HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 6, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 37 of 74
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue Item 15 until May 20th.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this item. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I will be recusing myself from Items 16 and 17.
Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from April 22, 2008: AZ 06-063 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G
zones for Waltman Propertv (aka Browninq Plaza) by Waltman, LLC -
505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane:
Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from April 22, 2008: PP 08-001 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 52 commercial / office lots and 1 common lot
on 38.21 acres in a proposed C-G zoning district for Browning Plaza (aka
Waltman Propertv) by SLN Planning, Inc. - 505, 521, 615 and 675 W.
Waltman Lane:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Items 16 and 17 are continued public hearings
on AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001. I will ask to open this with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, although this is a continued Public
Hearing, you have not had a presentation, so you get the whole presentation today.
This is the Waltman Browning Plaza project and it's located on the south side of
Waltman, east of the Landing Subdivision, and directly north of I-84. So, it's west of
Meridian Road exit there. The applications before you tonight are annexation and
zoning of 38.68 acres to C-G general commercial, and a preliminary plat for 40 building
lots and finro common lots. This is the approved -- the conceptual site plan that the
Planning and Zoning Commission acted upon and this concept plan depicts one big box
retail building, a hotel, offices and a retail center for a variety of commercial
opportunities. There are 21 proposed buildings. That includes five office buildings and
five office/retail buildings, one big box retail building, one potential hotel building -- I
should point some of these out. This is the big box on the southeast side of the
property and the hotel would be on the southwest portion of the property. And nine
smaller retail buildings. This is a revised concept plan that the applicant has provided
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 38 of 74
tonight -- or earlier today and in this plan the Ruddy Drive, which was shown as a street
previously, is turned into a commercial aisle. So, it's a different type of access. The
applicant presents this tonight just as an alternative site plan. He understands that in
order for this site plan to be approved that if Council so desires you'd have to continue it
and, then, staff would have the opportunity to review it further and coordinate it with Ada
County Highway District. But they do have an alternative site plan tonight. You can see
some of the images of the proposed structures. And, then, here are some conceptual
building elevations. This is of the big box. These are some of the smaller buildings.
Many elevations with generally the same flavor to the architecture as depicted on these
pictures as the beginning. The Commission has recommended approval at their
3/20/08 meeting. March 20th. There we go. In favor -- speaking in favor of the
application were Joe Borton, Shawn Nickel from Rose Law Group, applicant's
representative, and Robert Wiener, the applicant. In opposition were Kathy Floyd,
Cindy Jones, Donna Aldridge, and Mike Swenson. Commenting were Curtis Lee,
Christie Haddock, Nona Haddock, Nathan Floyd, Joe Lorcher, Terry Farnham, and Rob
Haddock. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the necessity for
Corporate Drive to be extended from the north to Waltman Lane for an additional
access point to and from the site. Let me point that out to you. Sorry. The extension of
Corporate Drive would be over this creek and, then, down this property line that is
currently in the county still and, then, down to meet Waltman Lane. The transition in
uses between the future commercial uses and the existing residences to the west along
here and The Landing and, then, to the north along here on Waltman. The threshold for
how much development can occur on the site until Corporate Drive is extended from the
north for 5th Street to Waltman and for uses that are non-office on property that abuts
residential uses requires Conditional Use Permit approval, limit hours of operation,
and/or prohibit certain uses. So, the key changes to staff s initial recommendation were
to add a development agreement provision requiring CU approval for all restaurant and
retail uses proposed along the western and northern boundaries and adjacent to the
residential uses and, furthermore, drinking establishments and drive-thru uses would be
prohibited along those borders. To also add a DA provision restricting hours of
operation for businesses along the western and northern property boundaries adjacent
to residential uses to not exceed 10:00 p.m. Modify the DA provisions to allow up to
150,000 square feet, instead of 75,000 square feet, of gross building area prior to the
extension of Corporate Drive from Waltman Lane across Ten Mile to the north. We
have received two -- three pieces of written testimony since the staff report. The first
was from Art Berry. He endorsed the project and noted that they own two of the
adjacent lots to the east and, then, we -- also from a neighbor to the east, Duane Cope
provided a letter today that opposes the project. Mr. Cope's property was annexed with
a C-G back in 1984 by a developer, High Country, who planned to buy the residential
properties on the south side of Waltman and develop them commercially. Mr. Cope
states that the residents agreed to the annexation with a sunset clause that if the
properties did not develop commercially, that the land would remain rural residential.
He states further that the properties were never redeveloped and the city did not honor
the sunset clause. We have been in communication with Mr. Cope before with regard
to some enforcement issues he pointed out to us and we have researched this issue.
We can't find anything in the city records that indicates that this was approved with a
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 39 of 74
sunset clause. I suspect that it was an agreement that the developer made with the
neighbors, but never was part of the official city findings. And, thirdly, we received
additional testimony, an update letter today from Mr. Nickel requesting additional DA
provisions and assume he's going to discuss those in his presentation. The outstanding
issues before City Council that we see tonight is -- the first one is this threshold for how
much development can occur on the site before Corporate Drive is extended from
Waltman Lane north across the Ten Mile and how that restriction is applied to the
subject applicant. The second one would be the appropriate transition in uses between
the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the west and north.
And you may hear testimony with regard to that tonight. And, finally, the applicant, as I
mentioned before, has submitted a revised concept plan changing the connection into
the Landing Subdivision from a public street to a commercial driveway. The applicant
understands that this will require continuing the item in order to obtain staff comments in
coordination with other agencies, if Council chooses to approve the application. But we
do support proceeding with the hearing tonight to consider the larger outstanding issues
related primarily to the extension Corporate Drive and the -- the relation -- the transition
from the uses to the residential uses. With that I will answer any questions that Mayor
and Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: Not at this time, Mayor.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: When the Planning and Zoning Commission saw this and made their
recommendation, did they only see it with a public road? Have they seen the significant
change that's been offered since then?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, no, they
did not see the -- they only saw Ruddy Drive as a street --
Zaremba: A public street.
Canning: A public Street.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, this may be a question for Mr. Nickel, but --
De Weerd: Mr. Nickel. Boy, that's a--
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 40 of 74
Rountree: Yeah. Whatever. Shawn. Is this scale messed up on this rendition, that it
should be shifted to the west? Is that --
Canning: It does appear to not be correct, because we have got a gap here.
De Weerd: I thought that was a huge transitional buffer that was greened up and all of
that and --
Rountree: We will clear that up a little bit later, then.
Nickel: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council. For the record, Shawn Nickel. 6223
North Discovery Way, Suite 200, Boise. Here tonight representing the applicant. Yes,
the first thing I noticed, too, is that somewhere in the e-mail to your staff that did get
shifted over, so -- look there it goes. Right there. Magic. It's still not fitting quite right.
Madam Mayor, with your indulgence, I have got a couple of handouts -- or a handout
that I'd like to --
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nickel --
Nickel: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: -- I guess does staff have this on the computer, so we can put it on up there
as -- if you're going to refer to this?
Nickel: Staff has -- yes. Yes, they do. They have all those on there.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thanks again. First of all, I want to really thank your staff for putting up with us
for quite some time as we have made it to this point in this process. Numerous delays
to try to get this application right. One of the -- one of the problems with developing a
piece of property that you don't know what the ultimate outcome is going to be is trying
to make it as flexible as possible for that -- for that end user. We have been lucky in the
last month and a half or so that we are working with a national developer who builds
quality shopping centers all around the country and they have been helping us and
giving us input, which in that sense we have modified the site plan that you see in front
of you. Still working with ACHD with regards to the -- to that Ruddy connection and
indications from ACHD are they -- they don't see a real problem with turning this into a
private drive, rather than a public street, but, again, we will get their revised report and it
will be a condition of approval that we meet ACHD's requirements. The developer and
the applicant believe this is a key piece of property in your -- in your city or, hopefully, to
be in your city with this annexation approval. Key in the sense that it is on the I-84
corridor. It is an entrance point into the city and it is going to provide very important
services to a growing community. Again, as I stated, we have been working with your
Planning and Zoning Commission. We have had several meetings with them. We are
working with your staff again. It's been great to have them on board. And also we are
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 41 of 74
working with MDC and the highway district and several of those issues we will discuss
this evening that have come up in this process. Again, the revised concept plan is in
front of you. We are going to the MDC next week to request their assistance in some of
our improvements that we have on the property. And your staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission has made recommendations, two of which are kind of key to
tonight's discussion. One of those is the conditions that came out of your staff and that
came out the Planning and Zoning Commission with regards to types of uses and the
design of those uses along -- this area right here is kind of the key area and we are
focusing on and that's that a transitional area that we understand whenever you put a
commercial use next to an existing residential use. Actually, to be fair, it's this area right
here. You have the freeway and we have vacant property along this portion right here.
And one of the key site characteristics is the -- is the creek on the west -- on the eastern
boundary. In your packet and I have -- and I do apologize to staff, because we did get
this to them very late, this last page, but that's our recommended conditions within the
development agreement that we'd like to see on this property now that we do have a
developer that we are working with that can kind of envision how this -- how this
property is going to move forward. What -- I guess one of the key additions that we
would like to propose is to provide a solid masonry wall along the -- this area right here
adjacent to the -- to the residents that, obviously, are not going to change -- not going to
change uses in the future, they are always going to be residential. In addition to that,
incorporating the -- a landscape berm to provide that -- that buffer -- that noise sound
barrier for this -- for this development. We think that's -- that is key in trying to make
sure that the uses that do go along these boundaries in the future are compatible to
those residents and is a responsible way to develop. I don't necessarily want to go into
them in detail. We can -- we can discuss them if you would like, but what we are trying
to -- what we are trying to get is we are trying to get the flexibility to allow all uses within
this -- that are allowed in the C-G zone within this development. Now, obviously, if they
are required under the code to have a Conditional Use Permit, they would -- they would
go through that process -- that additional process. In dealing with staff and in dealing
with your Commission and their concerns, we are willing to limit the use of bars or
drinking establishments, prohibit those. Prohibit drive-thrus. And to make restaurants a
Conditional Use Permit to provide for further public review of that type of use if they
would go along that boundary. All other the retail and office uses we would like to have
and as they are currently in the C-G zone. We are hoping that with the -- with the
improvement of that barrier setbacks that we have agreed upon in the -- in the
conditions of approval and additional review, that we can find that transition and that
compatibility. So, if you want to go into those in more detail, we can do that, but I'll kind
of leave that for now and, again, to be fair to staff, they got this literally an hour before
they closed down, so we can continue to work with them on that and see if they -- you
know, and have them review the site plan if that's necessary. And, then, the other key
issue, which is actually more important, I think, than the uses is the requirement coming
out of staff and coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission to require an off-site
road extension, specifically the Corporate -- future Corporate connection to the north
and over the creek. We are very uncomfortable of having an off-site improvement
where we don't have necessarily the control over the private property that that road
would have to go across. So, as it states right now in the recommended conditions, we
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 42 of 74
are required to -- to bring that road through and to approve it -- or improve it. Now, just
so you understand, the property with the connection to Ruddy and the connection to
Waltman, we do have two access points into the development currently, which does
provide for emergency -- two access points for emergency and for -- and for access. In
addition, this is not a requirement that's coming out of staff or out of Planning and
Zoning Commission, but we intend to -- obviously, we are improving Waltman along our
-- along our boundary -- or along -- within our boundary. We are proposing to improve
Waltman from our eastern boundary to the edge of where ACHD is going to have their
new intersection that I know you're all aware of right in this area right here that's going
to improve the Main Street - Meridian Road - Waltman intersection. So, you are going
to have a-- you are going to see an improved Waltman into the property, we just don't --
we just can't grasp the -- an off-site improvement being placed on this property. So,
that's -- that's really the key issue and we can -- we can discuss that in more detail. The
developer has flown -- or the potential -- potential buyer of the property has flown in
from out of state. He and his -- are here and they are going to talk to you in better detail
than I can about the uses on the west and they have got the experience in developing
shopping centers, I don't. So, I thought it would be better for them to kind of explain to
you how they approach this type of scenario and, then, they wil! have some comments
also on those off-site improvements. Just a few more things and, then, I will be quiet.
Actually, I think that's -- that's all I'm going to state for now. I will bring the team up. We
also have our engineer present if any technical issues, irrigation, anything like that
about the site need to be explained. He's -- Ross is here. I'll stand for any questions
right now.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you so much.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state you name and address for the record.
Stange: Roger Stange, Benner Stange & Associates, Portland, Oregon. We are the
architects for the potential developer of this project.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stange: I just wanted to expand on a few things that Shawn was talking about and I
think the first thing I'd like to expand on this is the extension of Ruddy Road, because
you saw two diagrams up there. The initial one shows Ruddy Road as basically a--
what we would consider a thoroughfare through the project and, then, you saw a
second diagram that has been submitted, that one right there, which shows Ruddy
Road as an access with -- access into the project. What we envision here is -- and I
think you can see the basic difference befinreen those two plans, even in this very
conceptual diagram -- is that in this diagram Ruddy -- the extension of Ruddy Road
does not separate the project into two separate parcels, it actually ties it together. What
we see is a project where the extension of Ruddy Road out of the project, people
actually traveling out on that road will not know whether it's a public or private, it will
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 43 of 74
basically look the same, it will act the same, everything else. It will have landscaping. It
will still be treated as a road. It will not be an access drive aisle or anything like that.
So, it will appear the same as a public street, but it will not be a public street. Therefore,
it will not separate the parcel into finro separate parcels; it keeps it as one parcel. In fact,
it opens up opportunities for us to develop more of a center core, which you haven't
seen yet, but if you can envision the extension of that Ruddy Road over, you'd see that
we could actually extend it and have more of a central core to the project in that area
right there, where we could actually have something that would be more like a town
center to the project or a court in the center. Every project needs to have a heart to the
project. This project so far does not have that. And that would be our intention in the
future is developing that. So, as you're traveling along that road, we want that road to
service not only for fire access and for access for the residents, but we don't want to
encourage people to come in and out through the adjacent neighborhood, through the
residential neighborhood. We want to give the neighborhood access -- easy access into
our project, easy access for both for pedestrians and automobiles to come in and out,
but we don't want to encourage traffic into the neighborhood at the same time. We think
that this type of a scheme where it shows it more as a-- a roadway within our project
and not as a public street or a public thoroughfare accomplishes that purpose. The
other thing that I wanted to talk to you about is, actually, the -- the edge along the
project, which is next to the residential right here. That's always a concern on retail
projects and, basically, my firm is a retail architectural firm, we have completed over 40
million square feet in nine western states in the United States and it's always a concern,
but our history shows that retail projects are actually very, very compatible with
residential projects. In fact, we actually promote the kind of pedestrian access befinreen
the residential project and the retail project, because we want those to -- to invite those
people in to be shoppers in our retail project. In addition, we actually come up with a
project that actually allows us to, basically, serve as a buffer to that residential area and
what we are proposing by the wall and the landscaped area along the westem edge that
you see -- excuse me. Right here. And here and here. Would be a combination of a
wall and a landscaped buffer that would serve as -- as a visual buffer from the
neighbors. It would also kind af keep us apart at the same. In the past we have
actually worked with neighborhoods, if they prefer to have access in at certain points,
we will give them access into the project and things like that. And at the same time it
allows for the neighbors to come in and out through the project and use it as their
access point. But what we would like to do is, actually, have a buffer zone along here,
along this edge right here, which gives us the flexibility of having uses that are
conditional use within a certain dimension of the property line. You know, one of the
questions that came up on this is -- is a project that abuts the western property line of
this project. What we see as a project that, actually, probably tends to face toward
Meridian and probably will end up in the future facing more like that, or maybe in a U
shape like that, but it will be a project that will tend to back up to the neighborhood. In
every retail project you have, basically, a front door and a back door to a retail project.
It's really desirable to have the back door toward the neighborhood, because that serves
as a buffer for things such as lighting, automobiles, things like that to the neighborhood.
At the same time you want to be able to buffer that from the neighborhood. So, what we
would propose is this wall, a landscape buffer along the back, along this edge of the
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 44 of 74
project, that would serve as that buffer zone between us and the adjacent residential
neighborhood. This is something we have done very successfully in the past. We have
a number of projects with it and we can bring in photos in the future to show you what
we actually envision along there happening and how that could be enhanced and how
we protect the neighbors from our project and at the same time invite them into the
project. We -- we control lighting through shields and things like that. We have lighting
requirements on the backs of the buildings where we don't cast any light outside of our
-- outside of our property line, so that lighting does not become an issue for the
neighbors. And other issues like that that we typically address in any retail project that
abuts residential projects. In addition, I think one of the things that I heard was that --
was that drive-up uses would not be allowed. Actually, what we are proposing is drive-
up uses are a conditional use within a certain area of the site. Drive-up uses can really
vary a lot and, actually, I think it's to everyone's advantage to have it as a conditional
use, because some of the drive-up uses are very, very desirable, such as drive-up
banks and things like that that people want to use, and others are not as desirable. But
I think we want to allow them at least as a conditional use, so you get to look at them
again as they go through the process and see what type of a drive-up use that we are
actually proposing. I think along this edge of the property, which is along Waltman, we
have a public street separating us from the residential property. We don't actually view
that the same way as we view that edge right there as far as it being a separation. We
view the public street as being part of our separation, just like the highway is part of our
separation of our project right here. And that potentially we may end up with drive-up
uses along this area, such as a drive-up bank or something like that that typically want
to go near the entrance to the project that may be desirable to have up in that area,
because it's a very quiet use. It's doesn't generate a lot of traffic. It has very limited
hours and things like that. So, there is a certain amount of flexibility in the type of drive-
up uses that we propose. Therefore, allowing them as a conditional use within a certain
number of feet to the property; is actually to everyone's benefit, so you get to view them
again and we get to propose them again to you. This is, as I-- as Shawn had
mentioned, this is a very, very conceptual plan. On a project of this scale, which is 38
acres, we will probably have about 125 site plans when we are done, in that range, and
so there will be a lot of changes to the site plan. So, it's important that the rules and that
the guidelines that we are following have some flexibility and some regulation that we
can follow, but I think as long as our intent is always the same that we provide the same
intent that you're looking for as far as design quality, as far as buffering, as far as
landscaping, as far as lighting, as far as all of those issues, which we are used to
providing, then, I think everyone will be very happy with the results in the end. I'd like to
open it up for any questions at this time that you may have of ine.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: None?
Zaremba: Not at this time.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 45 of 74
Stange: Okay. I will turn it over to --
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question.
Stange: Yes.
Rountree: Two or three, maybe. And -- you talked about the west side.
Stange: Yes.
Rountree: And you about this -- this concept being different than the one that was
proposed to P&Z in terms of a thoroughfare through here and this more of an access
into the --
Zaremba: Excuse me, Councilman Rountree, I'm having trouble hearing you.
Rountree: Okay. And you're talking about this more of an access into the development.
Given that this property to the west has one way in and one way out at this point in time,
if you open that up it's going to become a mini thoroughfare. I don't care what you do, if
you're trying to provide continuity through your development that way, to me -- and I
appreciate the access here, because I think if this happens, then, the folks that live in
that western area are certainly going to want to shop and do business in this location.
But some way or another that movement is going to have to be discouraged to the point
that you're going to minimize that cut-through traffic.
Stange: Well, we agree totally, yes.
Rountree: And I don't know how you do that and I've not seen a proposal that does that
and it seems to me that the -- the previous one at least recognized it was going to
happen when -- and built the road to accommodate it. This one recognized you want to
have continuity between your development, but I see what you have created is you've
probably exacerbated that by having a lesser facility, but you're still going to have that
movement of folks getting out of town.
Stange: In both cases -- that is potentially true I think in both cases. In this case,
though, versus the other one, which indicated is a more direct thoroughfare, it was quite
obvious in the other drawing that you could see. When you get to Waltman it was very
easy to slide right down through in the neighbor. That's exactly what we want to
discourage. We don't want our people going -- I have seen the road system in that
neighborhood. You can't send anyone through it. It's like a maze inside there. You
can't do that. Our access needs to be out through Waltman. That's where our access
needs to be in and out is through Waltman, not through the neighborhood. If that
means doing some type of a barrier in there, if that means doing something that the fire
marshal finds acceptable in there that let's the neighbors in and out, doesn't let us in
and out, whatever that is that we come up with for a solution, it will work. We don't
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 46 of 74
intend to go through the adjacent residential neighborhood for our access at all. Our
access will be through Waltman.
Rountree: I'm not -- I'm not directing my comments to your access, I'm directing my
comments to those folks that live there who want to get out of town instead of going up
Linder and going --
Stange: They'll come through our property.
Rountree: They will come through your property.
Stange: Yes, they will. Yes.
Rountree: And to me that's --
Stange: And we want them to come through the project.
Rountree: I know you want them to come through the project, but I've not seen anything
in terms of numbers that might divert, but I could anticipate -- I could anticipate that that
could be a real traffic issue in terms of accidents, conflicts befinreen pedestrians and
vehicles, those sorts of things, so -- I just anticipate that, you know, it looks good on
paper, but when our enforcement people and police and fire have to respond to a lot of
things that go on out there, how -- how do we find a remedy to that potential conflict?
Stange: Well, I think that as we see the plan develop and as we work with the fire
marshal for the access and the traffic engineers .for what their requirements are and our
own requirements for our tenants, we will come up with a solution that will be -- achieve
all the kind of things that we need to do. For instance, as you're coming out of Ruddy
through here, if you look at the other drawing, you can see how this kind of funnels
traffic into there. That's a big concern. If you look at the next photograph where it
doesn't, I think that has a potential of perhaps in the future this street develops more as
a main street type scheme or something more retail oriented along this. So, all of a
sudden it becomes much more inviting for the neighbors to go through and much more
desirable for them. At the same time we don't want to encourage traffic through the
adjacent neighborhood. We will work out whatever is necessary in order to stop that
from happening.
Rountree: I don't see that's a problem
neighborhood.
I think the problem is the traffic from the
Stange: From the neighborhood?
Rountree: Yeah.
Stange: Well -- okay. Now, honestly, we hope there is traffic from the neighborhood.
That would be great for us. We will accommodate it and invite it.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 47 of 74
Rountree: Follow-up question and I've not seen it. Has there been a traffic impact
study done and has it been submitted to ACHD and has it been responded to?
Stange: I will have to defer that.
Rountree: I see a shaking of the head from in the affirmative from Shawn.
Stange: Yes.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Stange: Okay. And now, if it's all right, I will turn this over to our developer Dave
Moore.
Zaremba: Actually, before doing that, Mayor --
Stange: Pardon?
Zaremba: I did say I was going to save my comments for later. I do want to hear some
of the public comment. But Councilman Rountree has picked up on the subject that --
that I certainly agree with him. Is there anything that we can show on the aerial that's
more like -- you probably can't see it from here. There is a drawing -- there is a drawing
that shows both --
De Weerd: Anna.
Zaremba: -- the interstate and the -- and Linder. That one's better. That's even better.
Thank you.
Stange: Yeah. Yeah.
Zaremba: Thank you. The issue is actually the other way around from what you're
framing it. Over the years as these subdivisions have come before us -- the current
situation is, essentially, from the intersection of Linder and Franklin, all of this is one cul-
de-sac. We have been approving projects in there in the promise that this stub street
would make a connection over here. All of these people that live within a half mile of
this interchange currently have to drive three-quarters of a mile up to Franklin, a mile
across Franklin, and three-quarters of a mile back down and half a mile back into their
subdivision to get someplace that's a half a mile away from them. All along the plan has
been that this is eventually going to become easy. It has always been the thought that
-- is it Ruddy Street, 1 believe, something like that? -- would be a public road somehow
connecting through this property to get the people short circuited to there. I don't see
that this is going to attract a lot of non -- people who don't live there are not going to find
it attractive to drive through there.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 48 of 74
Stange: I think only once.
Zaremba: But all of the people that do live there --
De Weerd: They'll get lost only once.
Zaremba: -- need this access and in my feeling that needs to be a public street. And I
realize that it changes the issues of how you do it, but we have been talking about that
for so long that I can't see that not being a public access.
Stange: You know, we do projects with -- I mean in the urbanization of most of our
projects we have public -- what are private streets throughout our projects, but the fact
is no one knows whether they are public or private when we are finished. They can't tell
the difference. And that's what we see this project being is an urbanization of it and that
the public street -- whether it's public or private, as long as it's treated with the same
type of degree of detail and sidewalks and curb and gutter and streets, things like that,
and boulevards, no one really knows the difference whether it's public or private. We
just see it more integrated into the project and not serving as a barrier and not inviting
traffic into the neighborhood. And that's the difference, I guess, is that I don't think
anyone coming from the neighborhood would recognize whether it's a public or a private
street. You can't tell the difference when it's finished. It just -- we don't want it to read
as much as a thoroughfare in and out.
Zaremba: Well, we do try not to connect public streets to public streets with private
streets in between or private drive aisles.
Stange: Yeah. We know that.
Zaremba: And the principle all along has been that public streets make the connections.
It's easier to keep it in the public domain for future -- future access.
De Weerd: Well -- and I would imagine, since this will be continued, that one of the
things that we would want to be brought back is an example of the street movement of
the traffic --
Stange: A cross-section and to show how we treat it.
De Weerd: -- what the pedestrian crossings would look like and I think you have an
excellent opportunity for a roundabout in there.
Stange: You know what --
De Weerd: I mean I had to say it. You always know I'm going to talk about
roundabouts.
Meridian Ciry Council
May 6, 2008
Page 49 of 74
Stange: I think we agree with that. I think we have an excellent opportunity with
something right in there.
De Weerd: But there -- there is -- there is a lot to be said. This has always -- in fact, we
have tried everything we can think of to try and open that up for that emergency access
and it -- it is an important connection for that neighborhood and --
Stange: We agree totally. The neighborhood needs to use that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Now you can go.
Moore: Dave Moore, Trammell Crow Company, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Moore: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity to stand
before you tonight. I'm here to speak at 30,000 feet. We have a lot of very well trained
professionals that have worked in your city for a long time on this team and we are
relatively new to the game. Two concepts. Number one, the more restrictions that we
place on this project, the less commercially viable it ultimately becomes, as a general
rule. Not this particular piece of property, but in general. Second, there is an economic
impact to all of these things. And specifically I want to talk about the expansion to the
north of Corporate Drive. That is a particular concern to us and one that I would
address my comments more in the form of a question. It is confusing to my company
how one would expect the recommendations, albeit I understand, I see the big picture, I
understand the one bite at the apple philosophy, how there was not right of way, how
the plan is not in place to burden this property with the expansion of a-- with Corporate
Drive to the north when simply it doesn't exist today. Two issues. Number one,
economic. It costs money to do that. That means the rest of the project will have to
support that. It's a reality of doing business today. Unfortunately, I wish we were in the
market three years ago, not today. But, nonetheless, we are where we are. So, there is
an economic impact. But, second, and equally as important, is how are we supposed to
accomplish this. The right of way does not exist. It's a private party. There is not a
design structure in place today where anybody can point to and say, well, the road's
supposed to be there, maybe it's there, maybe it's over there. I'm not sure how or
where it's supposed to exist. And to encumber the -- the project with a-- just a
unilateral -- this road needs to be connected, without giving us the information and the
process and the power to accomplish that, is going to be very challenging. I don't know
-- I don't own the property today. I'm not sure if anybody in this room owns the property.
My guess is maybe somebody does. Is it worth five dollars? Five million dollars? I'm
not sure. I'm sure this hearing doesn't make it go down in value. So, I'm not sure what
the economic impact is, let alone how I accomplish that. So, we are interested in doing
this project. We think this is a great piece of property. We think that the City of Meridian
embraces this property as the gateway to the project -- or to the city and we think we
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 50 of 74
can create something that can be absolutely fabulous here. I think you heard some of
Roger's ideas, connectivity, pedestrian access, working with the neighborhoods,
improving Waltman from Meridian to the project all the way through. Without saying we
are not going to do it, I'm saying we have a giant concern with how we are going to do it
and how we are going to pay for the connection of Corporate to the north. That said, we
would like to work with you on connectivity to Ruddy. We would like to work with you on
buffering uses to the north and to the west. We would also like to make this the
gateway to the city. It's going to be very challenging when the main drive is here to
orient this project any way, but have the back of the project this way. It will never
expand this way. It's only going to expand here. Ultimately some day all this will be
commercial, which means the project wants to face this way. So, I don't have any grand
answers for tonight. I'm here to introduce myself, I'm here to talk to you about some
concerns we have. I want to acknowledge the staff for their cooperation. We have met
with them several times and the consultants have worked on this and just simply
express our concerns about how we actually pay for and accomplish the staff
recommendation that Corporate Drive be connected to the .north. If there are any
questions I'd be happy to answer them.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just in case it doesn't sound like it, let me say I'm thrilled to see something
happening here and the concepts that are being presented I think can be a plus. The
devil, of course, is always in the details, but I'm thrilled to see something moving forward
and things being presented. That said, I may be interpreting what I think I'm hearing
from staff or the Commission differently than what you are. I didn't see that they are
actually requiring you to do Corporate, I interpret it as there may need to be a limit on
how much development you can do on your land before somebody else does
Corporate.
Moore: At 150,000 square feet on 38 acres, it's not a yes or no, it's a when.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moore: And the when would be very, very soon.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further?
Zaremba: No. Thank you.
Meridian Ciry Council
May 6, 2008
Page 51 of 74
Moore: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have --
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I --
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: -- thought of one question for Roger, if you would indulge me.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: And --
Stange: Roger Stange, Benner Stange.
Rountree: -- it relates to the concept, the design, and the utilization of the site. Is it your
intent, if this were to be approved, to -- to the extent possible put Ten Mile Drain -- or
creek an amenity with Ten Mile Drain, do something with it besides a weed patch
ultimately?
Stange: I think I'd have to --
Rountree: Or a wildlife habitat or, you know, something that's beneficial --
Stange: Well, we are still investigating that. We don't know what the Ten Mile -- what
the creek and what the drains really will consist of in the future. Right now it's an open
creek. We are assuming it stays the same, but we -- until we kind of figure out what's
going on on the site plan, we -- we don't know how to utilize it yet.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Stange: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you, Mayor.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, it is a
designated pathway location, so there would be a multi-use pathway.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 52 of 74
Rountree: Okay. Okay. Very good.
De Weerd: I will get to you when your -- in the order of signing up. I don't know if
Shawn explained, but that was the longest ten minutes I've ever had for a developer
giving the presentation. And I don't know if our timer kind of got a little mixed up, but
you will get your three minutes shortly. Okay. Sorry. I'm -- I run the meeting. That's
my big important job. I don't get to vote, but I get to run the meeting. So, we will get to
you, I promise. Okay. Thank you. Curtis Lee has signed up -- and neutral against, so
-- if you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Lee: Curtis Lee. 365 Waltman Lane.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lee: We border the property right along the ditch where it's going to be and when we
moved there 50 years ago it was route three, we had a small little dairy, and it was a dirt
lane, just as Waltman Lane is around the corner. Well, we owned the middle of the
road. The lane, rather. It's called Waltman Lane. It's not even a road. And the
residents down the lane put asphalt and gravel down. We have no city services, but we
are zoned for the city. We have no sewer, no water. Joanie had the dog catcher come
down and get the dogs at large and you call the dog catcher, they say, well, one side's
county, one side's city. So, we are right in the middle. I saw the road people doing
surveillance at the corner for you guys to be doing that and they said they have a 25
foot easement to take all -- because you have got to do Waltman Lane, which we know
is going to happen. Well, they said they were going to take 25 foot of our property,
which is our well, our shrubbery, everything we have. Our mailbox. And they said they
had that right of way and I said, well, according to our -- my property line, we own to the
middle of the road. You got 25 foot from the road, but you don't have 25 foot from the
road onto our land. They said they acquired it when that one company she was talking
about tried to get it zoned for a mall and the sunset clause that she's talking about, I'm
not sure if we have it not. We should. But I know we have -- are grandfathered. I have
five head of cows, 20 chickens, and a pig that borders their property. You know, we
irrigate from the ditch. We have our own well. We have city services. And I'm just -- no
disrespect to you, Madam Mayor, or the City Council, but after what I saw in the
Statesman a couple three weeks ago where we condemn property and put up a parking
lot, I just don't want to see that happen to us, because we don't want to sell, but we are
going to have to give right of ways and probably are going to have to sell, so you can
redevelop all of it. We know that that's going to happen. But it just kind of scares you
when they can do that kind of stuff. And it is the law, I know they can, but -- that's it.
De Weerd: I appreciate that. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mike Swenson signed up also on the line. Good evening.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 53 of 74
Swenson: Hi. Michael C. Swenson. I'm at 815 Waltman Lane. Kind of the back corner
of Waltman there. And when we came to Meridian about 16 years ago and went
dutifully to the ACHD, how they were going to renovate the streets in Meridian, there
was a connection to Corporate from Waltman Lane. So, this has been going on for a
long time. What's happened in the past when they have closed off Linder to do utilities
and they brought in all the subdivision down Waltman, it was a disaster. It was like wall
to wall traffic that you literally had to force your way in to get on -- out of your driveway.
And so it was a nightmare and now there is -- this was probably three or four years ago
and now there are a lot more people back there. So, the things that I'm concerned
about is getting that connection in, because I think there is going to be more traffic than
you can shake a stick at coming up Ruddy Way and I don't think the whole system is
going to work. I would also like to see corporate drive go over to the subdivision and
provide another access point to give the subdivision people in and out. I think, you
know, the developers have been reasonably -- this might make me real unhappy with
my neighbors, but I think they have been reasonably responsible. They have put in fire
access on their own property, which I thought was very well done. And, of course, I'd
like to know from the developers, well, how big of a wall, but -- my wife told me to ask
that. But that's all I have. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Kathy Floyd signed up against. Mainly against.
Floyd: Mainly against. Yeah. My name is Kathy Floyd. 520 Waltman Lane. Mainly
against -- I'm not against the property turning commercial, I'm against how it's set up,
the plan, which -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that neighborhoods --
neighbors were supposed to be informed of plans, including all the changes, and the
last -- this is the last plan that we have ever seen. So, for them to come tonight to
change, I think doesn't seem right. A lot of reference has been made to being --
Waltman being the gateway to the city. It's a dead end lane. So, it's not going into the
city. I don't know why that's called the gateway. If you look right here, coming off the
exit, right now a lot of people actually try to go right into the left-hand, so they can turn
down here and avoid lights, which I know with the split corridor is supposed to change
that, which I don't really think the split corridor will help. I'll go on record saying that.
But with Waltman being the main access point to not this subdivision, but for other
subdivisions, that will be the main access and I don't really think Meridian should be
known for halfinray -- half of this road is storage, so if that's the view you're wanting
people to think of Meridian, it's not a very nice view. And so I think that's very poor
planning. And I know a lot of stuff has been said as far as the 20 year plan that this is
supposed to go to commercial and I understand that. I'm not against it going
commercial. But if that was the 20 year plan, then, they should have allowed the
storage unit to go in and they shouldn't have allowed this subdivision to go in without
proper roads. And you had 20 years to plan that. I have been around for 20 years. I
mean more than 20 years, but I have lived on this land for on -- over 30 years and I
think that if that was the main plan, then, we could have accommodated for it long
before now. One of the things that was mentioned by the developer is that he would do
whatever it takes to make sure this is not a thoroughfare and the one thing he could do
is make Corporate Drive go through and I understand he doesn't want to pay for that,
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 54 of 74
but that's part of development. The other thing is Linder Road could use an overpass.
That could also cut down the people going through and cutting right through to go to the
exit. Another thing that I don't think is in line with what the city actually wants -- there is
no bike trails, there is no walking trails, which I know if you're wanting all these people
from the subdivision to come to this development, how are they getting there? There is
no bike trails, except on the other side of the Ten Mile ditch and there is no bridges that
they are proposing and they are not proposing that to be extended until the other
property on the -- up there is developed. So, I think that the developers are asking for
flexibility and I understand for them that would be nice, but now I'm hearing is it is that
they are really not wanting responsibility and I think that they should be held
accountable, because it's affecting a lot of people in Meridian and it's affecting the
residents of this lane.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have Robert Wiener signed up for.
Wiener: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Robert Wiener. 2730
South Mayflower Way, Boise. 83709.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wiener: I am a current partner. I now know how you feel on election day. I feel like I
have been campaigning for three years to get to see you. When we first started the
project I started meeting with the neighbors. First time ever to eat rhubarb pie.
Rountree: Nona's special, uh?
De Weerd: I love rhubarb pie.
Wiener: Well, best pie I ever had. The first thing that was a concern of the neighbors
was that we try to do something with Waltman Lane, so that it's not running directly
adjacent to their property as it sits so close to their home right now. What we ended up
doing is we decided on our own behalf that we would shift Waltman and give them
some of our property and move Waltman Lane down onto our property, which, in turn,
made us also have to improve the entire Waltman Lane and not just half, which would
have been ACHD's requirement, because now basically everything from north of center
line is now going to belong to the families to the north. So, we tried to accommodate
them in the way. We have met with them many times and as much as I understand that
they would like to not see a development, that they would rather see this as a giant ski
lake, we are really trying hard to accommodate them and work with them and so that
was our first part. And we have also offered that when we do donate this property to
them that if they would like it landscaped with a berm to their side or just a thicker,
denser landscape that we will pretty much accommodate whichever way they decide to
go. As far as Ruddy Lane goes, there is -- there is no simple answer as far as how
anybody's going to empty that traffic out of the subdivision and we understand that.
Staff had talked about a circuitous connection. We had talked about a more direct
connection. Staff talked about the connection being a drive aisle, connection lane like
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 55 of 74
you see it now, versus public street. I don't think staff really cared either way, as long
as we accommodated and made it look nice. So, we have worked towards that, so that
it's not fast traffic through our development and hitting Waltman Lane at high speeds,
whether they turn right or if anything ever happens to the north, they are not just flying
across. We have tried to make it where it's a slowed down access. Sewer and water,
as far as any issues there, they are both -- sewer is across our entire property. I don't
know if you all know where it is now, but sewer runs basically from this site right here.
We gave an easement underneath the creek -- creek as they say. I'm originally from
Louisiana. There is sewer all the way across -- comes across here and it even goes
down this way now. Water runs down Waltman Lane. I think it's about a ten inch --
eight or a ten inch pipe. So, the services are there, it's just a matter of making this road
large enough and nice enough to accommodate the traffic and that is our plan with
Waltman Lane is to open it up and put a nice surface down and put a nice bridge down.
We have agreed to the walking path, which will cross -- it will come in on this property
somewhere. That will be up to, obviously, the city planners, but it's going to cross on
our property right here and how exactly that's going to be drawn and how it's going to
attach we are not exactly sure, but that's where they are showing it and that's where the
city has asked for it to be.
De Weerd: Can I ask you to summarize, please?
Wiener: I'm done.
Rountree: Great.
De Weerd: Good timing.
Wiener: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Those are the names that have signed up. Is there
anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this? Yes, please. Hi.
Haddock: Thank you. My name is Rob Haddock. I live at 650 Waltman Lane. It's that
square to the north.
De Weerd: Do you want to use the pointer, maybe?
Haddock: Sure. Right there.
De Weerd: Thank you
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 56 of 74
Haddock: I don't know where to start. There is so many improvements that aren't in
place, I don't know why we are at this point right now. You know, until the connection
goes in, you know, it's not even a viable project. And like's been stated before, you
know, it is a dead end street. The developer said they don't expect traffic from -- from
the -- from the subdivision. So, basically, we are looking at a one way in, one way out
big box retail across from my home that sits on one acre. I'd like to see anything else in
the city or in the northwest that compares to that or is similar to that. You know, they
keep bringing up what's in the Comprehensive Plan and that's commercial. Well, in the
Comprehensive Plan to the north of that is residential and I don't see how it jives, how
the two mesh. Also to the north where Corporate is and north of there -- I don't know if
you haue got the -- you got the map that shows the -- yes. Do you have anything that
goes any further north than that? Okay. Thank you. Right there we have Southwest
5th and Pennwood coming together. You know, I could live with that type of commercial
property cross from me and that type of access. You know, they keep saying, well, we
have to connect. They didn't connect Pennwood or Barrett when they did that
development on Southwest 5th. So, I'm just confused. I don't know all the ordinances,
but, you know, as a resident on a dead end street with a family of five kids, you might
see a dozen cars go by in a day, to emptying that entire subdivision through, all the
commuters every morning, every evening, access to the freeway, access to Costco,
access to Home Depot, South Meridian, you know, they are all coming through no
matter what if you -- if you make that connection. My proposal would be, you know, I
realize the developers want to develop the property, I don't -- I don't see anything, you
know, that should be prevent that. But is there any way why -- is there any reason why
they couldn't connect Ruddy straight east to west all the way to the next development
and that's another good argument for waiting until the improvements are made to see
what develops to the east and, you know, then, it might make a lot more sense. I know
Waltman, when we looked at the connector plan from ACHD plans, it has a road coming
off right after the intersection that would access the property to the south, you know,
why not connect -- why not continue that access to the south all the way to this property,
connect it to Ruddy, give them a straight shot through the commercial development,
they could back their development up to Waltman Lane and, then, we could have a
fence and maintain our dead end street and residential feel. But it looks like I have got
the red light. 1 could go on. I have got a list here.
De Weerd: I'm sure your wife would give you her time.
Haddock: Okay. I'll tag team.
De Weerd: No. You can have her time if she allows you. Okay. There you go. Three
more minutes.
Haddock: Okay. I guess one of my concerns, too, is Councilman Borton's involvement.
1 feel like the developers are asking for, you know, as few restrictions as possible. I
have been to a lot of planning and zoning meetings, a lot of City Council meetings and I
have never heard economic feasibility brought up. I didn't know that was, you know,
part of your concern. You know, that's -- if a developer buys a piece of ground and,
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 57 of 74
boy, you know, look what I have got, how am I going to make this happen, they knew
what they bought when they bought it, why are we now making concessions for them.
Planning and Zoning, the first meeting I went to, the second before last. We had two
previous to this. The first one when Shawn Nickel got up, they pretty much, you know,
read him the riot act, you know, what are you doing, you're wasting our time, you got
this issue, this issue, this issue, this issue -- came back the next meeting, the same
plan, no resolution to any of the problems, but, you know, they met with ACHD, they
had a new staff member assigned to the project, we have been working with Caleb
Hood, who has kept us in the loop, calling before that meeting, hey, I'm not involved
anymore. You know, I just -- I hope that you guys can be impartial on this project is my
onfy concern, because the next Planning and Zoning meeting the only concern that was
brought up was not all these previous concerns, but, well, how many square feet are we
going to allow them to build. We stood and testified, brought up the same concerns,
and none of those were addressed. And so that -- that felt wrong to me and I didn't
sleep real well that night and I just, you know, hope you guys are looking at this the
same way you'd look at any other project and take into consideration our concerns.
Once again, just, you know, giving them the highest zoning possible and an open book,
I don't think that's in the best interest of anyone. You know, I don't think you should just
give them the development and say, okay, the project goes to the highest bidder, you
know, whoever comes in there, that's fine. Conditional Use Permit. That's -- you know,
we will work with it. And so I'm -- you know, I'm not comfortable with the -- with the
direction this is headed. And there is -- you know, I don't agree with the no retail -- with
the retail. You know, have been talking about the west and the northwest buffer, we
haven't talked about the north buffer a whole lot. You know, they said the road's the
buffer. You know, I-- you know, I like -- I like what's up on Southwest 5th. If we could
have that type of zoning I would be perfectly fine with it. The only thing I don't -- you
know, my biggest concern is opening Waltman Lane up as a thoroughfare to that
subdivision. It's going to empty out. And, you know, the Comprehensive Plan states
that that north section is -- is residential and I'd just like to hear some input on how --
how that can be accomplished. You know, we talked about undue hardship and i feel
allowing this to go in across the street -- you know, would any of you guys like a Wal-
mart in your front yard? You know, it's -- if that's not undue hardship, you know, I'd like
to hear what is. So, I think I'm done. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Did you want to comment? Well, I thought I saw you
getting up at one time.
N.Haddock: My name is Nona Haddock and I live at 480 Waltman Lane in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
N.Haddock: I would just like to encourage the idea of -- now I'm going to think of the
wrong name of the road. A frontage road like we have across the street where you go
in by McDonald's and Chevron and it frontages around to Home Depot and circles
around and -- that would be perfect for this side of the road also. You're going to widen
that intersection at Waltman and Meridian, just bring the traffic -- see if I know how to
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 58 of 74
use this. When this traffic comes through here, just drop it down, bring it across, let it
empty Ruddy. And they still would have this huge amount of property right here that
can be developed and they can do something right along the freeway and that way
you're designing traffic for the traffic flow, a road that will handle the traffic flow. There
is definitely a need. We all agree that that subdivision is beyond -- years beyond help
for being able to empty out. It's not even a safe situation. If we were to have a toxic
spill on the freeway right here and that had to be evacuated, we would be in big trouble,
because you know you couldn't get those people out in a very timely manner. But if this
were to be planned the way the road over here was planned, which works very well for
all of that -- so that would be my input. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any additional comment? Yes, sir.
N.Floyd: My name is Nathan Floyd, I live at 520 Waltman Lane, right in between the
two Haddock families, right here in the L-shaped property. And the point I wanted to
bring up was -- was notification of these public meetings has not been happening for our
little lane. There is supposed to be a big sign that says public meeting, public hearing,
at such and such a date and for the last three meetings that hasn't happened and I was
just curious, is there some sort of rule or regulation as to when that needs to happen
and if it doesn't happen what are the ramifications of that. And, then, the other point I
wanted to make was one that was already brought up was the fact of notifications in the
change of plans that Waltman, LLC, makes. And i find it very scary that each time we
come to a new meeting there is whole new plan that they come with. It scares me,
because, really, what it comes down to is it doesn't seem like they know what they want
to do and so when it comes to the point when they are ready to develop, what are we
going to end up with. We don't know, because apparently they don't know. And the last
thing I wanted to end with was Waltman, LLC, they are not the first ones to own this
property, it was previously owned, and the previous owner decided that it was a rotten
egg, it wasn't a very good property to develop on. And I think they are laughing at
Waltman, LLC, right now, because -- because they are in the same situation now. And
it's kind of funny the lengths that people will go to to make a rotten egg smell good. And
that's what I wanted to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. I can see you're getting your speech voice on; right?
N.Swenson: Not exactly.
De Weerd: Okay.
N.Swenson: Not exactly. Nancy Swenson. 815 Waltman Lane.
De Weerd: Thank you.
N.Swenson: And I have heard a lot of rhetoric tonight. A lot of stuff that sounds really
good coming out of people's voices and I'm saying you can make it sound good, but do
you know the reality of living right there? Do you know the reality of living on a little tiny
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 59 of 74
lane where almost nobody goes? Do you know the reality of having strangers stop right
there and for some reason get mad at me because the road doesn't go through and
they want to go someplace over there? I don't know where. And, then, they use my
driveway to turn around in, because it's a dead end. Do they know the reality of when
this was only partially developed and before that little jaunt was blocked down to a
walking path, the number of cars that kept coming through to get up to the freeway? Do
they know the reality of what's going to happen once that road opens up? We might not
be able to get out, because no matter how they work it, whether people are driving
through a parking lot to get out, they are going to be cutting through there. If they would
try to go through that little lane and block up our road, they are going to go through from
here, whether this is a parking lot, a street, or whatever, they are going to be coming
through. That is one of my number one concerns. I have other concerns, like, yeah,
how high is that wall -- a solid wall. Could that be two feet? Could it be ten feet?
Twenty feet? What on earth are they talking about? What about all these buildings that
they are planning to put in, what if they don't get leased? Everywhere I go in our city on
main streets there are signs up for lease. They have sat there empty for months and
they have excellent access. The only access this property has is one street right now.
What happens to our neighborhoods if those things don't get rented, if they don't get
leased, what about the vandalism? What about the flavor to our neighborhoods? I
hope these people are considering that. So far, as far as I know, there has been no
vandalism done to the cows.
De Weerd: Yes, ma'am.
Aldridge: My name is Donna Aldridge and I live at 355 Waltman Lane. And I said
before, I'm the old timer down there. And there is --
De Weerd: Mrs. Aldridge, can you pull that a little bit closer to you.
Aldridge: Maybe I don't want you to hear me. Anyway --
De Weerd: We'd like to, though.
Aldridge: Duane Cope is right, I live right next to him and that was -- when High County
was going to buy us out, that they -- that wouldn't go into the city, that was a promise
that they made us if that deal didn't go through, that we wasn't city. All of a sudden we
are in the city and we couldn't do nothing about it. And I didn't think that was fair. I
really didn't. But, anyway, we were in that predicament and we couldn't get out of it.
But it is right, that is a dead end road and like I have said before, when they opened that
up before, I couldn't even get out of my driveway. It was like a bunch of wild horses set
free, they had to have the police wagon out there, they was giving tickets, we had to
have #he police come down there and you think it's going to be any different with this
development, unless they put a frontage road in and put a little money out and put a
frontage road in to help the people, it's not going to work.
De Weerd: Ma'am, could you show me your property? Can you use that pointer'?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 60 of 74
Aldridge: By the drain ditch. Right after the creek.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Yes, sir.
E.Haddock: My name's Edward Haddock, 480 Waltman Lane, and my wife Nona just
talked to you a little while ago.
De Weerd: Thank you.
E.Haddock: We are in the little triangle portion right there. Right by the creek, as you
cross Wa{tman Creek there -- Ten Mile Creek. Excuse me. My main concern is -- as
has been expressed by many of the others, is Ruddy. If you punch that through it's -- I
think we are going to see something pretty ugly happening, not only in our residential
area, but I think it's going to compound a big problem. And as my wife said, if we did
have a frontage road, more like the other side over there I think it would make it livable.
I think it would be something that would really fit into a Comprehensive Plan. The dead
end concept of Waltman Lane just isn't going to make it I don't think. That's my
concern. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Okay. The applicant can -- I will
ask him for his wrap-up remarks, but, remember, this is going to be continued. That
new plat staff hadn't seen either. Typically, this would be continued and the public
would have the option of looking at it and evaluating it further, which you do, as well our
staff. And so that is our normal operation. So, Council will not consider action tonight,
because we haven't had a full staff evaluation of what's in front of us. I think it also
gives additional opportunity for the people that are looking at this development to have a
chance to -- to talk with both our staff and the neighbors.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Members of the Council. Before Mr. Nickel stands up, I think one of the real
items that we did not have a feel for how Council would -- what position they would take
is that Corporate Drive extension. So, perhaps before Mr. Nickel gets up, if Council
could discuss that issue and I suppose the timing doesn't necessarily matter, since it's
likely to be a continued issue, but I think that that discussion would benefit both staff
and the applicant.
De Weerd: Council, what would be your preference?
Rountree: I'd just as soon have Shawn wrap up at this point in time and, then, we can
talk.
Bird: 1 would, too.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 61 of 74
De Weerd: Okay. If you will restate your name for the record.
Nickel: I will. Thank you. Shawn Nickel. And since it does look like we are going to be
tabling this, staff s right, we --
De Weerd: Oh, we won't table it, we will continue it.
Nickel: We will continue it. 1 call it table. Tomato. Tomato. We do want to know your
-- your thoughts greatly on -- on Corporate. Just to point out a few things. If staff would
put back up the aerial that has the new site plan on it. And keep in mind this is -- this is
a concept plan, so -- and as Mr. Moore indicated, there probably is another 123 or so
more that are going to be coming. Not to you, but that are going to be laid out. So,
again, this is not how it's going to look necessarily. One -- one thing to point out -- I'm
not giving you a stink eye, by the way, I just want to make sure Mr. Zaremba is listening,
because this has to do with his -- his concerns and that's with Ruddy. Keep in mind that
is going to be a permanent access easement if it is -- if it remains private. Now, this
layout right here doesn't -- I don't think do it justice as to the fact that we understand that
traffic is going to be coming out of this residential subdivision through this property. I
think that was the intention of the stub street when it was -- when it was put in. As the
architect spoke earlier, it can be designed, whether it's a roundabout, whether it's a
more fluid approach, you know, that's some -- some comments and some feedback that
we'd like to get from you, but I think we can -- I think we can still accomplish what you're
looking for with it still being a private, but it doesn't look and feel like a parkway that
separates the development or that splits the development in half, but still does the same
job, which is to bring traffic out -- mostly to the west. I don't think we are necessarily
worried about traffic going to the east from the development, but traffic will be coming
from Meridian Road and going back and forth. There is no doubt that's going to
happen. So, I think we can still accomplish it with the private road concept. We
probably need to give you a better -- a better idea, maybe another concept plan
showing how that could -- how that could work for you to review. Also want to point out
that when we stood up here saying that we were not in favor of the Corporate
connection, we understand that that is an important connection, what we are against is
making this development be solely responsible for it. We are all in favor of paying our
fair share to the highway district, to a-- you know, to a trust, whatever, for the future
construction of that. It's just placing the burden of that off-site improvement is what is --
I think what we are kind of explaining to you it's kind of scaring us. But we don't want to
avoid responsibility and we would be, again, willing to pay our fair share, what that
would be determined by -- by ACHD. And also point out that our traffic -- our traffic
study indicates that we can get -- the ACHD report says that we can have 8,000 vehicle
trips per day come from this -- this development. That's a lot higher than the 150,000
square feet that staff and Planning and Zoning Commission had placed as a condition
of approval. So, just to point that out, that we are not -- that our traffic study is not
saying that are we going to immediately impact Waltman Lane. Also, keep in mind we
are planning on improving Waltman Lane the entire length to the new intersection. So,
we are not putting all this traffic on a-- on what I-- and 1 think the neighbors will agree is
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 62 of 74
kind of a goat trail right now. I'm not sure of the one gentleman's comments about the
additional -- the additional right of way or proposed right of way, other than the normal
right of way that's on the 50 foot or so that's on -- that's currently on -- on Waltman. I
don't know about any additional right of way that would -- what he was -- what he was
speaking about. And with regards to the neighbors and not bringing these plans back in
front of the neighbors, we did attempt to work with the neighbors, specifically to the
north, because there actually haven't been any neighbors to the west that have come to
any of our meetings and discussed anything. So, early on we did try to work with the
neighbors to the north, providing these buffers up here, realigning -- realigning
Waltman. When we started to getting -- when we started getting into these revisions
with staff and with ACHD, it didn't affect what was happening over here and so we didn't
feel it was necessary to hold another neighborhood meeting. We didn't -- we weren't
purposely trying to keep them out of it, we understood what their concerns were. We
placed those in the original concept, which we have carried over through the three or
four that came after that. So, just an explanation of where that -- where that has been.
And I don't believe we are asking for an open book. Yes, we are asking for some
flexibility. I think there are conditions of approval both proposed and recommended by
your staff and your Planning and Zoning Commission and proposed by us this evening
that will -- that will protect and make this project a compatible one. We -- some details
probably still need to be worked out. The height of the wall is still an unknown. We can
-- you know, we can -- after this meeting we can talk to the neighbors and see what their
-- what their thoughts are. I mean, obviously, we don't want to have a finro foot wall, but
we might not necessarily have a ten foot wall. It's going to be a combination of wall and
landscaping that will both be attractive, but also will, you know, have its purpose, which
is to buffer the use from the residents. And, then, again, we really want your input and
your thoughts, so if we do get deferred, postponed, that we know what to come back
and show you and what to -- what to discuss amongst ourselves, so we are -- we are on
the right path. Again, we are not trying to -- we have got some time, so we are not
trying to move this through -- we have been working on it for a couple of years, so an
additional delay -- I think it will only benefit everybody involved. So, with that I will stand
for any further questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shawn, tell me again what the traffic trips was ACHD said.
Nickel: I believe ACHD -- well --
Bird: For your traffic study or whatever.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 63 of 74
Nickel: -- in the ACHD -- in our traffic study I believe it stated there was a threshold of
10,300 vehicle trips per day. ACHD has indicated that they could allow 8,000 vehicle
trips per day from the development.
Bird: And how do you determine that? I mean it's going to depend on what kind of box
store you get there. You get a Walmart or Costco or something like that, you're going to
take a lot of trips and your other retail things on 38 acres, you could have a lot of trips.
You want some direction from this Councilman, figure out a way to connect Corporate.
I've sat here for 11 years and I have battled Corporate every time something's
happened there and I'm through battling on it.
Nickel: Thanks.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I will offer finro directions.
De Weerd: Can you speak into the microphone.
Zaremba: Oh, yes. Thank you. As far as which buildings go there and which
configuration go, I realize it's a concept and I'm sure that at some point that will be
market driven. I appreciate that you are accommodating some of the suggestions that
have been made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and by staff, who have
looked at it very carefully. I don't think you are going to convince me that we can give
up a public road and I will actually -- the second part of my suggestion is another step
and, actually, another option that we have. I don't believe with what you are presenting,
that we have a valid recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I
don't think this is ready for the Council to be looking at it. I think the change that you're
proposing is sufficient that I would recommend that we remand it back to Planning and
Zoning. They have not seen what you're talking about. Certainly their recommendation
was based on the public road being there and I don't feel that they have given us a
recommendation about what you're showing us. So, I would like to make that
suggestion. But I would also like to consider -- there were some other good
suggestions made and some of them involve getting involved with other property
owners, but the frontage road that does something like mirroring what happens on the
other side is kind of what I was expecting to see at some point. The connection of
Corporate, whether you guys do it or whether you're just limited on how much you can
develop until somebody else does it, I think that's important. But I-- my end feeling is
that many of these things need to be worked out with staff and with Planning and
Zoning Commission and ask them, again, for a new recommendation on what's a totally
different project to me. That's my opinion.
Nickel: Can I address that, Madam Mayor'? And thank you, Commissioner -- Council
member. Sorry.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 64 of 74
Zaremba: And that's why I'm sensitive, because I used to be one of the
Commissioners.
Nickel: I know. I know. And I would be --
Zaremba: I still remember all of that.
Nickel: I would have no problem with going back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission if you guys were going to consider reducing that to a private drive, but if
you're already of the opinion that it needs to remain public, I don't know what a-- I don't
know what a recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission would do, other
than bog down their -- their agenda and they are probably not going to be real happy to
see me again, because they saw us a lot. Again, I'm not -- we have time, so it's not like
we are trying to push this through. I just don't know what benefit that would be. As far
as the uses that we proposed, you do have their recommendations on what they wanted
us -- wanted to see. The only thing that has changed, obviously, is the wall and the
buffer. So, that might be a legitimate recommendation from them. But, again, your
feedback -- I kind of know where you're -- where you're headed on the -- on the Ruddy
connection, at least to the north. Now, with regard to the frontage road, we did actually
look at that, because the Planning and Zoning Commission, as you know, as insightFul
as they are, wanted to know is that something that's doable and in discussing ITD's
future -- seeing there is several future plans for this -- for this new on ramp and the
configuration of these properties and distance between Meridian and Ruddy, I just don't
-- we just couldn't find a way to make a frontage road work and to mesh with what ITD
wants to do on this property that they own right here. So, we did -- we did attempt to
look at that issue and all indications are that it does need to come out this -- this way.
That's all I have for now from Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. And I can understand -- I'm not trying to engineer where they go,
but I-- regardless of where the road does go, I'm pretty strong on feeling it needs to be
a public connection.
Nickel: And, again, I think -- I think if you look across the street that -- the way that that
functions, it does exactly what a frontage road does, but it has a lot more area in which
to -- in which to make it work. This is just such a compact area, we have -- you know,
we have actually done a couple of layouts and it just doesn't -- doesn't work correctly.
But I think I know where you're going with the Ruddy connection, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: None?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 65 of 74
Rountree: Well, I have some comments. I don't have any questions.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nickel: Thanks. See you again.
Rountree: It appears that we are going to continue this, but some of the things that I
have noted -- questions that have come up. There has been questions about proper
notice. That's something the city needs to look at, as well as the applicant. Timing
issues on when the Waltman Lane intersection will be operable. The status of the
Waltman Lane improvements in terms of a typical section, what's that going to look like?
Is there, in fact, right of way to do that? There has been some question there. There is
issues I think that the city ultimately needs to address that there is residents apparently
in the city that haven't hooked up with sewer and water where it's available. I don't
know if that relates to the previous phantom application that occurred some years ago,
but if it's there and they want it, they certainly need to know they have to pay for it. So,
if that's an issue with -- apparentiy it's an issue that was brought for testimony. I don't
know if it was an issue that they want to hook up or not. If they do, its -- there is a
sizeable fee to do that, if the infrastructure is there. I don't see my job to necessarily
give solutions, but I will give some guidance. We are being asked to bring this particular
piece of Ada County into Meridian to perForm a certain function and I don't disagree that
the function being proposed is probably the highest and best use at this point in time.
However, once -- once if we are to do that, we lose most of our capability to guide or
direct what might occur there. Recently as we have been asked for conceptual
approval on these kinds of activities, which we have done, we have had design
guidelines prepared or developmen# agreements that specify design criteria, concept,
potential footprint sizes --
De Weerd: Material.
Rountree: Pardon?
De Weerd: Material.
Rountree: Materials, those sort of things. Things as straight forward as now you're
proposing a masonry wall. It would be kind of nice to know is that going to be six foot or
eight foot or what it might be. And I think those are -- those get kind of specific, but to
me that's not going to necessarily encourage or discourage whatever potential user
there might be. I think those are the kinds of things that the applicant can commit to.
As far as Corporate, I think we all have dealt with Corporate for a number of years and
would very much like to see it go through, but I totally understand the applicant's
problem and that they have -- unless there is a willing seller and a willing location on the
part of ACHD in order to do it, they are not empowered to be able to do something like
that as an off-site improvement. So, I don't know how we could, as a condition of
approval, hold that over their head and expect it to happen. I mean it would be a good
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page &6 of 74
way to make the project not happen, I suppose. I think I would want some clarification
as to what uses might not be appropriate. Particularly on those areas that do border
residential, even if there is a wall there, we learn by our mistakes. A large car wash with
a rather large vacuum drying operation probably ought not to be next to neighbors. And
those sorts of things that we need to think through when we are going to go ahead, if we
go ahead and approve on a conceptual basis the kinds of things that we ought not to
throw in the concept. I guess I don't necessarily agree that the changed concept is
significantly different than what Planning and Zoning saw to warrant it to go back to
them, but certainly it is different and I think it requires an opportunity for staff to look at it
and for the applicant to think about what they heard tonight and for those concerned
citizens to get proper notice and have an opportunity to look at it and comment on it
some more. The one solution I would expect from the applicant is the solution of how
are we going to deal with the traffic. I have trouble with that approval on a conceptual
basis. I want something that is convincing to me that works. If you were to get
approved and if you were to have a client that wanted something different, those things
can be changed based on your engineering and proof that your change is not going to
modify whether or not your original solution is going to work or not. So, to me I would
like to see a solution, not just, well, you know, we know it's an issue. Well, we know it's
an issue. If we approve an annexation knowing there is an issue, once that's gone we
don't have an opportunity, really, to do much to get the issue taken care of. So, the
issue needs to be taken care of now. I guess that's my guidance. If there is no further
comments, I'd make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing on this application for
an additional two weeks -- more -- less. You won't get one week, because we have a
special meeting on the 13th. That would be May 20th.
De Weerd: Before you make a motion, Council any further --
Rountree: If there is any further comments, yeah.
De Weerd: -- comments on information needed? I guess, too, I think we need specific
comment from Ada County Highway District regarding that extension of Corporate and
how it could work, what -- what your requirements are and if they were to pay a
proportional share of that, what does that mean and what would trigger the necessity of
that connecting to the project, because it's not just the trips that this development would
generate, it's the through trips from the neighborhood as well. So, I would like to get
ACHD's comment on where there is public responsibility to that as well or -- you know, I
don't know what you can give us, but would like ACHD's comment on that, Gary. Yes,
please.
Inselman: Madam Mayor, Council, Gary Inselman representing the Ada County
Highway District. 3775 North Adams. I just want to make sure you're aware -- we did
already act on this application -- the prior preliminary plat our Commission acted on it,
so any change means we need a revised preliminary plat to analyze and to go back to
our commission. So, if you need our action before you act, two weeks isn't going to be
nearly enough time, because we haven't seen a revised preliminary plat yet or been
asked to comment on one.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 67 of 74
De Weerd: Well, we can set a date if it's -- the timing doesn't work, three weeks -- June
3rd. If the timing doesn't work, we can always continue it. And to the citizens, I would
suggest that you call the clerk's office to make sure that it -- what date we continue it to,
it's -- it's -- the sign is only required -- the sign is only required to the original Public
Hearing date and, then, after that, you know, we do advise you to keep an eye on our --
our website. We post all agendas and pick up the phone. Our clerks office can tell you
when that -- if it looks like it will be continued and they are here to give you information.
Okay. So --
Rountree: June 3rd work for you guys? It's pushing it, isn't it?
Inselman: We would probably be the first week of June, if you could be --
De Weerd: Dean might need you to speak up.
Inselman: I'm assuming we would not make a May meeting for our commission, so we
may make the first meeting in June. So, you could make it the second Tuesday.
Zaremba: Well, Madam Mayor, then, the follow-up question would be that our staff
usually wants at least ten days after something like that is presented to them, so --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the second Tuesday is a workshop,
so we would be looking at June 17th.
De Weerd: At this point do we know the extent of what ACHD might need? Can we set
it for the third and continue it if need be at that time? Then, it looks like -- does that
sound reasonab{e or -- otherwise we can just do it on the 17th.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I don't believe the applicant has too many concerns with June
17th.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: They are waiting for the split corridor to be done, so they have got a time
span there. They are not in a crunch.
Rountree: They got a ways to --
De Weerd: They have a year and four months. Got all kinds of time.
Rountree: So, Madam Mayor, I think we have got that resolved.
De Weerd: Okay. The 17th
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 68 of 74
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: So, Gary, you know what we hope -- what we would hope to get at that
time?
Inselman: Madam Mayor, our current report does address the fact of there is a potential
to do an extraordinary impact fee for the extension of Corporate. Each of the properties
pay their proportionate share. I'm not sure I can go into more detail in our report on how
that would work until that proposal is actually brought forward and we try to form that
district. It is presented as an option in our current report. We do stress the limits for all
for the properties along Waltman with the maximum traffic should be on that and that if
this development did build up to the point that it generated 8,000 trips per day, that
would max out Waltman, there would be no -- we would recommend no further permits
along any of the parcels until Corporate was extended. So, I think we may have most of
the information you're after, we can work with your staff to clarify any points that you
think we may need to go into more detail.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Inselman: Thanks.
De Weerd: And I guess just one comment to Shawn and the gentlemen from Portland.
I think some of the designs and the ideas that you have talked about is -- is more
palatable than what the neighbors have heard or seen up to this point. I would love to
see that you had some kind of a neighborhood out reach meeting to give them an idea
of what your vision is and the kind of product that you build. We are not going to -- we
can't require it, but we can certainly suggest it and I think it is your opportunity to tell
your story and maybe again. But if you've ever campaigned, it never is a bad idea to go
more than once, so -- okay. Anything further, Council? Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think you made a motion yet.
Rountree: No.
Nary: I just wanted to be clear to the public when you do what your expectation is for
the next hearing. If it's just the comments on the ACHD or if it's comments on this
proposal or other proposals, I think some of the testimony was that many of the people
in the audience hadn't seen this proposal until this evening. So, that might help in
clarifying for the public just what your expectation is that they can testify about at the
next hearing.
De Weerd: Okay. Do you want me to answer it, Council, or --
Rountree: No. I'll put that in my motion, if we are waiting for a motion.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2008
Page 69 of 74
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we continue this Public Hearing until June 17th,
2008, at which time we will take testimony on the proposed option that the applicant is
going to be bringing forth and an opportunity to share it with the neighbors.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Zaremba: Second it.
Bird: 16 or 17 or just --
De Weerd: The 17th.
Rountree: It's just --
Bird: It's both of them; right?
Rountree: Both of those.
Bird: I second it.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Items 16 and 17 to June
17th, where we will see a plat and the recommendation on the road infrastructure, those
kind of things. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18: Amendment to Ordinance No. 08-1346A: AZ 05-052 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C-G zone for Sadie
Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC -
3055 North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 18 is amendment to ordinance number 08-1346A.
Mayor Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance -- 1'm sorry, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Shall I go get Councilmember Borton?
De Weerd: Yeah. I'm sure --
Bird: He's probably asleep.
Nary: And, Madam Mayor, since I didn't explain this to Councilman Borton, this is a
clean-up ordinance. Sadie Creek is probably -- I'm sure most of you have thought this is
sort of an old ordinance to have back in front of you. When this was originally done, a
portion of Sadie Creek, which the developer thought was already annexed, which we as