case. It's unnecessary from our point of view, mainly because all adjacent residences
have been built, so from our point as a neighborhood there is no one to benefit from an
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 21 of 69
updated zoning map, which seems to be the rationale for this. We have all been in, you
guys have heard the arguments before, so we have been -- you know, many of us kind
of feel like we have been had by the zoning previously. We think that this should have
been done some time ago and as a clean-up we kind of feel like it's too late. We are
concerned that future owners with future city leaders could push the density closer to
the R-40, possibly building a car structure, maybe going higher with the structures. As
an R-4 they are limited to roughly 35 feet, if I remember. It might be 36 in height: As a
R-40 that would allow the building structures to go to a maximum of 60 feet. That
concerns us. Not that you guys would make that change. We understand that it's
written in the -- in the --
De Weerd: Development agreement.
Titerman: -- development agreement. Thank you. To limit that. However, we are
afraid that that, you know, could change under certain circumstances. I think and I think
we as a neighborhood would ask that the Council reassure us as residents of the area
and its use by keeping it R-4. Obviously, allowing the apartments to go through has
already been approved. But keep the zoning as it is. We would -- we would be a lot
more confident with that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Glen. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Titerman: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Chris Freis. Freis. Nick Nakakus. Okay. And Ann. Also signed up
against. You know, I practiced that when I read it and, then, I get to it and, bay, did I
mess that up. It's probably because I messed up Chris's and just threw me totally.
Robert Layton signed up against. Thank you. Philip Sosa signed up against. Sir, ifi you
want to provide testimony on the record -- thank you. Brian Katcher signed up against.
Thank you. Matt Craig signed up against. Thank you, sir. And Cindy Craig as well
signed up against. Thank you. Those are the names on the sign-up sheet. Is there
anyone else who would like to provide public testimony on this application? Okay. Any
further staff comments?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, may I ask the staff a question?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Meridian Ciry Council
March 18, 2008
Page 22 of 69
Zaremba: Would a change in the development agreement require a Public Hearing and
notice?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Maybe that's what you were going to say.
Canning: No. Madam Mayor, I think I have consistently said Mr. Titerman's name
wrong for a year now and I wanted to apologize and say it correctly for -- at least once.
So, that was all.
De Weerd: And that's what you wanted to add?
Canning: That was it. I'm sorry. He deserved it. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: There you go, Glen. Anna, can you comment to maybe that perception. If it
was -- if it did remain the R-4 and under the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit
and the development agreement, I do understand what the neighbors are saying,
because development agreements have come in under public hearings to seek
changes. It does add another step if -- if those changes were sought. So, can you
maybe talk about the protections of this?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have requested consistently to
try and get the zoning appropriate to the designation -- or to the land use that was
approved under it. It typically presents the motion problem when it comes to the
commercial uses that were allow in the residential district, because there is no sign
provisions for them or anything related to that. So, those are a larger problem. Perhaps
the applicant can speak as to whether the -- the Conditional Use Permit was approved
using the R-40 setbacks, as opposed R-4 setbacks. I'm not sure if that's an issue. And
the plat issue. If they are platting those lots at all there would have been setback
requirements for an R-4 district. One compromise might be to put the R-15 district on it.
That would be close -- or keeping with the density. Would still be anon-conforming use,
but it would perhaps be better to be a nonconforming use in the R-15 zone than it would
in an R-4 zone. And perhaps Mr. Nary could comment on that. It wouldn't require new
notice, because it's a step down from what's currently being proposed, so --
De Weerd: You know, I guess my question is since the CUP was already approved and
the rezone hadn't come through yet, are -- did we approve difFerent setbacks than what
was currently allowed in the current zone?
Canning: I believe the rezone was a condition of approval, too, but, you know, that level
of detail of the project, I have to confess, I need to ask the applicant if they can
comment to that, but --
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 23 of 69
De Weerd: Okay. Please.
Bochman: Lisa Bochman, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood, Boise, Idaho.
83709. For the record. We did meet the zoned dimensional standards for an R-4,
because when proposed the conditional use it was under that zoning designation and
we did not anticipate having to rezone the property. In addition, we do meet the multi-
family setbacks, which is a little bit more than R-4 setbacks, I believe, for side and rear.
I think it's ten to 12 feet. So, we do meet the dimensional standards under the R-4
zoning designation and as far as developing the property under an R-40 with 60 foot tall
buildings, we have every intention of complying with the Conditional Use Permit and the
site plan that we propose. We have applied for our CZC and should have that in the
next few days. So, as far as that concern goes, there is no concern.
De Weerd: So, right now you comply with the setback standards in an R-4 zone.
Bochman: Yes. That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess what's in front of you -- the
direction to the applicant was to request the zone change to be consistent with the uses
that are approved on the property. The only real problem is is we don't have an R-1$
zoning is really the issue. I think what -- what Mrs. Canning is suggesting is a
compromise. We don't have to re-notice if the Council's desire is to do a lesser use, like
an R-15. The criticism that the neighbors in the prior hearing had was that they didn't
realize what the zoning -- the zoning that was in the adjacent property, they didn't
realize that there was a special use exception that was granted for that property. So,
the city, then, is trying to remedy that. Well, it works both ways. What Mr. Titerman has
stated was that a different Council could certainly view this property differently and allow
for a different density. That would require a Public Hearing, because there is a
development agreement -- regardless of what the zoning is, there is a development
agreement that controls the use on that property. Changes to that development
agreement would require a Public Hearing. Changes to the zoning in the future would
require a Public Hearing. If you don't do it today, you could do it next week. You could
do it next year. You could do it five years from now. You can change the zoning
through the development -- or through the process at anytime someone requests it. So,
if -- if they are wanting that assurance, it doesn't really make much difference. But it
works the other way as well in that their neighbors -- these folks may not live there ten
years from now and those neighbors will have the same concerns that they have
expressed that they didn't know what the zoning that was allowed there. If you grant R-
15, it's closer to what's being proposed and allowed on that property and it does at least
put people on some notice that it is amulti-family project. They can't build a bigger
building ar put more density onto that property without the Council's approval, because
they have to have a Conditional Use Permit. So, if the Rudeen Development
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 24 of 69
Corporation goes away, they sell the property, someone else wants to build a different
building than is proposed today, they have to come back in a conditional use, even if
you zoned it R-40 and they wanted to build a 60 foot building that had 171 apartments
in it, they'd still need your approval. It may match the zone, but you'd still have to
approve it. So, I think we are spending a lot of time on an issue that is not hugely
significant and consistent with -- as the planning staff has stated, is all the city has done
is try to make sure that the uses in the zones match in the future, so that at least that
one portion that people have concern with is met. But, again, if you choose not to do it,
they are still going to build their project. It's still approved. If someone else wants to
come in, they are still gong to have to come in front of you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As I understand it, then, what we approved as an R-4 is legal, they can go ahead
with their project; right?
Nary: Uh-huh. Yes.
Bird: Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Is there any further public
testimony? Yes, ma'am. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Ohlman: My Name is Linda Ohlman. I live at 2735 West Root. Creek Street, Meridian.
$3646.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ohlman: My question -- and maybe I don't understand, but if it's already approved and
they can do it now with an R-4, why do we even have to change it tv an R-40, why can't
we leave it this way? If it doesn't go in, then, it can be changed to an R-40 at a later
time.
De Weerd: The applicant is following the conditions that staff set out for them that they
needed to come in with a rezone request, so that it will be reflected on the
Comprehensive Plan accordingly. You know, I guess when it was approved as a
planned development; our idea when developers come in and do this is when they sell
houses they show the entire plan. That wasn't shown. And it wasn't reflected on the
land use map, because at that time we just showed the net density, which was R-4.
The staff is just suggesting aclean-up, so it is adequately reflected on our land use map
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 25 of fig
what the intent was because we found that the neighbors were not showed the master
plan of that area.
Ohlman: I know at the zoning meeting that we were at it was stated at that time that
Rudeen didn't care if it was left either way an R-4 and R-40. That's kind of why I'm
thinking if it doesn't matter and the apartments are going in, why not just leave it as an
R-4. If it doesn't go in, then, it can be changed as R-40. And I know it's to clean up, but
if it doesn't matter to them, it just seems like --
De Weerd: And that's the question that this Council gets to answer.
Ohlman: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify if myself. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Katcher: Brian Katcher. 5447 North Stanley Creek Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Kelly
Creek Subdivision. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a couple of quick
points I'd like to bring up. One of which I understand Mr. Nary was talking like anything
in the future would have to come back in front of a Council, you, someone else. There
is the fear somewhere that there will be things that are interpreted differently by Council
at a later date, you know, maybe several years from now, that showing something as R-
40 could mean that someone could come in and look at that map and say, well, I can
build, you know, 400 apartments. The idea of needing to put it on the map as
something that you already have, whether it's four or 15 or 40, whatever you have in
place currently, I think most of us kind of look and say, well, if the apartments are built,
anyone looking to live there is going to see them and know that there is apartments
there. They are not going to need to look at a map like we needed to at a certain point
and see a number. They -- moving in they will see apartments and that will take care of
that concern. So, to leave it as it's currently R-4 with the stipulation that that 171
apartments are approved, I think in most our minds is where we would like to see it stay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Katcher: That's all I have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further testimony, does the applicant have any
concluding remarks? No?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: If I could, because I think I have more interest in this application than perhaps
the applicant does at this point, but I -- you know, I probably -- when the original
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 26 of 69
planned development went through we thought the apartments were going to be there
when the folks moved and they'd see the apartments and know that they were going to
be apartments there. So, there is same value to changing the zoning on the map. It
just better communicates to folks, it's a little better understanding, you know, folks come
in and see an R-4 designation and an apartment complex, they are going to be a little
confused, just as these folks all were when the initial application came through. So, I
would like to advocate for some change in the zoning. I can understand the concern
with the R-40. We are working on a new zoning category that's between R-15 and R-
40, so that we don't always run into this issue. I think the R-15 would be a nice
compromise to at least better communicate what's going on on that property.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any further information needed?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba:
Zaremba: If -- if we did go the R-15 option, that still doesn't change their development
agreement, which allows them to build 171, even though that would be denser than the
R-15 would allow, they still would be permitted to build what they have been permitted
to built all along; is that correct?
Canning: That would be correct. Because, really, their approval was in 2002 with R-4
zoning for 171 units on ten acres. That -- that is the ultimate root of their approval. So,
even if we rezone this R-15, if it all burned down they could go back and rebuild 171
units on ten acres. So, I don't even believe it would affect their nonconforming status
with having a density slightly less than what they were actually approved for.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I -- I haven't heard any reason why we should change this from an R-4. If the
current owners want to change it, want ourselves, they want to do something else,
they'd have to come before us anyway. We approved this with an R-4. I, for one, right
now, I haven't heard enough to make me change my mind. I -- it -- I can't vote for
anything but leaving it an R-4.
Meridian City Council
March 1 S, 2008
Page 27 of 69
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I, unfortunately, would take the opposite position. I feel that
the zoning on the maps needs to be more reflective of the actual use. Granted, once
apartments are built, people can drive by and see the apartments, but Iwill -- there are
people that do refer to the maps for their -- their own knowledge and for other reasons
in their planning and I would support making the change. I could be just as happy with
R-15 as Rw40, but I do feel that the maps do need to be more accurately reflecting what
is there, so that this kind of confusion doesn't go on. We are, I believe, actively seeking
out other planned developments that were approved under the same system and asking
them to correct their zoning to the intended use that's already approved and in order to
encourage the developers of those lands to go through the process, I think we need to
be consistent.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: A reply to that is when they come in with the application, why wasn't the zoning
changed to R-40 or 15 at that time? The planned development in 2002 when we
brought this thing through was R-4. I'd hate to guess at the low percent that looks at the
map when they buy or the seller that suggests they look at the map. So, I -- this project
was approved with an R-4 and I don't see any reason why we can -- we need to change
it. The setbacks and everything is R-4 setbacks -- are better and that's -- in my book is
the way the project was approved and while I agree with the project, don't get me wrong
there, I voted for the project, but I don't see any reason we have to change the zoning,
because I -- I can tell you right now, I have sat up here, along with two other people,
and watched things get changed from one order to another and don't say it don't
happen. So, I have a hard time changing the zoning after -- after the fact.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I will be the mystery vote, but I'm going to move that we
close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I'm going to second it.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 15. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rountree: Are you going to make a motion?
Zaremba: Traditionally, the person that closes the Public Hearing makes the motion, so
we are going to sit here and be quiet.
Rountree: I think we are going to have a position here.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page, 28 of 69
Bird: We are going to change. I move that we deny RZ 07-020, the request of rezone
from -- of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 for the Selway Apartments by Meridian
Apartments, LLC.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 15 for the rezone from R-
4 to R-40. Any discussion? It's already been --
Rountree: It's been said.
De Weerd: Mrs. Clerk, will yau, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, absent.
De Weerd: Okay. Two I's and one nay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Canning: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Might I question Council just a tad bit? Just for folks when they come in on
other residential ones -- and I don't know how many residential use exceptions there
are. Should staff not be seeking the rezone? Should we just be looking for the rezones
for the commercial uses that were approved as use exceptions?
Bird: Madam Mayor, seeings how I was the maker of the motion --
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, I have no problem with the rezone change, if we do it at front. But I don't
like something being approved at one zoning and, then, came back after it's been
approved -- and this was a very tough one to approve. We all know that. And, then,
want a rezone. That can be done when they come forward and we get it taken care of.
I'm with you, I'd love to see every map be labeled right and be built what it's labeled, but
we know it don't happen. But to bring it forward when you bring the original application.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Meridian Gity Council
March 18, 2008
Page 29 of 69
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that was the order you approved was
directing them to bring back to you for a rezone. So, that's the only reason they are
here is your order was to do it. Staff recommended it, but you recommend -- you
required that they bring it back and it was after the fact. You didn't delay the project to
bring it forward, you knew it was coming back.
Bird: You're right there, but we don't --
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess in response to Anna's question, if you can -- if you
can identify these kinds of situations, either by lot, block, section, subdivision in total, I'm
in favor of a remedy, but Ithink -- I agree that we do the remedy as soon as we can, as
opposed to after the fact. Particularly if there has been no development around some of
these areas, that we get them done soon.
Canning: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this -- I mean this is -- this
subject property just south of here is approved for office uses and it's still zoned R-4.
The property just west of there we were able to get them to come in with a commercial
zoning. So, I just want to make sure I'm not misdirecting folks to come back and seek
the correct designation. Now, the residential to residential I understand the dilemma
tonight and this has been a different one that -- that you face tonight. This is the
exception. But I just want to make sure I'm still on track on the commercial ones,
because I push hard far those to get them correctly zoned and I don't want to be acting
against Council's wishes.
Bird: You're doing a great job.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would suggest to Anna that she's doing the job that we
have asked her to do and if we take exception with her recommendations occasionally,
it's going to happen.
Canning: No. That's fine. I just want to -- I just want to make sure I'm on the right
track.
Rountree: You are on the right track.
Canning: Okay. Thank you. That was all. Thank you for letting me --
Bird: You're doing your job.
Canning: I'm sorry. All right.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 30 of 69
Zaremba: I would chime in my unconditional support as well. You know my feeling is
that I would proactively seek these out and try and get them changed as soon as we
can, but I appreciate any effort to identify them, so that people aren't surprised, as in
this case.
Canning: And without the owner's consent, I have not pursued those at all, so --
De Weerd: You know, Anna, it might be a goad future workshop item. Maybe target
March or I -- not March. May. To bring a map to Council and show areas that have
already been identified, so that they can kind of walk through each of those areas and
have some discussion on those.
Zaremba: This is just a personal opinion, but we stopped doing it this way five or six
years ago, something like that, and there aren't that many large planned developments
that qualified for it before that, so --
De Weerd: Yeah. There shouldn't be too many.
Zaremba: Nat knowing where to look for them, but there can't be that many of them.
Canning: I think most of them are right in that corner right there, so, Madam Mayor,
Members of the Council. So -
Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 07-023 Request for Rezone of 0.62 acres from R-4
to an R-8 zone for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and
Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street:
Item 17: Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary /Final
Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4
zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and
Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street:
De Weerd: Enough said. Okay. Items 16 and 17 are public hearings on RZ 07-023
and PFP 07-004. I will open these items with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Blackstone No. 2 project.
It's located at the southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road. The
applications before you tonight are for a rezone and, then, a combined preliminary/final
plat. The development consists of three residential lots. There is -- it's an existing -- it's
an existing lot that they are re-platting into three residential lots. The gross residential
density is 5.1 units per acre. We have some elevations. I believe these are f=laherity
Homes. The commission recommended approval at their February 7th, 2008, Public
Hearing. Lenny Richeo spoke in favor, as did Chris Todd, John Carpenter, and Paul
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 31 of 69
Edminster. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony.
Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the five foot landscaping adjacent to
the common drive, which is I think easily -- most easily seen along the landscape plan
there. Stubbing to the -- stubbing the common driveway on the south side of the
property, so that we could provide future access an Black Cat for the parcel south of the
proposed development, if the project is -- well, the issue is this property that they were
discussing, would it be appropriate to stub the common drive, so that at least one other
parcel could take access from that common drive, rather than direct access onto Black
Cat. Future development of the southern parcel was a little bit of a question. Then, the
density requirement of the R-4 zoning and, then, the issue came up about rezoning the
property from R-4 to R-8 to comply with the density requirement of the UDC. And, then,
there was also a discussion about the number of homes that can take access from a
common driveway and there were no significant changes to staffs initial
recommendation and about the only outstanding issues for the City Council were -- they
left the question about the future -- they being the Planning Commission -- left the
question about future access on Black Cat far the parcel south of the proposed
development as kind of an unknown. They didn't require the stub connection, but there
was a lot of discussion and no real resolution to that issue. We have received a letter
from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the staff report and the
conditions of approval. And with that I'll answer any questions Council may have. And
Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time?
Rountree: Anna, I need same clarification, if you would. On the agenda, Item 16, we
talk about a rezone from R-4 to R-8 and, then, on Item 17 we are talking about a
subdivision in an R-4 zoning district. Which of those is incorrect?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this was a little bit of -- actually, they
are both correct, but I'll take a little responsibility here.
Rountree: Help me understand that.
Canning: We took in the combined preliminary/final plat. The lots actually met the
dimensional standards of the R-4. We didn't catch it until very late in the game that the
density actually exceeded the allowed density of the R-4 district, which is four units per
acre, rather than 5.1. So, the Planning Commission actually directed them go back and
request a rezane application. Sa, the first description -- those descriptions,
unfortunately, stay with them the life of the project. So, the first description had the R-4
and that's what they originally applied under, but the Planning Commission made them
come back with the R-8 zoning to comply with the standards of the zone. I'm the
applicant --
Rountree: I'll think about it.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 32 of 69
Canning: -- concurs with your shaking of the head with regard to that matter.
De Weerd: Wow. Qkay. Any other questions?
Rountree: None at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Richeo: Absolutely. And before I begin, Mayor, may I, please, hand out some handouts
to the Council as well, please.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Richeo: Thank you. Lenny Richeo with Landmark Engineering and Planning. It's a
pleasure to be here tonight. We are at 332 North Broadmaar Way and it's a shame to
see my crowd is gone. I thought I was going to get some claps and hurrahs when I got
done, but apparently not anymore. Well, let me just first touch briefly on the history of
this project. If I could ask staff, please, to go to the yellow vicinity map. First and
foremost, Paul Edminster, which is the president of Project West, Incorporation, he's the
gentleman that brought forth to you Blackstone Subdivision, which is what this lot's a
part of. Blackstone Subdivision is surrounding this lot and this lot was left out in order to
develop a future commercial site on it. This plat --the original Blackstone was in front of
Council for -- or I believe the final plat got recorded in 2002. So, it's been a few years
that the developer was seeking a commercial use on this site. The developer was also
interested with the commercial use to purchase the property to the south there that is, I
believe, still not annexed into the city. Through working -- through trying to work with
the city in the sense of creating a commercial land use designation for this site, there is
a number of Camp Plan map changes that occurred from 2002 until the present day.
Yet, the city never envisioned this site as being commercial use. And, in addition to that
also, the purchasing of the property to the south, the negotiations fell through with that,
as well as the owner of that property was asking for a lot of money. So, as a result what
occurred is the developer thought the best use of the site, then, was to go forward with
something that's compatible with the medium density land use designation and that's
the project that's in front of you tonight. It's for three residential lots. This is preliminary
plat -final plat approval and as well as a rezone from R-4 to R-8. The reason why the
rezone was brought up at Planning and Zoning Commission was because this site met
all the requirements of the R-4 zoning. Met the setbacks. Met the dimension sizes, et
cetera. The only concern was the density was a concern with staff, as well as Planning
and Zoning Commission. However, based upon the hardships of this land and the
uniqueness of it as well, Planning and Zoning felt that it was in the best interest of the
residences, because this is taking what is stated in the CC8~Rs as what will be a future
commercial lot and making it into a residential lot, which will be less -- have less impact
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 33 of 69
on the surrounding area. And just for the hardships for the area, the handout I have
presented in front of you is just an example of what would have occurred if this lot was
originally not part of the subdivision, if it was just left out for whatever reason, as any
other subdivision, what would have occurred with this project is the landscape bufFers
would have been included within this site and simply by that minimum amount of land
this subdivision would have met well below -- would have met the condition of the four
density cap. In addition to that, in our preapplication meeting the city stated in regard to
the open space that .the open space of this site can be utilized from the existing
Blackstone. Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that this was the same reason
that should be utilized for the rezone change. And if this parcel was developed with
three residential lots that's in front of you tonight with the original Blackstone, the density
would have been 3.2 units to the acre, which would have been far below the four
density cap. And in addition to that, this site's in -- this site's in agreement with the
Comprehensive Plan of the city, as this is a medium density land use and which allows
for density anywhere from three to eight units to the acre. And, in addition, we believe
that this meets the spirit of the zoning district as taking this site in comparison with the
rest of the Blackstone Subdivision and meets the 3.2 units to the acre. In addition to
these hardships is also the uniqueness of the site, is that this developer of this project in
front of you tonight is the same developer that brought forth to you Blackstone
Subdivision. In addition, this is a replat of an existing lot within a subdivision and, lastly,
the density -- the overall density, if this site with the three residential lots is included with
the original Blackstone meets that requirement. We have Planning and Zoning approval
of the rezone request and staffs also on board as well recommending approval of the
rezone from R-4 to R-8. I'd like to indicate to the Council that this project is planning on
meeting all the requirements of the R-4. However, the only reason that the R-8 zoning
designation is requested is only to meet the density requirement. As staff has indicated,
this site is at five units to the acre. This site is going to be a quality project. It's going to
take -- it's going to take what is now a vacant lot, what is currently fenced off from the
rest of the subdivision -- in the CC&Rs, as I previously stated, this site is designated as
a commercial lot. However, taking what the developer intended and making it into a
residential lot, it's going to be a benefit to the city, it's going to take a vacant lot and
utilize it into three residential lots. In addition, it's going to be a benefit to the
surrounding neighbors, because it's going to take what's now a vacant fenced off piece
of land and created three residential lots. We had a neighborhood meeting on this site
a few months ago and we have two families that came out and they had no opposition
to the project. In fact, they were happy to see that the site was finally being developed.
And as a matter of fact, they were happy to see that it's not going to be a commercial
use, but it's going to be a residential use. And with that we believe it's going to be a
quality project and request for your approval this evening. Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question. You have mentioned a hardship a couple of
times. What is the hardship?
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 34 of 69
Richeo: The hardship is, essentially, that this lot was left out of the original subdivision
and this lot, with -- if this lot was part of the original subdivision, that we would have
been far below the density requirement of 3.2 units to the acre and, in addition, this site
is going to -- and also, the other part of that is this site is going to meet all the
requirements of the R-4 zoning, except the density requirement and that is the reason
that the Planning and Zoning has recommended approval from the R-4 to the R-8
zoning.
De Weerd: I guess I still don't understand what the hardship is, but who caused the
hardship?
Richeo: The developer would have -- I would believe that the developer through leaving
the lot out potentially seemed to create the hardship upon himself. His intent was to
create a commercial site here and negotiate with the southern owner in order to create
some type of commercial use here.
De Weerd: A commercial use that wasn't designated on the land use Comprehensive
Plan?
Richeo: That is correct. And I guess just the pickle that we are in is the staff indicated
that two lots, you know, would be approved previously. However, those -- that's not
going to pencil out for the developer and the developer indicated that that --
De Weerd: Because of a hardship he created.
Richeo: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: There was a question about a stub street. Would that provide a stub into the
southern lot?
Richeo: No, sir, it would not. What's currently going on with the common drive --
because (believe Meridian City Code allows for a maximum of four lots to access a
common drive and if this lot was -- or, excuse me, if this road was to stub to the south, it
would only provide access for that lot, which currently has access onto Black Cat at this
time. With -- when we were reviewing this parcel, along with the southern parcel, for a
commercial site, we also held a meeting with ACHD for access onto Black Cat. With
that preliminary meeting that we held with ACHD, they indicated that access for that
southern lot could be granted with the spacing. So, if there is ever any future
Meridian City Council
March 1$, 2008
Page 35 of 69
development of that southern site, our preliminary talks that we had with ACHD, they
indicated that that could possibly be allowed for a future access point onto Black Cat.
Rountree: So, your testimony is that each of these lots are of sufficient size and
sufficient frontage to meet R-4?
Richeo: Yes, sir, they are.
Rountree: The only reason you're asking for R-8 is this is a little tiny subdivision and if it
were to be expanded to one acre it would be too dense to be an R-4. It would have to
be, then, an R-8. Is that what I'm understanding? It would not be dense enough.
Canning: No, sir, I'm not quite sure --
Rountree: I'm last with this convoluted logic about why they have to rezone it.
Canning; The R-4 zoning district only allows up to four dwelling units per acre and this
project, because it is small and has three lots on it, the actual density is 5.1 dwelling
units per acre.
Rountree: I get you. So, tomorrow or at some point in time if this gets approved, they
flip this, it's not an R-$. Now we can have at least three duplexes built on here and
there is nothing we can do about it and, then, these folks here are going to be real
happy with us. Is that correct? Or do we have some way to control that?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, you could
always -- Bird. Rountree.
Rountree; That wasn't an insult, so --
Canning: The -- you could always tie a DA to this particular subdivision layout with the
rezone.
Rountree: Well, I --okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Would another option be just to understand that this is part of a larger
subdivision and if calculated as part of the larger subdivision it would qualify as an R-4?
Canning: For purposes of the Comprehensive Plan that makes sense. For the
purposes of zoning I'm not sure that one does. You could ask the applicant to submit a
Meridian Clty Council
March 18, 2008
Pagc 36 of 69
variance, instead of the -- instead of the rezone. We tend to not steer people toward
variances when there is another remedy.
De Weerd: Well -- and what would you -- what, would you approve a variance on a
hardship they created? There is no existing hardship. Sorry.
Canning: To be a little bit -- to be a little bit trite, I think that's what they usually are,
but --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Do you know -- the lots that surround this -- this one here, that one, that one
and the two or three next to it, are they already built on?
Richeo: Yes, sir, they are. This is the only lot that has not been built out of the
Blackstone Subdivision.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: You indicated that this lot was part of that plat.
Richeo: Yes, sir, it was.
Rountree: If it's part of the plat and this is just a subdivision of that plat, it seems to me
that the density within the subdivision it was originally platted would be applicable and it
could stay an R-4.
Zaremba: I thought that was the question I asked.
Rountree: I mean it's --
De Weerd: It was.
Zaremba: Phrased differently.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree --
Richeo: He looks like Councilman Bird to me.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 37 of 69
Canning: -- the only -- given that the developer is the same, perhaps that could work.
don't know what to tell you. The code's rather specific. If he brought in one more lot,
whether it be a landscape lot or anything else, then, the density probably would work
out. So, I don't know if he still owns any of the adjoining properties, if he still has
enough room on the landscape berm to bring that lot in -- any of those would meet the
strict requirements -- the very strict requirements of the UDC.
Rountree: So, if that's the case, Madam Mayor, if we can pursue that, it seems to me
that there is a landscape lot there that could be broken out.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, that
common driveway is on a shared access easement, so that's already part of a lot.
Rountree: So, that's another lat.
Canning: No. The access easement straddles all three lots.
Rountree: Okay.
Richeo: And that five foot landscape strip is a part of the -- the lot that's in front of you
tonight. And I guess we -- we are the representative of the developer and we wanted to
pursue the preliminary plat and final plat combination in order to save time, obviously,
and to be to construction as soon as possible. We were in front of Planning and Zoning
in December. They indicated to us that the rezone of the lot was the best option to go.
Obviously, if -- at our pre-application meeting the density was a concern, we could have
somehow negotiated with the homeowners association at that time to work in the
landscape buffers and simply replat those again and have this site meet the density
requirement of the R-4. However, that wasn't considered at the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission indicated to us to go forward with
a rezone from R-4 to R-8 and staff indicated that they didn't have a -- I guess an
opposition to that at that time. Staff is on board with the request for the R-4 to R-8 and I
understand the unique circumstance of this site as it meets all the requirements of the
R-4, except the density requirement.
Rountree: I'm just trying to understand.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: It seems like an extra step, but since you've already said you intend to build it
to the R-4, it would qualify for R-4, rather than the space, would you be willing to have a
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 38 of 69
development agreement put that promise in writing, so at some future -- let's say you
sold it before you built on it --
Richeo: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: -- and same future person doesn't think they are entitled to duplexes or four-
plexes or something there, would a development agreement be satisfactory for that?
Richeo: I guess the question for staff is is a duplex-type use for an R-8, is that a
conditional use or is that a permitted use?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'll have to look it up. I'm sorry. It
won't take me very long.
Richeo: I guess where I'm going with that is if it's a conditional use --
Zaremba: You'd have to come back anyhow.
Richeo: Exactly.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions while Anna is looking that up?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. We will come back to this and I'll see if anyone else has testimony
they would like to offer.
Richeo: Absolutely. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would
like to provide testimony on this application? Thank you. Council, while staff is looking
that up, any other information or comments? Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, a single family attached dwelling is
conditional in R-4 and permitted in R-8. That's not a duplex, though. And those are
where there is two lots and they are attached. And, then, so we have townhouses
would be conditional in an R-4, but permitted in R-8. And a duplex is conditional in R-4,
but principally permitted in an R-8. So, Madam Mayor, you were right.
Zaremba: Well, in that case my question stands. Would you accept a development
agreement to limit it to what you're saying you intend to do anyway?
Meridian City Council
March 18, 20p8
Page 39 of 69
Richeo: That's fine. We can adopt the preliminary plat that's in front of you tonight as
part of the development agreement and hold us to that.
De Weerd: Okay. Any closing remarks?
Richeo: Just with this subdivision that's in front of you tonight, we have the neighbors
behind us. Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval. Staff is
recommending approval of the rezone as well, As Councilman stated, we will go
forward with a development agreement, since those higher density uses will be
permitted within an R-8. So, in order for the city to -- in order for this subdivision to work
out with the city, we will be happy to go forward with a development agreement to adopt
the preliminary plat in the subdivision that's in front of you tonight. And with that I thank
you for your time. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, anything further on Items 16 and 17? If not, do
I have a motion to close?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move we close the Public Hearing on 16 and 17.
Rountree: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 16
and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve RZ 07-023 and PFP 07-004 with the condition that
RZ 07-023 have a development agreement and a condition of the development
agreement is that the uses permitted on this land shall conform to R-4 uses.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16 and 17 with the
conditions as stated. Any discussion? Yes, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm concerned with the motion.
have na idea what that means. Does that mean that -- I don't know. If you'd like to just
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 40 of 89
limit them to three units that would be far easier for staff to implement in the future,
because Iwasn't -- I'm not sure what happened.
Zaremba: Okay. What I was thinking -- I was just reading down the chart that you had
displayed. However, let me amend the motion to instead of saying the development
agreement will limit it to the R-4 uses, that the development agreement will limit it to one
single family dwelling per lot.
De Weerd: Totaling three.
Zaremba: Uh?
De Weerd: Totaling three,
Zaremba: A total of three, because there is three lots.
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion, Council? Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81
acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian
Partners, LLC -Northwest Corner of East Ustick Road and North Locust
Grove Road:
Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with
3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for
Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Corner of
East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road:
Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately
21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -
Northwest Corner of East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 18, 19 and 20 are public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027,
and CUP Q7-023. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page Q1 of fig
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Chalet Marseilles project.
It's located at the northwest corner of Ustick Raad and Locust Grove Road. The
applications before you tonight thankfully don't include a rezone, but they do include an
annexation, a preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit, private street, and
alternative compliance. The highlights of the proposed development, they are
proposing to develop the site as an active adult community, totaling 122 condominium
units, with units ranging in size from 1,200 to 1,900 square feet. There is a 5,240
square foot clubhouse also proposed far the site. Proposed dwelling types include two
individual detached buildings, 14 dual unit buildings, and 23 quad buildings, for a total of
38 buildings on the site and, then, also one more for the clubhouse. The applicant is
proposing two build footprints or floor plans for the buildings on the subject site. One is
the large floor plan, of which there are 66 of the 120 total -- 22 units and the other is the
small floor plan, which totals 56 units. And I have same elevations for you. These are
the small footprints, so the 1,200 square foot and these are the 1,900 square foot.
These are the rear sides of the duplexes. And there are the two single units. And, then,
this is the clubhouse. The gross residential density is 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which
complies with the medium density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Commission
recommended approval at their February 7th, 2008, Public Hearing. Doren Fluke spoke
in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition, but Tim Kruppa and Jeff Larsen
comments and there was written testimony from John Witson. Key issues of discussion
by the Commission were the proposed perimeter block wall, the shared driveways and
widths of the parking pads slash driveways in front of the units. Road improvements at
the intersection of Locust Grove and Ustick Roads. And, then, the applicant was asked
to work with the LDS church regarding the location of the decorative wall on the
church's property, which is just to the north there of the eastern site. It's just up where
the legend is there. And they were also asked to look at the future access point to East
Lemay Street. They also discussed an eight foot spite strip that does not allow the
extension and connection of the Heritage View Avenue with North Yellow Peak Avenue
at the northern property boundary of Wanda's Meadow Subdivision. I have a little blow
up of that one. You can see the property in blue is oddly shaped and has a definite
eight foot spite strip on it right at the northern edge of Wanda's Subdivision there.
Wanda's Meadow.
De Weerd: So, Anna, what is that going to be, then? Just a weedy spite stripe?
Canning: For the time being. That's the -- we pushed and pushed this applicant -- you
all know I push as hard as I can push and I think that I gave them every incentive to
obtain that piece of property that I could. If you look at their development pattern, they
are providing the full frontage for that piece of property for future development. So, they
were just not able to get the guy to sell. They have done everything they could and
everything I insisted that they do to make it work in the future, but for the time being it
will be a spite strip.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 18, 2008
Page 42 of 69
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I missed the identification of where the spite strip is.
Canning: Do you see that little -- the blue -- the lat outlined in blue.
Bird: Ta the west there, David.
Zaremba: You know I'm color blind, so --
Canning: This is the -- ah, I'm sorry. This is the whale property. It's eight feet --
Zaremba: I didn't even see that there was a line there.
Canning: Yeah.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
Canning: Okay. Key Commission changes to staffs initial recommendation, the
Commission did not require a site directory ar site map for the site, so the condition was
modified to reflect that. They also did not require the five feet of landscaping adjacent
to the shared driveway -- for one of the shared driveways. And the applicant has
revised the preliminary plat to reflect staffs and Commission's recommendations. Sa,
all those are currently in the staff report that you have. They did discuss the drive aisles
and parking pad requirements and those additions or -- have been -- are included on
the revised site plan. They also modified a condition requiring the applicant to provide
at least ft) feet between garage faces, as proposed in the revised site plan. And they
added with two new -- two new conditions. One was work with staff and LDS church for
future connectivity to East Bonet Street and work with the church regarding the location
of the decorative block wall and if the church does not allow the block wall, one is not
required. Outstanding issues for City Council, just a general review of the revised
preliminary plat site plan and landscape plans. The block walls on the perimeter in
relation to the church property. And we do have a -- one other issue that wasn't raised
previously. We did contact the applicant and they are in agreement -- we do think it's
appropriate to tie this zoning to a development agreement, so -- have the annexation be
tied to this Conditional Use Permit and we have a letter from the applicant stating they
are in agreement with the staff report. This is R-15 zoning, so we were proposing the
DA. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have Wane.
Meridian City Council
March 18, 200$
Paye 43 of 69
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And Director Canning. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the
road improvements at the intersection of Locust and Ustick. What was the result of that
discussion?
Canning: I believe the consensus of that discussion was that because all of those are
already programmed in the Ada County Highway District work program, that they were
not asked -- they had not asked the applicant to fulfill those. But I'm sure the applicant
has abetter -- or complete answer.
Zaremba: But the applicant is giving the space for it, though?
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: I'll ask him when he gets here.
Canning: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment?
Fluke: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Daren Fluke, JUB
Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant on this project.
Anna did a good job giving you the numbers. I would just simply clarify that we are
down to 120 units that was in response to the request of the Planning and Zoning
Commission to modify our driveway somewhat, which we did, and we weren't able to do
that without losing a couple of units. We have been through a number of iterations on
this project. We started working with staff about six month ago. We have been through
a half dozen meetings with staff, a couple of neighborhood meetings. You can see we
don't have a lot of neighbors here tonight and that's probably why, we have done a lot of
work working with them on the project. Our original iteration of the project has about
154 units. It had an access to Ustick Road right here and that was intended ta, again,
provide frontage to this long skinny about acre parcel here, just less than a hundred feet
in width. It doesn't have a lot of options for redeveloping and so we went through a
couple of iterations after that. There was some back and forth between staff and the
neighbors and one thing we heard loud and clear from the neighbors was they didn't like