HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 07-03Meridian City Council Meeting July 3, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:35 P.M. on Tuesday, July 3, 2001, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Ron Anderson, Cherie McCandless, Keith Bird and Mayor Robert Corrie.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: I will open the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday July 3, 2001 at 6:35 P.M. Roll call attendance please Mr. Clerk.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: I want to thank all of you for being here this cool evening. I think it’s cooler in here than it is outside. Again, thank you for being here tonight. Item No. 2 is adoption
of the agenda. Are there any questions on the agenda?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We’ll take them as we come to them I believe won’t we? I would move that we adopt the agenda as stated.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: All right is there any further discussion or is there a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay motions made and second to adopt the agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of inflatable boats in an I-L zone for Elliott
Business Park by H2NR, LLC – east of Locust Grove and south of East Wilson Lane:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for
proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 00-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II
Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 00-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.36 acres in a C-G zone
for proposed Travelers Corner by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc – southeast of Interstate 84 and Meridian Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-006 Request for variance of the street length ending in a cul-de-sac from the maximum length of 450 feet to an increased
length of 495 feet for a proposed Park-and-Ride Lot by W.H. Moore Company – northeast corner of Overland and Meridian Roads:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 01-004 Request for a rezone of 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade –
south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres in a proposed C-G zone for
proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade – south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 01-004 Request for a rezone from an R-8 to L-O zone for Meridian Water Department by Meridian Water Department – 2235 Northwest
8th Street:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-008 Request for variance for the reduction of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East
Fairview:
L. Approve minutes of June 19, 2001, City Council Meeting:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda we have got some new stuff in that we need to probably discuss on Item B. That also effects Item K so I would move that we move Item B to 5B and Item K
to 5K. With no other changes I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the changes.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the Consent Agenda. Thereby moving Item B and Item K to Item No. 5 as 5B and K. Any other discussion hearing none, roll call vote?
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I think we need to let the audience know that we have a couple of changes. We’ve been requested to table Item No. 7, which is the Final Plat approval of Bear Creek Subdivision
No. 2. That won't effect any of you here
because it’s not on a testimony type discussion. Also, we have a request to redo the Item No. 15, which is a Public Hearing. This is a request for Preliminary Plat of 4 building lots
and 4.94 acres by proposed Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision by Dakota Company. They failed to post the property. We will have to set another time for the Public Hearing on that.
We will do so. Also in Item No. 16 and 17, on the 17th of July, we’re requesting a Public Hearing on a variance for the Staten Park subdivision. In order to do that we have to on
No. 16 and 17, which is an annexation and a request for Preliminary Plat. We have to do a request for the variance at that time. What we will probably do is when we get to Item 16
and 17, we will table that item until 17th of July and hear all three at one time. That’s it. Yes, you can go. We’ll do that thank you.
Item 4. Department Reports
A. Public Works Department – Gary Smith:
Corrie: Item No. 4 was Department Reports. Gary Smith the Engineer on two items
1. Water Late Comers Agreement – Holiday Inn Express:
2. Sewer Late Comers Agreement – Holiday Inn Express:
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council. Item No. 1 is the water Latecomer’s Agreement with the Holiday Inn Express owner. You have the agreement in your packet. He has signed that agreement.
Toward the back of the packet is a small map that outlines the service area for the water line extension. There are some businesses out there on Allen Way or Allen Street that have
connected to the extension that he made for the Holiday Inn Express. He’s requested a Latecomer’s Agreement for both the sewer and the water to recover some of those costs that he put
forth in installing the sewer and the water.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’m sure that it has been taken care of, but wasn’t there some kind of a lien or something on this sewer line at one time?
Smith: At one time there was, yes sir.
Bird: That’s all been taken care of?
Smith: Yes sir.
Bird: Okay thank you.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion then that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest the Latecomers Agreement for the water lines for Holiday Inn Express.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay motion’s been made and seconded to approve the Latecomer’s Agreement for the Holiday Inn Express. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: I would also make a motion that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest a Latecomers Agreement for a sewer line for Holiday Inn Express.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the Latecomer’s Agreement for the sewer line for Holiday Inn Express. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for
proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-008 Request for variance for the reduction of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East
Fairview:
Corrie: Item 5 would be Item B and Item K the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval a request for Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive-thru
in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie
Java by TJBJ, Inc. 1975 East Fairview. I guess we can take that up each one in its own here. Let the record show that we do have one that came in after the Public Hearing had been
closed. A letter came in and stated about the Moxie Java. Just to put that on the record that it came in and we’ve got it. However it came in after the public testimony had been closed,
the Public Hearing. Council, you have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the CUP 01-010. Any discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have a question of our Legal Counsel then. Do we take this additional letter that has come in and the new information that is in that and can that be weighed in our decision
now?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, members of the Council because it was not testimony that appeared in the Public Hearing and was not delivered to the Council before the record
was closed, it should not be considered as evidence. If the Council wants to consider then the matter has to be re-opened, reconsidered, re-noticed for the hearing and the applicant
has to be given an opportunity to respond to the letter. I mean it’s after the fact, so it’s your pleasure. If you want to re-open it you have the ability to do that because the findings
have not been formally adopted.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just a point of discussion then. I mean the one piece of information that’s in there that’s very pertinent to this is cross through access. Without that, that would
drastically change my decision on how I looked at this approval for this. I guess I would be leaning towards re-opening this and re-noticing it so that we could take that additional
piece of information into testimony. I don’t know how the other Council people feel about that.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Yes the cross access was a huge part of our decision and the applicant should be given the opportunity to respond to this letter. I would not be opposed to re-opening these
two items.
Bird: (Inaudible)
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Bill.
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council if you re-open it, I would recommend that you re-open it and limit the issue to those raised in this letter so that you’re not having to go through
everything else but just specifically with regard to this particular letter and the issues that are raised in it.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: With that information then I would make a motion that we re-open the request for variance, for reduction of the 2 required parking spaces for Moxie Java. Variance No. 01-008
as well as the CUP for a request for Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with drive-thru, CUP No. 01-010 and limit the topic when we re-open that to additional information
on the cross through drive access through the property to the east.
Bird: I’ll second it but would you also allow the applicant to respond to these letters that we received on June 25th?
Anderson: Yes, most definitely.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and second to re-open the Public Hearing on specific issues of the letter of June 25th. Any further discussion?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council with that motion that is re-noticing not just re-opening but it’s re-noticing.
Corrie: Okay any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: That’s for Item B and Item K. They will be re-noticed and set for Public Hearing at that notice time.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Will, can you make sure that the applicant specifically gets a copy of the letter and I don’t have the application any more. Can you just copy the pertinent pieces in that
application and get Council a copy of it?
Berg: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor and Council. I’ll do that and I’ll notify the applicant of the new hearing and the specific issue.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Item 6. Tabled from June 5, 2001: FP 01-009 Request for Final Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.36 acres for Meridian Green – Unit No. 4 by Fuller/Scott Investment
Company and Glenco – east and west sides of Southeast 5th Way south from Overland Road:
Corrie: Okay Item No. 6 now is tabled from the June 5, 2001. It is a Final Plat 01-009 request for Final Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.36 acres for Meridian
Green Unit No. 4 by Fuller Scott Investment Company and Glencoe, east and west sides of Southeast Fifth Way south from Overland Road. Council, you have the -- okay let’s do first things
first. Staff comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is for the property that is fronting Overland Road as part of the Meridian Greens Development. You have our staff comments that are dated June 1,
2001. We would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, do you have a copy of Chip’s comments form the Water Department?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: Would that be included in your staff recommendations?
Stiles: I’m not sure how you would word that but we could work out some kind a note to let them know the existence of that and that it does have some kind of noise associated with it.
Maybe Gary and the applicant’s Engineer could work out some wording that would be appropriate for the plat.
De Weerd: I think it’s very necessary that that’s in there because he does raise a very important point. I’d hate to buy that lot and find out after the fact.
Corrie: It would be a noisy situation.
Bird: (Inaudible) need to put up front so that we don’t get, they don’t get surprises.
Corrie: Is the applicant here on the Final Plat? Any questions about what we’re talking about? You’ve got it?
Bird: He knows.
Corrie: Mr. Fuller (inaudible). Council, hearing that, further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the Final Plat for Meridian Greens.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the Final Plat 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.36 acres for Meridian Greens Unit No. 4 by Fuller Scott Investment Company and
Glencoe, instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay motion’s been made to approve the Final Plat 01-009 with the staff comments and for the attorney to draw up the final orders. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll
call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Tabled from June 19, 2001: FP 01-007 Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering
– east of Stoddard and south of Overland Road:
Corrie: Item No. 7 as we mentioned earlier in the evening, has been requested by the applicant to table that until the 17th of June on the Final Plat for Bear Creek Subdivision No.
2. With that in mind, I’ll entertain a motion from Council to table that item No. 7.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we table FP 01-007 the Final Plat approval for 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering
until July 17, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay motion’s been made and seconded to table Item No. 7 Final Plat 01-007 until July 17th of this year. Any further comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2001: VAR 01-007 Request for a variance to exceed the maximum 1,000 foot block length for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview
Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview Avenue, north of Pine Street and ¼ mile west of Cloverdale Road:
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2001: AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview
Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2001: PP 01-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
Corrie: Item No. 8, 9 and 10 we’ll take at one time here. It’s a Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2001. Item No. 8 is a variance, 01-007 request for a variance to exceed the
maximum 1000-foot block length for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision. No. 9 is a Continued Public Hearing. A request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for
Macaile Meadows Subdivision. Is it Macalaney?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: You’re okay.
Corrie: The 4th of July is coming tomorrow maybe (inaudible). I apologize for the mistake. No. 10 is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots
on 28.59 acres in this proposed R-8 zone of the same meadows. So, at this time I will open the continued public on Item 8, 9 and 10. We’ll take testimony from anyone of those or all
of those from you. Some of you have sent letters in, in testimony. Some of you are waiting until tonight to give your testimony. What I will ask you to do is to please limit your
public testimony to three minutes so everybody can talk that wants to talk. The developer we’ll give approximately four to five minutes to give their part of it first.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor a point of order Mr. Mayor, it might be easier if you just continued the opposition testimony. Then the developer would have one chance to do the rebuttal at the
end.
Corrie: I believe that’s correct because they’ve had the opportunity. So, we will enter the, lets do it first, opposition testimony for this then after all the testimony is through
from the public we’ll have the developers give rebuttal to anything that’s come up at that point. That’s right this one has been going on for some time. At that point I will open up
the testimony, Public Hearing for opposition at this point. Do we have a sign in sheet at all Mr. Berg?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mr. Mayor we’ve received these letters. Mr. Nichols said maybe we just have somebody like the Clerk read these into the record and we’d be done with them.
De Weerd: You’re going to read all of them?
Bird: Just read the new ones. These are new ones. Mrs. Turney was going to read her own but the other two, July 2nd and June 28th. They’ve all come in since the Public Hearings and
we need to (inaudible)
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mrs. Turney’s going to read hers in but those two (inaudible) read it in and get it over with.
Corrie: You want the City Clerk to read all of these?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Is Husic, the last name. Are they here tonight? Irvas and Alija Husic are they here tonight? Okay they’ve sent us a letter. We’re going to read that -- the
City Clerk. He’s going to read that tonight. Then is Teresa Connolly here tonight?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay we’ve got her’s to be read in as well.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I believe there’s another one that’s here but (inaudible).
Bird: I think Mrs. Turney is going to take care of hers.
Corrie: Okay just so we get everybody’s testimony in here. We want to make sure that you do. Okay Mr. Clerk if you will read those two letters into testimony please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. This is a letter dated June 28th. We received it July 2nd. To whom it may concern. Unfortunately I am not able to attend the meeting taking place on July
3, 2001. Due to the holiday I will be out of town. As a Crossroads Subdivision and a City of Meridian resident I would like to put forth my feelings on the above-mentioned subdivision.
I am greatly concerned about the houses to which have been proposed for this subdivision. The size of these homes, square footage and lot sizes will in no way enhance or compliment
our subdivision, which would be directly adjacent to Macaile Meadows. I am very concerned about what this will do to our property value. Many of us here were given information directly
from the church, Cloverdale Seventh Day Adventist. If anything was to put on this vacant property it would remain very low key such as a retirement facility for the church members or
a park of some sort and this wasn’t going to happen for at least 7 to 10 years. Traffic being another issues of course. I have a child to who will be attending the new middle school
off Cloverdale and Pine Street, Lewis and Clark Middle School. What will these new homes do to the traffic already trying to cut through Pine Street to get to Eagle Road to then find
out it doesn’t connect. To then turn around and speed back through in frustration. I feel another, excuse me, I feel before anymore homes are to be built in this area we need to have
our roads modified to handle it. Such as Cloverdale, a two-lane road that will need to handle the every day in and outs of this subdivision. It’s already a very busy street especially
at peak times. I love the city I reside in and want to see the quality of life we so much have enjoyed and cherished to remain. Thank you. Sincerely, Irvas and Alija Husic, Close?
1091 North Principal Way Meridian. Second letter dated July 2, 2001. We received it July 3, 2001. Members of the City Council. I am Teresa Connolly of 4177 East Driftwood Drive
Meridian Idaho 83642. Phone number is covered up by the label. Proposed subdivision of Macaile Meadows. I am not against in fill development but I am for responsible development of
the City that I have lived in for over 34 years. The question I see here is, is this area ready for such growth?
My answer would be no. The reasons would be: 1 the road system is inadequate for the amount of traffic surrounding this area now and adding an additional 1100 vehicle trips per day
at this time is illogical and ludicrous. Cloverdale Road is a two-lane road without sidewalks or bike lanes. What sidewalks there are do not connect. It takes me 20 to 30 minutes
to travel 1 mile to my son’s school during peak times between three to six P.M. It will take anywhere up to 5 minutes to get clearance to get onto Cloverdale. Then I am stuck in the
standstill bumper to bumper traffic. During this time I have been flipped off, honked at, denied right-of-way doing a right turn on a green light at an intersection of Executive and
Pine and almost rear-ended by people driving and getting nowhere. Keep in mind that Eagle and Fairview will be undergoing major intersection work soon. That would mean that even more
cars will be using Cloverdale to avoid the construction. We have turn around traffic every day on Driftwood, people trying to get to Eagle Road and they can’t. We have been told that
Pine Street will connect someday but that it is developer funded. That takes a couple of years to complete. ACHD has no plans in the future for improvements on Cloverdale. The proposed,
excuse me, number two, the proposed subdivision is not compatible with the surrounding homes. Please see our Homeowners’ Representative Holley Turney statement. I support her 100 percent.
Number three the developer will not keep their word from the neighborhood meetings that they held. Mr. Butler had told me that they would have four chokers at the intersection of Parkdale
and Driftwood, at least three speed bumps on Driftwood, a north access especially for construction equipment et cetera and that would be built in phases until a north access was made
onto Fairview. At the first Planning and Zoning meeting all of this was null and void. We have fought long and hard to keep them at their word. We have lost some things but gained
when we got some of the things back for the safety of our neighborhood. One of the things that was speed bumps would be required if we could get 80 percent of the neighborhood to agree.
We have done that and presented it to you and you state that you have nothing to do with the roads. Do not the City governments work together? If P&Z said to do something and we upheld
the request, then you should enforce it. We have 89 elementary age or younger children who live in Westdale Subdivision. The safety of these children should come first. There is Lewis
and Clark Junior High School on Pine Street. These kids are walking home, some on Cloverdale where there are no bike lanes, inadequate sidewalks and lots of cars, some through subdivisions
and on into Crossroads. Is adding more traffic really safe at this time? I feel that when roads are completed and safety issues are taken care of. Then add the in fill in this case
but not until then. I hope you really review all of the documents on this project and make the good decision for the benefit of a community and City. Please see the enclosed pictures.
Thank you for your time, Teresa Connolly. P.S. Wouldn’t this be a great place for a City Park? Attached are some photos. One’s labeled No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No.
8, No. 9, and No. 10. Is that sufficient Mr. Attorney or do you want me to read a couple of the words underneath the photos.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, Mr. Clerk. I think since they have the actual photos in front of them right now, its just having the letter read so that the applicant hears
what’s being said. Has a copy of this been given to the applicant?
Berg: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Berg. I have the list of people that wish to testify tonight. Everyone that I have on this list is against except for one is for. What we usually do is have
the ones that are for it first. Then the ones against it second since we have one that’s for it, Gary W. Dodge. If you’re here, you have three minutes.
Dodge: My name is Gary W. Dodge. I reside at 1848 North Cole Creek Avenue in Meridian. Mr. Mayor and Council Members I want to take just a few moments to record some things into
the record. I work as a Financial Officer for the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the legal owners of the property that is under development contract to the developers and wish to support
the applicants here in this decision. Let me share four items with you if I may. First off, the church looked at a wide range of potential buyers and selected what we believe to be
a developer that we have found working with that would provide compatible development in the area for the Crossroads and the Driftwood neighborhoods. To some extent the church in its
evaluation of other potential individuals, chose one that we felt was the most compatible as opposed to others that wanted higher density for that particular 28.59 acres. Secondly,
in our discussions with ACHD and with Planning and Zoning in regards to traffic. We agree to provide and offer to the Macaile Subdivision to Cloverdale Road. That would be a north
road. It’s just north of the existing entrance of the church property. The church anticipates using the same roadway so there’s no conflicting access issues that I believe are before
the Council and their decisions. Thirdly, there is no record, let me restate that. There is no record of any church officer taking the position that the church would not sell the land
for development. In past years the church has had no distinct intent to sell or develop the property. However circumstances change. When the company leasing the 28.59 acres withdrew
from running the sod farm on this acreage, the church found itself with expenses of maintaining the land. We also found an increase in neighbors complaining about weeds and less than
sod farm grass growing in that particular facility. Further, because the land was no longer subject to the agricultural reduction of property taxes and the tenant was no longer covering
the taxes anymore. The church was faced with a large property tax bill with no offsetting income other than to look to its members for additional funds which really were not compatible
with the cost of the taxes. This pushed the church to decide to sell the land and to consolidate its church activities on the remaining acreage that it has there off of the Cloverdale
Road. Fourthly, the church has never been, I wish to emphasize that, the church has never been paid by any neighbor for not developing the land to provide a view or aesthetics or easements
nor does any written contract exist to that. If any neighbor paid their developer additional money for their land because the church
property was vacant, then that neighbor may have a complaint with the developer but certainly not with the church. Even if the church had taken the stand that it would not sell the
land, which we have no record of it doing as any property owner is entitled to change its mind barring any written contract to the contrary, so too I believe that church can do the same
when circumstances change. Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I’ve been the financial officer for the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the southern Idaho corporation which is the legally incorporated
body that holds title to the land. I’ve been there for 9 years. I want to assure you that there has been no breach as far as I have any knowledge of in regards to promises made that
have been alleged. I will be happy to answer any questions but I wanted the opportunity to at least have that into the record for your decision.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Dodge: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you very much. Okay, time keeper start it again as soon as you get up. Holly Turney, president WHOA.
Turney: I’ll be reading my letter into the record.
Corrie: State your name and address please.
Turney: My name is Holly Turney. I am president of Westdale Homeowners Association and I am representing the 76 members of the association minus those who will present testimony of their
own and I reside at 4096 East Driftwood Drive. First, I would like to make it clear that we are not objecting to this land being developed. We are however objecting to the manner in
which Hillview Land development is proposing to develop it. As you know, we do not believe the finished product of this proposed development will be the best fit for the surrounding
neighborhoods already in the area or their residents. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan guarantees that current residents of the city that certain values will be maintained when considering
any new development. It identified 6 key community values and based its goals and policies on them. One of these key values is, quote, enhance Meridian’s quality of life for all residents,
end quote. Many things can enter into quality of life and among them would be such things as stable economy, good employment opportunities, quality schools, public safety, pleasing aesthetics
of both the city as a whole and the neighborhood where one might choose to live and protection of property values. Allowing a subdivision into an area already established that is clearly
incompatible with that area hits right at the heart of this key value. Because of considerable differences between Macaile Meadows and the surrounding neighborhoods of Crossroads and
Westdale, this proposed development has the
very real potential of impacting our property values in a negative way. If the values of existing properties in Meridian are not protected by the governing bodies to the best of their
ability, then eventually neither potential residents nor potential businesses will want to locate in Meridian because the investments they made in their property will be more at risk.
Therefor protection of property values plays directly to the economic stability of the community as pointed out by economic development policy No. 3.2U, which recognizes that housing
is one of the basic infrastructure requirements of economic development. Protection of property values can play a large role in choosing where one might live and that can fuel the housing
market. No one wants to make an investment in a home only to lose it because an inappropriate development was allowed to develop in the area. On June 27, 2001 Mr. Butler presented you
with a list of all the policies and goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan with which he believes Macaile Meadows complies. We agree that Macaile Meadows does in fact comply with several
of these statements. However there is nothing unique about this. Any development going in would meet most of these statements. Our concern is with the more subjective aspects that lend
themselves directly to the values residents place on the definition of quality of life. These values are intrinsic to the intent of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan in its efforts to
protect this quality. As such, we vehemently disagree that Macaile Meadows complies with residential land use policies No. 2.3U and No. 2.5U as Mr. Butler suggests. I did the math. I
presented my findings to you on June 19, 2001. It’s hard to argue with the figures, which clearly show that the compatible between the subdivisions is less than 30 percent. When I was
in school if I got a 30 percent on my work, I flunked. A difference of more than 70 percent is not compatibility. Furthermore, neither Mr. Butler nor the developers have offered any
evidence or data to show us how their development complies with these policies. How is their development going to protect and maintain our residential property values. They have designed
lots that are approximately 3500 square feet smaller on the average than our. Smaller lots generally mean smaller homes are built. Smaller homes generally means less cost. Less cost
means attracting potential buyers with less spending power. Less spending power can mean that not as much is spent on the aesthetics of the property. All of which has the potential to
perhaps significantly lower our property values.
Corrie: Mrs. Turney, your time is up. We’ve got your letter.
Turney: Okay.
Corrie: If somebody else would like to take 3 minutes and read the rest of it. Take their time, you can do that. You’re not even half way through yet. We’ve got your letter. So, do
you want to sum it up? How do you want to do it?
Turney: Well, I’d like for you to get the information as I feel it’s important –
Corrie: We’ve got it. We’ve got it here.
Turney: And you’ll be able to review it before –
Corrie: We’ve already read it.
Turney: -- you make their decision? Then I thank you very much for your time and your consideration. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. We’ve read it and I guarantee you that. Thank you. Okay, Scott Curtis.
Curtis: Mr. Mayor, Council Members. My name is Scott Curtis. I live at 4132 East Driftwood Drive. I live just south of the hole that Mr. Butler referred to in your city, giving that
hole a negative connotation or that empty field behind my house. Ada County Highway District has approved this under their responsibility. The same people who gave us the Curtis connector,
Curtis Chinden connector, the Park Center Bridge, the freeway from the City Center exit to Eagle with no exits. During their debate over this subdivision, 3 of the people on the Ada
County Highway District Board agreed that Cloverdale was a parking lot during peak times. One approved it only under the stipulation that Cloverdale be added to the 5-year plan. To my
knowledge Cloverdale still is not on the 5-year plan. Franklin Road between Cloverdale and Eagle is not on the 5-year plan. It does not make sense to me to allow this subdivision --
although, I guess it’s too late to ask for a park. An in fill, I mean what we want back there is a subdivision but I don’t believe Cloverdale is going to handle 1150 more trips per day
which is 10 trips per day per home is what the Ada County is saying is the formula that they use. I believe the subdivision would be a good idea when the property to the north is developed
so they can have access to Fairview. Pine Street is finished so they can punch on into Eagle Road. But right now, all they’re doing is putting all that traffic onto Cloverdale and really
adding a second exit or entrance to the subdivision via the north really doesn’t solve anything. I mean it’ll keep less traffic going past my house because I live at the corner of Cloverdale
and Parkdale, or Parkdale and Driftwood Drive. But it just doesn’t make sense. I mean I don’t think the church is going under. I mean they seem to be mowing their yard and keeping the
place painted so I don’t think they’re in that hurt of a money. Can’t we just wait until this subdivision is supported by the infrastructure first? Thank you
Corrie: Thank you Scott. Fred Hodges and we also have a Diane. You both can speak if you want.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: All right. Thank you. I’ll put that in there. Is it A I N E Pope? Rather than butchering the name I thought I’d spell it out and then you can tell me what it is.
Pope: A unique spelling for Amy.
Corrie: Amy, okay. Thank you.
Pope: My name is Aimy Pope and I live at 4264 East Driftwood. I Recently moved into the Westdale subdivision, very happy with the subdivision. This has been a recent investment in my
time in learning all about this new subdivision and the infrastructure that Scott was talking about. One of the things that the developer had pointed is that this would be an in fill.
My view is that it is not an in fill until the area north so that there is access to Fairview is developed and accessed to that subdivision. Right now, the only access in and out is
Cloverdale on the northeast side and then down on the west with the south. The Crossroads subdivision butts up against it but there is no connection to that. So, right now its really
just kind of a hole that doesn’t have access to anywhere but Cloverdale as Scott was saying. You’ve heard multiple times that Cloverdale can’t handle it. I know some of the photographs
that you have received have shown people taking lefts to blow red lights because it’s so busy they can’t turn left. It’s pretty bad out there on Cloverdale. One of the other descriptions
that the developer has described is that it would be a transition to the property to the north. Until we know exactly what that’s going to be and that goes through the Council, we don’t
know what we’re transitioning to. Its been suggested that its apartments. The way that they have their subdivision set up in the terms of the size of lots. The way that the Westdale
subdivision is set up is closer to an R-4 and they’re proposing an R-8 throughout their subdivision. If it was a shorter transition where maybe the south is closer to R-4, the middle
would be closer to R-8 and the top would be closer. I’m sorry the middle would be R-6 and the top would be R-8, then you would have a better transition towards apartments not just one
plug of all R-8 and the small lot sizes. My suggestion is that you do deny these requests for this subdivision currently. I’m not opposed to it becoming a subdivision. Of course everybody
says that we would like it to be a park. There isn’t anybody that I know that doesn’t want to have a park in their backyard. But that wasn’t why we bought the property. We bought the
property because of its location, because of its aesthetics, because it’s well upkeep. That is our main concern to make sure that again we do keep our property values where they are
instead of decreasing them. A major concern that I do have is the traffic and the school. I don’t have children at this point but I do know that there are 89 young children in our subdivision
which the traffic will increase coming through there. My main concern is the school, the junior high. There’s just too many kids around that area right now and with the amount of traffic
that is misgiving trying to get through to Eagle, the amount of traffic trying to get through to Eagle and mistakenly coming through, the amount of traffic for the school itself. Increasing
that amount with this subdivision is just going to cause more problems. Thank you for your time, appreciate it.
Corrie: Thank you. We have a Dolores and Carl Sass, is that right?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. We have the letter here. I believe it’s Cynthia Curtis. Did I get it right?
Curtis: Thank you. I’m Cynthia Curtis. I live at 4132 East Driftwood Drive.
***End Of Side One***
Curtis: I believe that this subdivision going in at this time is a real undue burden not only on Cloverdale but the residents that live there. I feel that coming together residential
where the light industry area. Until the roads are equipped to handle all the traffic of not just the residents but the semi trucks and all of the industry that is going on in that area,
it is really quite unsafe. Its unsafe for all of our children and this 76 homeowners with our 89 elementary school age children on just our street alone, doesn’t even speak for how many
children are coming from Crossroads. We are hemmed in on all sides by these major roads, Fairview, Cloverdale, Franklin and Eagle. We have nowhere to go with our children as far as riding
bikes or taking off going for walks. We’re hemmed in by these busy, busy roads. We walk through these neighborhoods all the time. I’ve been walking through Cloverdale before when I have
come upon a 2-trailer semi truck stuck in the neighborhood trying to find his way out lost. Driving through a residential area, a double trailer semi truck 6:00 in the morning. There’s
so many senseless things here that are going on with these roads in this particular area that this subdivision moving in right now is just going to increase that burden. You know, its
making irate drivers. You know we’re afraid to let our children just walk over to Lewis and Clark School to play in the area over there because there’s so many cars that are not following
the rules. They’re having to break traffic rules in order to even travel through that area. Its just senseless. There's a lot of negative energy around the whole idea. I think that once
the roads are fixed around there in the next however many years it takes, Pine Street, Cloverdale, the intersection at Eagle and Fairview, Franklin between Cloverdale and Eagle. When
all those roads are fixed to handle the adequate traffic, then yes, lets put more residents there. But until then I think it’s a big mistake and somebody’s going to get hurt and I just
hope it’s not our children. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Greg Holman.
Holman: Greg Holman 992 North Principal Crossroads. Most of it has already been said and I agree with all of that. There are a couple of things. The other day it was on the news Fairview
and Eagle was the number 3 spot for the worst traffic in Boise and Meridian and its getting worse. The other one is the traffic that we have now is unbearable. We have a shopping center
that surrounds us on 2 sides. They’re building every day. Its only half-done and you ought to see the traffic now and its going to worse. The other thing is, we get water bills that
say conserve, save. Electric bills, gas bills, little notes in there, conserve, save
energy. No is the time to take care of the problem we’ve got now. Lets not add to it. That’s about all I have to say. Lets make a park and be done with it.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Mr. Holman. Mary Hopkins.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: All right. Thank you. Andrew Hopkins, same thing? Michelle, I believe it’s Rice, WHOA homeowners.
Michelle Rice: Just basically the same as everybody else has said. I live right next door to Cindy and Scott Curtis on 4110 East Driftwood. The biggest concern is safety for our children.
The second biggest concern is property values. I think a subdivision would be great back there. I just would hope that it was more equal to what we have and the access was better. Then
I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all. That’s it. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thanks, Michelle. Now, is there anyone that wishes to testify that didn’t sing up? Okay. Last chance. Okay. Developer, you have to answer the questions that they brought
up here tonight and rebuttal. We’ll give you 5 minutes.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Before he speaks, do we have a copy of ACHD’s report? I have the piece in our findings but if I could see that I’d appreciate it.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Butler: You have the final one, right Shari, not the one that’s stamped draft?
Stiles: Yes.
Butler: Excellent. The clock didn’t start yet, did it?
Corrie: I started it for you.
Butler: Oh, great.
Anderson: You’re almost out of time.
Butler: Then we hope you approve this item. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Before I get started, I think compatibility is an interesting issue. I wanted to say that in regards to
compatibility, several years ago I took a planning job in the city
of Henderson Nevada, which is right next to Las Vegas and worked there for about 5 years as a planner. The issue there was always apartments adjacent to single family. Then I moved up
here to Boise, took a job at the Highway District, worked there for a couple of years. Then went to the city of Eagle as a zoning administrator for about 5 years. Compatibility in Eagle
was a completely different ball game. It was whether a 30,000 square foot lot was compatible with a 5-acre lot. This is the first time in my 12 years of experience as a planner, mostly
working for government, the last year I’ve worked on my own as a private consultant. That I’ve seen compatibility take such a minutia point of view. I guess frankly, if you don’t have
to deal with this on a day in, day out basis, I really feel for you because trying to weight the concerns of all property owners, the individuals who live there now and the individuals
who hope to develop in accordance with your comp plan must be a real tough task. I guess with compatibility I just wanted to say that and kind of point out there’s a lot of different
opinions on what’s compatible and what’s not. I’ve only got 3 minutes so I think I’ll cut out, or try to hone this down. I wanted to touch a little on the history to respond to some
of the people’s comments, touch on the roadway issue and mostly touch on compatibility. Briefly, with regard to history here, as you know, your city ordinance doesn’t require neighborhood
meetings. I (inaudible) chose to have neighborhood meetings and recommended that to the developer. Unfortunately some things have been kind of taken out of context but we meant well.
I meant well in meeting with the neighbors. My purpose was to try to get their concerns and work out as many issues as possible. With that and meeting with the neighbors, going to Highway
District, P&Z and finally ending up here, we’ve ended up with a roadway that we’ve volunteered to build prior to issuance of the first building permit. The ACHD’s position was that we
build this roadway out to our primary access, out to Cloverdale, prior to the 76th building permit. In trying to work with the neighbors, I spoke with Holley Turney before the ACHD meeting
and she really wanted that in, or the people that she represents wanted that in ahead of time so the developer decided to put that in ahead of time. Without bringing in income from house
sales. The developers I believe have made incredible efforts in this process to move forward with many different conditions on their property of which you may not be aware. That being
one. We are building a roadway that’s 24 feet wide. The Highway District staff report that you have in your hand right now, page 6 points out on item in their findings, there’s no sense
going to it. You can double check later if you want. The access road does not need to be constructed in the dedicated right-of-way because its location may be temporary in nature until
the parcels to the north are developed and a permanent roadway is constructed either Fairview Avenue or Cloverdale. What they were saying there is yes, we want a roadway in there. We
want a primary roadway in there to address the issues of the neighbors but we don’t necessarily believe that that’s the perfect spot for the roadway. It may be better for the roadway
to come in and curve a little bit, going through Boise City here so its not so straight. They may want it to go up to Fairview. So, we’re doing that roadway in an easement and I wanted
to make that clear to you. A question was brought up at the last meeting on what the roadway was going to be made out of.
Actually the better terminology is constructed of. Here are several copies (inaudible) yourself, the attorney and staff that show a cross section of our roadway. You can see in the cross
section, its going to be an asphalt roadway meeting ACHD’s standards, 24 feet wide asphalt. It’s a little deceptive unfortunately. The 3-foot shoulder is gravel, not asphalt. I compared
this roadway with the standard local road. On the standard local road, you’ve got 20 feet less for travel way. On our road because no parking will be allowed here, we’ve got 24 feet
of travel way. I wanted to assure to you that the roadway is plenty sufficient for primary access in and out of this property. I’ve touched on history and the road. I’d like to touch
on the compatibility issue. I think there’s some misunderstandings. I’ve seen this happening over and over again where I guess people don’t really realize what’s on paper. Could I have
another 2 minutes? I would really appreciate it because there was a lot of testimony.
Corrie: Go ahead.
Butler: I think we can get all caught up in numbers. I think what you’re going to find once this subdivision is built as we proposed. This will all be a neighborhood. Even though this
park is for the people within the development, you’re going to find neighbors from Westdale who have no park. Kids coming over, riding their bicycles over, using the park. I don’t think
as planners we look as one subdivision as a neighborhood. SO, when we’re talking about enhancing a neighborhood as far as quality of a development. It’s not just enhancing the neighboring
subdivision as you know, its enhancing the whole neighborhood. If you look at the over all plan, our lot sizes are very compatible with the adjacent property and we have a park which
is now part of your ordinance to have a 5 percent open space. If you take what we did, which was 28 acres at a crossroad, we took the 3 phases that were last approved. You can see that
on the map here. You have 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Our over all density is 4. The calculations for the Westdale is 3.4. If you look at the southern section of our development, from
this line south. In other words the southerly east west road south, our density in that location is 3.3. That can be depicted also on the map that was provided by the association themselves.
Our lot sizes in the southern area are almost exactly the same as Westdale. Westdale’s range from 8,000 to approximately 14. Ours range from 9,000 to approximately 14. If you took the
300 feet or so, which is the depth of Westdale and went into our development, that density is very similar to theirs, approximately 3.3. As you go further north, it ends up 3.6. We put
the smaller lots at the very north. As far as not understanding the plans, I’d like to point out one I think important thing that was said by the public which shows maybe the misunderstanding.
It was said that if we had R-4 in the lower third, R-6 in the middle third and R-8 in the upper third, that that would be much more compatible. I agree. I think increasing the density
would be more compatible and I don’t mean to take anything out of context. But when you come in with 15 dwelling units per acre, which is what the comp plan calls for approximately,
you may whittle them down a bit as they go through the process. But 8 units per acre against even 10 would be similar. I’m not saying that so that you ask us to put
higher density in the subdivision. I hope that doesn’t happen but I’m just trying to point out that our plan is very compatible with the adjacent properties. We’ve also got Wal-Mart
and the commercial developments just a bit to the north. A couple of last things on what we’ve agreed to by conditions. Is to limit all the properties along the west side to single story.
We’ve agreed to limit all the properties along the south side to single story. We’ve agreed to limit the house sizes, minimum house sizes and that’s going to be a note on the plat, on
the south side to 1500 square feet. The house sizes on the west side to 1350 square feet. Since my time is up I'll present one other thing. What it is, is a compilation of the assessor’s
records for every single parcel in the crossroads and every single parcel in Westdale. If you want the assessor’s records you can have the copy, but I think what’s valuable here as my
last comment is how high the house sizes are compatible. The first bunch is Westdale. (inaudible) This is all I have. Then I’ll take questions. You can see that the majority of the
homes are from 1500 to 1599 square feet. There’s a few under 1500, 3 and there’s approximately half a dozen, maybe 8 or so above 1600. We’ve agreed like I said to have the homes along
the south side limited to 1500 square feet minimum. They’ll likely build more than that. I doubt you’ll see everyone at 1500. So, that will be very compatible right adjacent to Westdale.
If you look at Crossroads where we’ve proposed 1350, by the way we didn’t pull those numbers out of a hat. Those are the minimum numbers that are in the recorded CC&R’s for both those
subdivisions. 1500 for Westdale and 1350 for Crossroads. If you look at Crossroads, the original CC&R’s for Crossroads I believe allowed a smaller house size, so you can see some homes
in Crossdale, or excuse me, Crossroads are less than 1350. There’s one under 1300. The majority of the homes are between 1300 and 1400 square feet. You can see the mix of housing sizes
in there. With that, hopefully, I’ve touched on all the issues. The last thing I’ve already said I’d say the last thing and that was it. I’m not going to add any more last things. Did
you have any questions?
Corrie: Okay. Any questions at this point, staff? Thank you.
Butler: Thank you for your consideration.
Corrie: We may have something to discuss.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I did have one question. I think we opened the hearing on all 3 of these. What’s the hardship that you have, why do you have to have the variance for the block
length?
Butler: If Shari could put up that, the subdivision. If I can find the letter Mr. Nichols wrote for me. You do have a letter in the packet regarding the variance signed by me and it
points out the hardship which is, if we were to stub. First of all if we back up a minute we’re looking at a block being calculated as the perimeter boundary of the subdivision, not
what I would consider a block which is this. These meet the—We don’t need a variance for these. We modified our
road section, which Shari may not be aware. We were working mostly with Brad and Dave to bring these road sections in a bit both on each side see. So, this block and this block meets
the requirement. Where we have a problem is along the perimeter where our hardship would be that if we were to put a stub into the neighboring property. I think the hardship would be
transferred to you because that neighborhood would definitely come into the city and holler. That’s already a developed subdivision and that would be the only way to break up the block.
The other location would be to put a stub into the church and that’s already developed property.
Anderson: So, it’s the 2 north south streets that you need the variance on?
Butler: Exactly.
Anderson: Not the east west ones.
Butler: Hopefully Shari can clarify that. She’s nodding that that is correct. I appreciate your consideration on that. It seems like a code amendment that would be in order for perimeter
portions maybe.
Corrie: Any other questions (inaudible)?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Butler: Thank you.
Corrie: Council, any thing that we need to have further testimony on or questions (inaudible)?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I have a question of Gary. Hopefully he might be able to answer it. Executive Drive, in ACHD’s report they note that it will be constructed in the next 2 years. Are you
familiar with any time frame on that road? Was that not a condition of the Crossroads shopping center, that once they ? Oh, only along their property line? Okay. Do you have any idea
if that is within the next 2 years? Or will it be longer than that?
Smith: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor and Council. I don’t know of any dates on Executive Drive. I don’t know what ACHD’s plans are there. I think a lot of it will depend upon Mr. Van
Aucker and how he proceeds with the development of his property to the south of Crossroads on over to Eagle. I know there are plans
in the works to install a signal at Eagle and Pine and to extend the road back to the west boundary of Crossroads Subdivision.
De Weerd: What’s the time frame on that?
Smith: Yes, its coming this year yet, as I understood it.
De Weerd: On the middle school, was there not anything as far as the stipulation on that road to connect to Eagle? No?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Smith: Mayor and Council. The only stipulation that I recall on the middle school was that when the sewer and the water was extended in from Eagle Road that we required, the public works
department required an all weather gravel access road be constructed, which they did do. But that was a maintenance road for the sewer and water line.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, isn’t, as I recall, isn’t there some problems with some easements and stuff through Crossroads that they’ve got regarding the road that was fouled up or something that was
kind of holding up the Pine Road?
Smith: Mayor and Council, Councilman Bird. I recall that there was an issue with some right-of-way as far as the Highway District having to buy the right-of-way along the south boundary
of Crossroads. Apparently it had not been dedicated at the time the Crossroads plat was made, was platted. The original developer, the original landowner of that had maintained ownership
of that land. I don’t know what the status of that is. Whether that has ever been finalized with ACHD or not. But at one time it was an issue.
Bird: Thank you Gary.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: (inaudible)
Bird: If we don’t have anymore things that we need to take before the public, I would make a motion that we close the Public Hearings on the variance to exceed the maximum 1000 foot
block length for the proposed Macaile Meadows subdivision by Hillview Land Development LLC. south of Fairview, north of Pine Street and 1 quarter mile west of Cloverdale Road. Also
close the Public Hearing for AZ 01-005, request for annexation and zoning of 28. 59 acre from RUT to R-8 for the proposed Macaile Meadows subdivision by Hillview Land Development LLC
south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Road. Also close the Public Hearing for PP 01-006 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Macaile Meadows subdivision by Hillview Land Development LLC south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Road.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made to close the continued Public Hearing on 3 items requested. Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Public Hearing is closed on the variance, the request for annexation and zoning and the Preliminary Plat on Macaile Meadows Subdivision. I almost did it again. Discussion of
the requests?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: On the requests. Well, we can have discussion on the variance.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Discussion on the variance for the block length. I guess looking at the layout of the subdivision and realizing that these are the north south streets that they’re talking
about. From the testimony that I’ve heard, if the subdivision is annexed and approved, it would appear to me that most of the residents from both the Crossroads Subdivision as well as
the one south of there –
Bird: Westdale.
Anderson: -- Westdale, most of the residents would prefer that those streets not go through their neighborhoods anyway. So I really wouldn’t have any problem with a variance to the
block lengths at this point.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion of the variance? Hearing none, we’ll move on to the request for annexation and zoning.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I’ll throw out my 2 cents worth here too just to get it on the table and get some discussion going but I agree with the residents. I think that most of us would love
to live next to parkland and fortunately for the residents of both those subdivisions that was a big open grassy field that was very pretty to look at. Unfortunately again, its property
that’s owned by another individual, in this case it’s a church and part of living in America is having those private property rights and having the ability to develop your property as
you see fit. I think in this particular case, the developers have made a lot of effort to work with the residents. As I’ve heard the discussion from the residents. Almost everybody has
said, we’re not opposed to a subdivision going in there. We just want to make sure that its compatible with our subdivisions. I guess to speak to a couple of points that came out in
that. We talked about lot sizes and compatibility and Mr. Butler I think was correct in his statement that we are talking about very small differences in the lot sizes that are in the
perimeter of this subdivision as compared with the surrounding subdivisions. The homes that will be built immediately adjacent to those subdivisions are going to be very compatible in
size with the surrounding neighborhoods. I think when we look at the aerial view, --. Shari would you put that back up? That aerial view of that entire mile section there. When we look
at that, as you can see the school district actually plans on there being residential in that area. That’s why they went out there and purchased a piece of land and built a school there.
If that entire mile section was going to be industrial we wouldn’t see a school there. Right now we just have 2 subdivisions there so its logical to expect that those are going to fill
up with residential areas. I guess I kind of have some personal believes. I think that sometimes we can get too much industrial commercial mixed in with residential use and then it becomes
a hazard to the neighborhoods. But also we talk about with some of the smart growth ideas, trying to have some of the amenities close to homes like shopping and entertainment and restaurants
and those types of things. There has to be a happy blend there. If we were coming in from scratch 100 years ago and we were going to layout the perfect city we probably would do this
entirely different today based off the knowledge that we have and the twenty-twenty hindsight. At this point we have a lot of existing conditions that we’re trying to match up to here.
I feel like this particular development and the work that they’ve done with the neighborhoods as far as trying to calm traffic, to try to do some buffering to keep the values up. As
the comp plan shows, the density is
going to grow higher as it goes closer to Fairview. Also in our comp plan one of the things we talked about is having diverse housing opportunities because not everybody makes the same
amount of money as their neighbor. SO, there has to be opportunities for families who are just starting our or families who don’t have as much income. So, we have to provide those types
of housing opportunities. In this case, I really feel like there's been a lot of effort to work with the neighborhoods. I think as was stated earlier, the church looked at developers
when they sold this property and did some screening to try to protect the neighborhoods around there. They could have sold this property to developers who wanted to develop at much denser
densities in this area. I applaud them for looking out after your interest. I really think if you would put a little bit of faith that this isn’t going to be the big terror that you
think. Its not going to drop all of your property values. I mean we’ve done these types of projects all around town and it doesn’t drop property values. The fact that there’s no cross
access into Crossroads Subdivision means Crossroads Subdivision is going to be impacted very minimal in this whole thing. With lot sizes that they are adjacent to that, I don’t see
any impact at all to crossroads. I do agree with some of your concerns about traffic on Cloverdale Road. I do agree with Franklin Road and Pine Street and Emerald and the schools and
all that. Unfortunately the way that the road system works is we cant get a road built and widened ahead of the development. There just isn’t the money there. They’re not out there improving
these 2 lane country roads and making them into 4 lane highways ahead of the development. The development comes and then they do it. They’re always behind the curve. Again, that’s something
that you need to take up with Ada County Highway District because that’s something that we need to push. We as a City Council have been pushing as hard as we can to get road improvements
made in the Meridian are, Meridian City. We could use help and support to get some of those types of things done. I guess I would close with those comments. But those are my thoughts.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I guess, there are some areas that I have to be consistent. One of them is infrastructure before you put in so many of these projects has to be there. I do not believe that
we have to go through 5 or 10 years of traffic nightmares just so we can put in a subdivision. I agree with the people that they don’t mind having a subdivision back there. But, the
egress and ingress into that subdivision is a nightmare. I just don’t think that its time to put that in there. I agree with the people that testified that if you could just wait until
you have another decent entrance or exit out of that subdivision, then the subdivision would be fine. Consequently, I am going to vote no.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I too echo a lot of Ron’s, Councilman Anderson’s thoughts. I would like to see it a little larger homes and stuff but I believe that if we could get some things solved, Pine Street
will go through. They’ve got a natural connection coming down through Westdale. I’m sure that whichever came first Crossroads or Westdale, I’m sure, I think it was Westdale that was
last and Crossroads came first, probably they got the same public commentary up here regarding bringing Westdale in. You can deny everything and you’re not going to help Cloverdale because
Boise has this same area and they’re certainly not going to stop adding stuff. We know Cloverdale is a mess. I happen to travel quite often. I don’t think that this one subdivision,
and it isn’t going to be built over night. We’re probably looking at a 5, 7-year build out I would imagine, if not maybe a little longer. Hopefully by that time, we can keep twisting
on Ada County Highway District and get Pine through there and that would give us 2. I don’t know if that little road coming through Westdale connects to Pine yet or not. I can’t remember.
I’ve drove over there. It doesn’t. Actually if they connect there, you’ve got to push and you do have a light there on Pine that they can travel and come down. I realize that 9 months
out of the year, you’ve got school buses and stuff but I don’t believe Lewis and Clark is a year round school.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Is it a year round?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: No, it’s not year round. It’s out right now. I am like Councilman Anderson, I think the developers have tried to do a good job of getting to the neighbors and stuff and I am one
that would be voting for it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Oh, I’m sorry. (inaudible) about Cherie. Mrs. de Weerd. I had you on my mind.
De Weerd: This one is a tough one for me because I can certainly sympathize with the neighbors. I had an empty field in my backyard and with a view and that sort of thing. I think the
developers and the Commission have done some things to mitigate some of the impact with the single stories, which they didn’t do in my backyard and the size of the lots to transition
into it. I too would like to see parks everywhere and unfortunately, we cannot buy the property or we’d have a lot of
parkas around here because most people would like to see a park rather than a subdivision. But I can appreciate it. I’m a huge park advocate and I would rather have seen a park in my
backyard as well. With that being said, I have the concerns of Council Member McCandless with the traffic. However, you’re in a unique situation that here in the ACHD requirements you
have 60 home limitation being platted until a second connector to Fairview can be done. I’m sure within that time frame the roads connecting this subdivision to Eagle will be constructed.
Hopefully, since it’s in an ACHD document that means something because I do agree that’s one of the things that was testified on road planning. That is a lot more than we’ve ever had
to offer any other residents and their concern with traffic. I heard the applicant’s representative mention that the park would be available to the surrounding residents. That is something
that we just recently updated our landscape ordinance to do. I would like to see more of a buffer between Boise and Meridian. Unfortunately, that cant always be done, but the church
can be seen as that. I really think that our County taxing system really does force development to happen sooner than later. The church is being taxed for the property value that it
can sustain. That is a huge hardship and we’re seeing that Citywide. That’s why we’re getting so many development requests. It’s a hardship and the church bears a huge burden if they
don’t do something. This is an in fill project. It appears that everything that we’ve asked them to do, they have done and I would support this project.
Corrie: Okay. Having heard from the Council, any other discussions? Okay. How about any discussion on the request for Preliminary Plat?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Have you all said it all?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would like notations about the 80 percent of the required signatures for the speed bumps on Driftwood and that that would be a recommendation to have ACHD or the
City to replace the ACHD approve the speed bumps per the 80 percent residential support of that. I guess I would also like to note that the ACHD requirement here. That staff recommends
that only 76 homes be platted until a second connection to either Fairview or Cloverdale is available as an access to the subdivision.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, I assume that these are staff recommendations. If the Council so wished that as a caveat to this, they could add it to the part of the plat.
Is that correct? I mean the staff recommendation doesn’t keep the Council from making that position or it doesn’t say that we have to do it.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. That is correct. Typically what we put into the findings, depending upon the motion but with regard to ACHD’s report, they make site specific
and they make standard requirements. We add those site specific and those standard requirements unless we’re directed otherwise by the Council. The recommendation on the 76 home limitation,
I think it needs to be as I understand what’s contemplated is that no more than 76 building permits would be issued before that road was available to connect because the subdivision
would be platted and all of the lots would be platted under the current configuration. SO, if you say a specific number of homes, or building permits before its connected to Fairview
then we would include that as a Council requirement.
Corrie: How about the speed bumps?
Nichols: Speed bumps as I understand it, Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, is strictly within ACHD’s jurisdiction but we can include the recommendation if you will of the Council to
ACHD that upon appropriate approval of the Parkdale subdivision that those be added.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Nichols: Westdale, pardon me.
Corrie: I just wanted to make sure that Council could make that notation in their motion if they so desired. Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, then I will entertain a motion first on the variance request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Even though that’s listed, we have to annex and zone it before we can legally –
Corrie: Okay, you’re right.
Bird: -- do a variance, cant we. It don’t really matter, as long as we do that.
Corrie: Okay. Then lets do the annexation and zoning first.
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for the proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development LLC, south of Fairview
and west of Cloverdale Road, for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order with staff comments.
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) motion. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the request for annexation and zoning of AZ 01-005 for 28.59 acre from RUT to an R-8 and for the attorney to draw up the proper
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and staff comments. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, would you give us a roll call vote please?
Roll-call: Bird, aye, Anderson,--
***End of Side Two***
Berg: Mr. Mayor. If I may, I’ll roll call vote again.
Corrie: Yes.
Berg: Thank you.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, naye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Corrie: The next would be the request for Preliminary Plat of PP 01-006. Approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on Macaile Meadows Subdivision. At this time I’ll entertain
a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Point of order --. Do we need to do the variance first? Or can we do the Preliminary Plat and then do the variance?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I would recommend that you do the variance first and then the plat.
Corrie: Okay. Since (inaudible) gone to school here, they’re (inaudible). All right. Let’s go back. This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum 1000-foot length for the
proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision, VAR 01-007 for the east and west roads, streets.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the variance No. 01-007 request for a variance to exceed the maximum 1000 foot block length for the proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision
by Hillview Land Development, instruct the City attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the variance request to exceed the maximum 1000 foot length for the proposed subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, (inaudible).
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, naye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Corrie: Now, we will get to the request for Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before we have a motion on that, I for one would like to because of the concerns with the traffic and stuff which we all have, regards to whether we vote aye or naye on this. The
Highway District has asked that only 76 building lots be given permits until another exit from Fairview or whatever could be done, or Pine maybe if (inaudible) through. But with the
Council’s thinking, I would like to even see that, they’re asking for 115 which half of that would be about 58. I would like to as a Council person knock that from 76 down to 60 building
lots at this time until another exit could be done, if the other Council would go along with that.
Corrie: Council, you heard the discussion on that. Further discussion from Council?
De Weerd: I have no problem with that.
Anderson: (inaudible)
Corrie: Okay. Then if there’s no further discussion, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat for the approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres
–
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat for approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Macaile
Meadows Subdivision. To note the limitation of 60 building lots until a second access to Fairview or Cloverdale or an the extension of Executive to Eagle be done. To note that the chokers
must be landscaped. To also note our request that ACHD approve the installation of speed bumps on Driftwood. What else did I have? To include all staff comments and to have the attorney
to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat with the limitations on the building lots and other limitations as set forth in the proposal, to include staff
comments and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Further comments, discussion? Hearing none from the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, naye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 6, 2001: RZ-00-005 Request for Rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Stubblefield Development – southeast
corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11. (inaudible).
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Public Hearing continuation from March 6, 2001. A request for rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Stubblefield Development, southeast corner
of Cherry Lane and Linder Road.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: We will open the continued Public Hearing and staff comments first.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess before we go into staff comments, I don’t know why we’re hearing this until we see a plan. I really am somewhat concerned that we’re considering a rezone without
a plan sitting here with it. I don’t like to waste time.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: So, you all know where I’m coming from.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I wholeheartedly agree with the Councilwoman on that score.
Corrie: All Right. Is the developer here? Mr. Stubblefield or his representative? Okay. I think that your comments are in order. I would suggest that we continue this Public Hearing
and notify Mr. Stubblefield or his engineers of what they want to do and bring it forth to us. Either that or the Planning and Zoning. At least get with our staff. With that in mind,
I will –
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Is there any people here that are testifying?
Corrie: Is there anybody here to testify?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Yes. Let me fill you in on what’s going to happen here. If we continue this Public Hearing, we’ve asked that the developer come back. One of the Council, actually 2 of them
have asked that they bring back a plan of what they want to do on this C-N. At that point, they will be given the proper notification of the Public Hearing. You’ll be invited back to
that and you’ll hear it when we hear it. Then you can give your testimony at that time as well. However you can testify now if you want. I don’t know what we’re going to testify against.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: That’s what the Council is agreeing on too. We will notify them and there’s more to it than is meeting the eye here, I’m sure. But we want to make
sure everybody gets a fair shake here. Not only the developer but you too. Okay. We just want to make that point very clear. With that being the case –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: (inaudible) be by mail, by notice in the paper. Then we’ll have –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Oh, yes. We have to.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Hang on.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. If you continue this matter to a specific a date, then the folks that are here will know what date that will appear on the agenda.
Corrie: Or they could just deny it, --. You’re right. I don’t want to go there.
Nichols: Its just a whole lot easier if there’s a specific date that everybody (inaudible).
Corrie: I think you’re absolutely right. That way you’ll know when its going to be.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: You need to come up here first. The Public Hearing is open. But , yes, we can make this as part of your comment.
Gaffigen: My name is Michelle Gaffigen and I’ve seen you guys many times before. I live at 1538 West 15th Street. I feel we should deny the closure, close it. We have been here 6 times.
It has been continued on several times, changed twice. First they were going to do it. Then the developer backed out but it was still Stubblefield, Hawkins, Smith, changing the zoning.
Now its just Stubblefield changing the zoning. He doesn’t know what he wants to do with the property. I say we just deny it and let him reapply again.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council, I guess we do have that opportunity. Its never come up before to me. Mr. Attorney can they just hear any other testimony and then close it and deny
it if they so wish?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Although this is a rezone and technically zoning decisions are considered legislative but because it’s a rezone as opposed to an annexation
and zoning its considered a property rights issue. So, any decision has to be made in a quasi-judicial capacity which means there has to be a receipt of testimony which you then base
your decision on. Recognizing the frustration of those that have had to come and come and come and nothing happens or its been continued. But at the same time, if the direction to the
developer is this is the day that its going to happen and on that date, you need to be prepared to say what you’re going to do. So, that that, if its approved there’s some things that
might be tied into the zoning part of it through a development agreement or something. I believe if you do it in that fashion then you’ve got a much clearer path with regard to having
a decision that would be supported if it were challenged.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know I agree that that’s probably – I’m would not feel comfortable denying this without the applicant being here to respond. You know, one thing you can say is, you
deny this, its going to come back and you’re going to have to be here anyway. And, we are kind of enjoyable people, I think. There has –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Some of us.
De Weerd: There has been some benefit from you coming. This is being redesigned because a lot of the concerns of the residents. So, you have not wasted your time. Who knows, he
may come back with something a little bit more palatable for you.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: I believe we also should continue it to a date certain. Shari, does he have a redesigned proposal for this?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: We can’t get you on tape. Your name again.
Gaffigen: My name is Michelle Gaffigen. We were told that the people who were going to do the 58,000 square foot building, who did not want to be mentioned,
has dropped out so there's no proposal of buildings anywhere on this. He was just trying to change it from R-8 to C-N.
De Weerd: I would be interested to hear from the applicant. If he doesn’t have anything in mind right now I would not be opposed to denying it at that point. But I would like to
hear from the developer first.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Shirt: My name is Jan Shirt and I live at 1522 West 15th Street. The last time we were here, when he came up and spoke, he actually said that he had no idea what he was going to do with
it at that point. So, I don’t know if that makes a difference but I just thought I’d let you know that.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Before we go any further, I think we better stop it here and continue it to a date certain. And go forth with it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion.
Bird: I would move that we continue the Public Hearing for the request to rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Stubblefield Development to August 24,
2001 and instruct staff to make sure that the developer is aware of this and –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: The 21st?
Bird: I beg your pardon? The 21st, I’m sorry. I was in July still. 21st. And to make sure that the developer is aware of this and either come with a plan or withdraw his application.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to continue the Public Hearing on Linder Crossing until August 21, 01. Staff to please call and let him know what was said in the motion. Any further
discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess my question is, why are we continuing it so long? Either he comes with something, if its changed dramatically he has to go back through P&Z anyway. Why are we
delaying this until August 21st?
Bird: Well, because we’ve probably got a full table until then.
Corrie: Okay. At this point unless you want to (inaudible).
De Weerd: Its already been seconded.
Corrie: I mean another preliminary motion. Substitute motion is what I’m trying to point out.
De Weerd: I would give a substitute motion to hearing this on the 17th of July, 2001.
Corrie: Okay. A substitute motion to have this heard on July 17th, this month. Do I hear a second? Motion died for lack of second. We go for the motion originally stated. All those
in favor of the motion for the 21st of August say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Could we have a 10-minute recess before we start this next –
Corrie: Yes. Take a 10-minute recess. Then we’ll come back on the Bridgetower Crossing.
(Return at 8:40 P.M.)
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2001: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision
by Primeland Development Company for a planned development consisting of residential, office and commercial uses generally located at 2420 Ustick Road:
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from June 19, 2001: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G
zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from June 19, 2001: CUP 01-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots
on 370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
Corrie: I’ll call the Council back to order from our recess and open for items 12, 13 and 14 which is the --. Item No. 12 is request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT
to R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Also continue the Public Hearing for the request for Preliminary Plat of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Also for
a request for a Conditional Use Permit for 692 single family lots, 59 townhomes and 17 office spots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres of the proposed R-4 and C-G zone for Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision. At this time I will open the continued Public Hearings on all 3 items, 12, 13 and 14. Since this is a continued Public Hearing, from May the 5th, staff can you
kind of help me realize where we are here?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Have we ever started this at all?
Stiles: No sir.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: With that being the case I will open the Public Hearing and we’ll have the developer give their testimony since we are doing it on all 3 at one time. I will allow 10 minutes
for the developer. If you need it you can take it. If you don’t need it thank you. Then we’ll have Public Hearing from the public for and against it. Limit it to 3 minutes then a rebuttal
from the developer of anything that comes up in those other Public Hearings. At this point, developer, Becky Bowcutt.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Staff do you want to go first? Becky , let the staff go first. Then you can really lay it on us then at that time. Thank you staff.
De Weerd: You’re being kind though this time.
Corrie: Yes. We’ll cut you down to 5 minutes there.
Bird: How about 3?
Corrie: All right, staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This request is proposing for annexation and zoning and zoning of the entire acreage. However the Preliminary Plat is not being submitted for approval
on the entire acreages at this time. They’re proposing a commercial zone on the southwest corner, or the southeast corner of McMillan and Ten Mile Road. Also north of here, is also proposed
as a C-G zoning. The remainder of the property would be a request for an R-4 zone. At this time the plat itself would include the areas generally in this part of the annexation. They
do propose a future school site in this area and they would need to come back at a later time for the platting of that property. Initially they had requested that it be a phased annexation
and the legal counsel had determined that that was not a possibility and that they did need to annex the entire property at this time. They’re proposing office uses along Ten Mile Road
and also some townhouse units in this area. They have done this as a planned development since the new planned development ordinance has been adopted by Council. They are using that
to have their exclusion for other uses as part of that 20 percent exception in the planned development. As part of their Preliminary Plat they are also proposing a redesign of a previously
approved Preliminary Plat. I’ll show you how that was initially approved. They do have a park area adjacent to Ustick. This is the new configuration. Something has happened to my –
Anderson: That’s a landing zone.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: What engineer drew that one?
Stiles: I don’t know.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: I don’t know what happened to that figure. The major differences between the previously approved Preliminary Plat and this one is, where previously they had shown a frontage
road adjacent to the park area, they are now showing lots backing up to that park area. We had to put it on several different sheets because we couldn’t get it down to a legible size.
All of the uses that are not single family residential or any of the commercial or office uses, they will need to come back with a conditional use for those parcels. SO, the configurations
that are shown for those commercial areas are not being requested for approval as part of this development. In our original staff report, we had expressed concern that there was no access
to McMillan Road. They do have a collector coming through but it ends and the only access to the school site would have been off of this roadway. Staff did not agree with that. We did
request that they have at least one access to McMillan Road and Miss Bowcutt has come
in with a revised plan that would show in the future they do have a connection to McMillan Road. But that will be discussed at a future date when they come in with the plat for that
subdivision. This is part of the white drain area. The easements are being secured for extension of the white drain sewer trunk line through this property. Their clubhouse is part of
their original subdivision proposal that would have the clubhouse here with the park. They do have trails and some open spaces that they’ve incorporated through the development. The
staff recommendation and the recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission was to approve of the annexation and zoning and the plat. There is a point of clarification on your recommendation
from Planning and Zoning Commission on page 3 under item 2. It shows the recommendation that this parcel north of McMillan not be annexed at this time as it’s not part of the white drain
and is therefor not part of a priority area for development for the city. I believe that at the Planning and Zoning meeting they did discuss that and the staff had removed that comment
from their recommendation because it would be served by the white drain and is not part of the north slough trunk. That would need to be removed as part of the recommendation unless
you determine otherwise. With that, I’ll let Becky do her show.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, the property there that is not being annexed, does Primeland not own that?
Stiles: This little piece right here?
Bird: Yes, that little piece right there.
Stiles: Yes, that is an enclave. Its owned by another party. There are existing structures on the property. It would be this area right here. I have been presented with another figure
showing a possible future development of that piece with a stub street going into the property and coming back out to McMillan Road. The way they have it designed right now, there is
a road that would abut the southern boundary of that parcel.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. Becky, you’re up.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. 12715 West Edna Court Boise. As Shari indicated before you this evening, is a request for annexation. Also a planned unit development on the entire property and
then a Preliminary Plat on a portion of this property. We’ve worked over a year in the planning phase of this project. When we submitted application, we submitted application of the
property in its
entirety and paid all those applicable fees. We did request, originally, that this be annexed in 2 phases. It was discussed extensively at the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was
a determination of your legal counsel that they weren’t sure if that was a viable option. The reason that we proposed it was for the fact that this is a 10 year project and when we annexed
this 22 acres down here with phase 1, the taxes went from $21,000, or the value of the property, excuse me, went from $21,000 to $780,000. We havent even recorded the plat on it. So,
we were extremely concerned about annexing the whole thing and being imposed with taxes on property that’s still technically being farmed and wouldn’t be developed for possibly 8, 10
years. But, we accepted the determination of your legal counsel and the determination of your Planning and Zoning Commission that they didn’t feel that that was feasible to annex something
even if it was set forth in a development agreement. We had, had it originally that it would be triggered with the second Preliminary Plat submittal, which we’re beginning work on at
this time. So, we just bit the bullet and said okay. Hopefully the tax assessor will cooperate with us. The property in its entirety is 371 acres. On this 371 acres, we have multiple
uses. Along the arterials we’re proposing office so that we’re not sticking single family residential up to potentially 5 lane major arterials in the future. In your Comprehensive Plan,
this is designated as single family here. Up here at this intersection, its designated commercial and mixed planned use development on your current Comprehensive Plan map. We have asked
for everything in this particular section to be R-4 and then came in under that planned unit development ordinance asking for that exception. If you recall, it allowed up to 20 percent
exception. What’s before you now is 13.25 percent exception. That just basically covers the office here and then this is the townhomes and the commercial here. We have 59 townhomes.
We propose 59 townhomes here. These lots are 50 feet by approximately 115. These would be single level dwellings in pods of 2. We do have one odd lot since we have 59 that I’ve got to
figure out how to compensate for. These are the types of units that we want to construct. These were built in Idaho Falls. They are a single story unit. The garages come in from 2 different
directions. One is a side entry. One is a front entry so that you don’t get your typical, you know, all garage front elevation. These are very attractive. Typically the people that purchase
them are empty nesters looking for smaller yard but yet nice amenities and a decent house. I apologize for the snow. That was Idaho Falls. The office that we propose along Linder and
along Ten Mile will be single story office with a residential character. We’ve done the same type of development along Eagle Road, just south of Chinden in the Legends subdivision that
I designed and these particular developers constructed. They set forth a very rigid criteria for any potential users. Most of them are orthodontists, doctors, oral surgeons, dentists.
That’s the type of development that we get. None of these lots will have front access, or direct access onto the arterials. All of them take access on an interior driveway that is 25
feet wide which matches your requirements of your ordinance. All the buildings are set up against the roadway. They’re setback according to your landscape ordinance of I believe 35 feet.
That’s what, like the City of Boise has been promoting under the new urbanism so that we don’t have parking lots right
up against the roadways. But we have buildings with parking lots in the interior so we don’t have so much asphalt. One would come in this collector roadway, there's a driveway that comes
all along the back for access to all these offices. It also comes and interconnects into this loop here in this commercial lot. Then there’s also a vehicular access that comes down into
this cul de sac or townhome area. So, if a resident within the townhome area wanted to drive over here to the video store, if that’s what it was, they’d come in right here and back this
way. Hopefully they would walk but if they choose to drive. The same holds true for the residents in here. They have a route to stay off of their (inaudible) and come in this direction
or come in down this direction to access office or access commercial. The same is true here. We have no direct lot access on any of the arterials. ACHD commended us on this when we took
this before their commission and they did their preliminary review. We designed these collector roadways that run from Linder to Ten Mile and down to Ustick. Your staff asked us to evaluate
some type of a vehicular access to McMillan Road. We looked at different options. We felt the most versatile option was to come in here with a public roadway that would have no front
on housing. The school site is located here. This is just their common footprint. So, how this develops would obviously be up to the school district but this gives them multiple options.
They can come in off of our collector roadway which we have no access from our residential (inaudible) --.
Corrie: Becky.
Bowcutt: Yes sir?
Corrie: Excuse me. Could you put that up on (inaudible) and use the mike so that people back there can see it as well. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Anderson: Stop the time while you move. Then you have 5 minutes left.
Corrie: Did you hear our time keeper?
Anderson: We stopped the time while you moved but you’ve got 5 minutes left.
De Weerd: (inaudible)
Bird: Oh, he’s okay.
Corrie: Okay.
Bowcutt: The school will have a choice of access here. They’ll have no conflict with our residential access since the closest approach is here and located here. This could function if
they wanted to rotate the school around, they could come in off of McMillan this direction. If they so choose they could work with the Highway District and have a direct access off of
McMillan. All of our approaches are 440
feet from edge to edge. That would be from a future 5-lane type roadway, so we will be in compliance with ACHD standards when these intersections are built out and signalization is completed.
We have extensive landscaping within the development. There's approximately 56 acres of landscaping and that does not include the 12.7 acres for the elementary school site. Under the
amenities of your PUD, we’re required to have at least 10 percent open space. We have almost 15 percent open space. We’re also required to have an additional amenity. We will be constructing
a clubhouse and swimming pool right here at the center of the section. We also, as you recall, in phase 1 we have a clubhouse and pool down here next to Ustick. Another change that we
made. Originally when we brought the first Bridgetower to you, we had a loop that terminated here and we thought the school wanted to be located here. They said they have too many elementary
along the Ustick corridor and they needed one on McMillan. That is why we made that change. It was at the school districts request. So, basically all we did here was extended this loop.
In doing that we had a 4-acre park here next to our clubhouse. That allowed me to allocate 3 additional acres so our private park is now 7 acres located next to Ustick Road. The overall
density for the residential is 2.25 dwelling units per acre. We have varying lot sizes. The townhomes range from 50 foot in width and we have lots that go up to 105 feet in width. We
have lot depths from 114 all the way up to almost 160. So, we’re looking at 5500 square foot. Then they go all the way up to one half acre. As we move to the interior of this development,
the lots get bigger. They’re smaller out here on the perimeters and then they get larger as we move to the interior. We have the white drain, which historically traversed this property
like this. We’ve been working with Settler’s Irrigation District on obtaining approval to relocate that. Our preference was to relocate it and create a water amenity with pathways and
interconnecting ponds along that waterway. After meeting with their board the second time. Their board stated that the only way they would allow us to make it a water amenity is if the
City of Meridian indemnified them as they did Nampa Meridian and that the pathway became public. They sent a letter to your Planning and Zoning Commission and said that the district’s
preference was that we pipe the white drain, relocate it and pipe it. Then they called me back after that letter was sent and said, well, we are open to the idea of possibly leaving
it open and as an amenity. One of the problems I ran into is they said we don’t want you to connect your ponds to it and we won’t allow any discharge into it for storm drainage even
predevelopment flow. They will not accept Ada County Highway District’s flow either. I’m working with them and I’m trying to get them to come into our overall group to try to help do
this master planning on this north Meridian area. They have agreed that they will be a participant because its important as far as the cost of constructing these arterials to these 3,
5 and 7 lanes roadways that ACHD have some mechanism for discharge of storm drainage. They’re just going to have to work with our group and help us deal with some of these situations.
Ada County Highway District Commissioners saw the project but did not act upon this based on your recommendation that they hold off. We did receive a staff report that deals with the
Preliminary Plat only. We did an overall traffic study for the project in its entirety. However we have not got a staff report
on the PUD but we do have a staff report on the Preliminary Plat. One thing I want to mention back to the white drain. I stated it at the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will state
it here. We are going to create a water amenity, whether it be a natural water amenity or an artificial water amenity with interconnecting ponds such as Two Rivers has. We will be doing
water amenities. We’ve allocated substantial open space for that. We will be doing detached sidewalks all along the collector roadways. We also have allocated substantial amount of room
for the cemetery. I want to bring that to your attention. The cemetery is right here. Its very small compared to the room that we’ve allocated it. We’re going to leave it in tact. It
has fencing around it. Then we’re going to very tastefully landscape around it and make it part of that open space along that collector. But do it in a fashion that is respectful and
will also protect it from vandalism. We need it visible. My time is up. Do you have any questions?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have one question Becky. I guess its relating to the roads because we talked about Ada County Highway District and with all the development that’s slated to go in that
north Meridian area there and they’ve talked about the need to widen some of those roads. If we approve this project now, I think we’re kind of a little bit premature because they don’t
have the plan and the mechanism yet in place for funding of those roads to be widened. Is there something, I guess, I mean that could be worked out where you guys can be a participant
in there. I mean if you’re the first ones in and you jump in under that and then they put all their plans in place to collect fees from the developers that would allow them to widen
the roads. I mean it seems like we’d be behind the 8 ball already.
Bowcutt: I think I can answer that question Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson. That was brought up at Ada County Highway District. What we agreed to on the record was one obviously, we’re
paying I think almost $68,000 as our proportionate share of the future signals at some of these existing intersections. Secondly, they’ve asked us to do decel. lanes and thirdly, they
put the question to us, if we implement a overlay district with a special assessment or a special impact fee, would you be willing to have that fee imposed upon your project, even if
your project were to be approved prior to implementation of that fee? We went on the record and said yes, we would agree to it. We have no intentions of getting under the door and being
the only project that would not have to pay any special impact fee as far as the roadway improvements are concerned. We agreed, I think their staff asked for a letter from the developer
to be sent to the district prior to the district’s approval of this project stating that we will agree to be subject to any special assessments that come about over the next few months
of negotiations. One thing that the Highway District Commissioners brought up was
the fact that we don’t know how long this process is going to take. The special assessments like in the foothills took, I think it took over a year for them to come up – What is an equitable
fee. I guess from our perspective you know with the trunk line getting ready to take off. With our first phase under construction we would like to get moving. We are willing to do our
part. We talked to a couple of the commissioners, Commissioner Eastlake, in particular about not when we would dedicate right-of-way but ACHD would not have to pay for it on the front
end because they don’t have the monies to do that. So, basically the developer would dedicate those right-of-ways and then as these homes come on line over a 10-year time frame then
years down the road, you would get paid for your right-of-way. But you would get paid on the back end as they build up their kitty. Right now the kitty’s empty so they don’t even have
the monies to go out and purchase that right-of-way. The other thing that we talked about was possibly the developers making some of these roadway improvements. ACHD’s costs are escalating
through the roof as far as what it costs them per lane mile. Based on our calculations the development community can do that for less than 50 percent, even less than that under certain
circumstances. So, some type of partnerships where maybe the developer goes in and maybe he puts in 3 lanes in addition to the 2 that are there, or 5 or whatever they determine. This
project is a 10 year project. We started on Ustick. The second phase will be on Ustick. Then the third phase will be out on Ten Mile Road. I guess our concern is once we get that first
phase going, you know you have a certain momentum, a certain commitment to builders and the community. You know we want to get our clubhouses constructed and so forth. We just can’t
sit and wait 12 months or 18 months or 6 months. It scares me. We kind of got a head start on the rest of the development community on our project because we knew what we wanted and
we thought we knew what you guys wanted. I think we’ve hit the nail on the head. A good plan, mixed use, varying densities, varying uses, intersection protection, collectors, schools,
open space, pathways, micro-paths. We’ve put it all in here and I think we’ve got a real, real nice project, the best I’ve ever worked on. Did I answer your question?
Anderson: Yes. That and a lot more. You talked about in there you know the possibility of buying this right-of-way that they could pay you later. How would that work? Instead of dealing
with one developer that owns that land, they would have to deal with each individual property owner at that point, to buy the right-of-way from them?
Bowcutt: Well, as you can see, we own almost a mile there with the exception of the out parcels. There are 3 out parcels there. We own a half mile on Ten Mile and then a quarter mile
on Linder and then quite a bit of frontage obviously on Ustick. Are you talking about the out –
***End of Side Three***
Bowcutt: -- the part of the project? Is that what you’re –
Anderson: I’m talking about the people that live around the perimeter. If you sell those lots to those individuals then ACHD later on is coming back to buy right-of-way from them.
Bowcutt; NO, no. As the plat was recorded, the right-of-way would be dedicated just like it is today. But the developer, the way it works now. When we record a plat, a letter goes out
to the developer. It says give me your tax ID number we need a certified description, an area. Then ACHD sends them a check for whatever they determine the either assessed or market
value of the property is. What ACHD is saying and what the development community has said that we support is that we record the plat, the right-of-way get dedicated but you don’t get
paid until years down the road. It would be very similar to your late comer fees for water and sewer expansion. You do your thing and put it in and you get paid later when we get money.
Anderson: Did I hear you correctly to say that the only thing ACHD was asking you for was 68,000 for improvements to intersections?
Bowcutt: $68,000 for our --
Bird: Signal lights.
Bowcutt: -- our percentage of streetlights plus they want decel lanes and then they would also want turn lanes. We will have intersection improvement as the commercial and you know the
office, the stuff at the intersections comes on line.
Anderson: So, its mainly improvements to the intersections in the area?
Bowcutt: Right. Then sidewalks. We obviously would be required to install sidewalk along all the arterials.
Anderson: What was the discussion you talked about possibly ACHD mentioned maybe having the developer go ahead and widen a section of road? What were those discussions?
Bowcutt: The discussions were to the effect that one of the problems we have in the community now is we have subdivisions where Cloverdale Road, like you were talking about is a prime
example. That area is almost at 100 percent build out, yet we still have a 2 lane substandard arterial with no sidewalks or intermittent sidewalks. ACHD said we need to get ahead of
the game and start putting these improvements in as the developments are going in so you don’t have a 10 year lapse where the roads are exceeding capacity or at capacity. One of the
things that we were talking about is possibly coming in and adding additional lanes, the developer adding additional lanes. Since they collect impact fees, they’ve been able to get us
to do decel lanes and turn lanes but they
haven’t because they collect those monies through impact fees, they cant force you legally to install a 5 lane section of roadway in front of your project. Its illegal. That’s where
the law reads. What we’re trying to do is do some type of a partnership. They can do a partnership where the developer is reimbursed but reimbursed as they get those monies in from the
impact fees. SO, the developer basically acts like the banker but puts them in. That’s what we’re trying to get to a more cost effective way and a better way to get these roadways or
these arterials improved in a timely fashion, not 10 years after the developments are built out.
Anderson: To be honest with you, I mean that’s one of my major concerns is getting the roads, getting the infrastructure there. With smaller subdivisions when you’re talking about
coming in with 100 or 200 homes then its not feasible to look at you know having the developer go ahead and develop a full mile section of road or whatever. But something of this size,
I mean you’re talking 1000 in this area, just in your project let alone some of these other parcels that there needs to be those widenings of those roads and not just the intersections.
I mean you can have intersections that will have traffic lights and flow 2 lanes but if you’ve only got single 2 lane roads running up to them, you’re still going to be stacking the
traffic getting there. It seems like the last option that you talked about working with ACHD to maybe do a partnering with the developer to get these roads improved at this time is the
option that I would definitely prefer.
Bowcutt: One thing to keep in mind Councilman Anderson and Mr. Mayor. This is a 10-year project. We have 7150 residential units in here but that’s over a 10-year time frame. You guys
are running what 700 permits a year. We’re hoping that 100 of those would be us. That’s what we’re hoping. So, you know, you’re not going to go from today to this time next year with
automatically 17,000 new trips on the roadway. You know, its going to be over 10 years. But we do want to see these roads improved, not after the fact. We are willing to cooperate. I’ve
been assigned by my clients to work with this development group. We had a meeting with Smart Growth yesterday and they brought in some consultants from out of state. On e of the things
we (inaudible) was creative ideas on doing things different. How can we do things better and more cost effective? Right now, ACHD, everything is gold plated and I told the Highway District
that you guys are getting like Boise Parks Department where somebody can go build 2 restrooms for $20,000 and yours cost 240,000. I mean, their standards have gotten out of whack and
even their civil engineers concur. Susan Eastlake said I agree 100 percent. Now’s the opportunity for us to look at some alternatives and lets get a bigger bang for our buck. That’s
what I think these group meetings you know are going to bring forth. Some new ideas and some better ways of cooperating with the agencies to do this infra-structure. I know this project
is big. The biggest you guys have ever seen. The biggest I’ve ever seen. But we’ve got to start somewhere. I guess one thing that we look at is, is what is the existing capacity? ACHD
admitted existing capacity is there to provide service to your development, no doubt about it. But when we look at the big picture, at some point in time
somebody’s going to come up here just like I am down the road and you guys are going to have to say no the capacity is all used up. So, we’ve got to think ahead.
Anderson: And to be honest with you, that’s not that far down the road because they’re right behind you.
Bowcutt: They’re behind me. It is market driven. If this market continues or accelerates, you’re right that 10 years could go down to 7, could go to6. Some of these subdivisions have
developed faster than we ever thought they would. You just don’t know. But we are doing everything we can and allocating the resources necessary to get these questions answered and to
get some solutions to this north Meridian area. We will continue to be a participant and honor any agreements that are binding upon the rest of those that come behind us.
Corrie: Becky, I’m sure that you know and that Council knows that we’re working on these partnerships to do just exactly what you’re saying. You’re kind of blazing some new trails
here that is going to take a pretty good look at what this whole 12 square miles is going to have to be done. I think by working together, partner-shipping it can be done. That’s what
we know and I hope the public certainly realizes that as time goes on. As Councilman Anderson says, 10 years is a very short time.
Bowcutt: Yes. We’ve seen a lot happen in Meridian in 10 years. I concur sir.
Corrie: Any other questions of Becky at this time?
Bird: Not at this time.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Becky. This is a Public Hearing and we invite the public comments at this point. Is there anyone here that has comments for the development at this point? Okay.
Hearing none, start now with anyone who has against, I think we have --. Have they signed up back there Will?
Berg: We have some right on the line.
Corrie: Right on the line? Okay. There’s for and against and they’re on the line. All right. Lets, Brian English. Brian you’re leaning one way. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: We need to also before Mrs. English comes up here, on the 3rd today we received a letter from the English’s I believe. I don’t know if the applicant has got this letter or not.
Do we need –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: That’s the one –
Bird: No, we got one –
Corrie: Dated June the 3rd.
Bird: -- June 3, 2001 and we received it today.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: June the 3rd and we received it July the 3rd.
Unidentified Speaker: I handed it to (inaudible) --.
Corrie: Oh, you handed it?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay, we need to make sure that she has a copy of this.
Bird; We also need to –
Corrie: We’ll make that his part of the public testimony and I think that Brian and Margeretha is going to be talking today too.
M. English: Margie English, 4650 North Linder Road Meridian. We are this parcel right here. We’ve been trying to understand and practice this project since it came up at Planning and
Zoning. I must admit that I believe that the developers are doing some good things here. They are really trying to make some effort and frankly I was delighted to hear tonight that there’s
going to be a change to provide access to McMillan Road which was a major concern for us and is identified in our letter in item 7 and also in item 5. I wanted to, I’m not going to go
over everything that’s in our letter right now. I think you can read that. But I just wanted to discuss a couple of other things that o heard tonight. My understanding from our participation
in the April 30th meeting with ACHD is that if this subdivision is the only one to go forward in the area, the existing infrastructure can handle it. That’s my understanding form the
discussion. However, my understanding also is that the existing infrastructure did not necessarily take into account developments that are currently on going such as Turtle Creek, which
is off of Linder Road. I’m not sure in my own that the existing infrastructure can handle the proposed subdivision at this point. I guess I just want to add my voice to the caution here
that we be very careful in proceeding. I can appreciate that the developer is concerned that they’re holding property that’s costing them money. Its costing them quite dearly in taxes
and that that
causes concern for Miss Bowcutt in having to have it delayed to figure out the road structure. Also, it scares me because I’m sitting on that property and this is where I live. We’re
not talking 100 homes. We’re talking an eventual 750 homes. The road that comes out towards us that provides access, there was discussion hearing, an additional 3,000 vehicle trips per
day on that. The Linder Road intersection is already very, very crowded and very difficult to get through in the morning. I want to add my voice to be sure that we’re very careful here
with what we do as far as the approval. I was interested in this idea of partnership that was discussed tonight but I’m wondering is there any documentation on these partnerships and
what will --? Do we have anything concrete about what will come out of them? I think we should have that before a project of this size and this magnitude gets approved. I guess that’s
all other than what’s already in our letter. The concerns in our letter right now are largely the traffic and concerns with the traffic study that was done. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Brian.
B. English: Brian English 4650 North Linder Road Meridian. I have the concern with the traffic. I have the concerns that we raised in our letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Some of those were passed on to you for a decision. They were not decided by the Planning and Zoning and I would ask that that letter be taken up and looked at. I have a concern with
the development in pieces the way they’re doing. They’re adding a road, ACHD has not looked at the eastern half for traffic of this subdivision. The plans are not approved for the eastern
half of this subdivision and yet by approving the western half we’re setting a lot. A lot of things are going to be set. The increased housing density is on the western half and yet
you’re going to have to develop the whole space in order to get the 20 percent or the 15.3 percent that Miss Bowcutt was talking about. Your Preliminary Plat for your western half relies
on the Preliminary Plat on the eastern half which has not been reviewed or approved, ACHD has not reviewed or approved it. There are going to be issues that can come up with that second
plat. Things that might come up then that are too late because the west was already approved and developed. Our biggest concern though is the traffic. Right now Chinden cannot handle
the traffic it has. You go drive on Chinden Boulevard 5:00 at night. You have a solid line of cars from Linder Road all the way back to Eagle Road, sometimes all the way back to Cloverdale.
It cant handle, we’re adding, the primary traffic flow is at Chinden and it cannot handle it. Linder Road, in our letter we questioned whether you should look at the traffic for evening
peak or morning peak. Morning peak is when Eagle High School traffic goes. All the students from all the subdivisions in this area go out Linder Road to get across the river to go to
Eagle High School. You have e 10-minute shorter commute for me in the morning now, then I do during the school year consistently. Its that much of a difference and I’m on those roads
for 3 miles. That’s the difference in traffic. That’s what I’m concerned about. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you Brian. Mr. Tom Anderson.
T. Anderson: My name is Tom Anderson. I reside at 2795 West McMillan Road. We are in the out parcel there off of McMillan Road. As you can see, our property is significantly impacted
by this development. But we are not opposed to this development. There is some confusion regarding a waterway which borders our property. This waterway is not just a drainage for irrigation
but has fresh water running thorough it year round. It is a natural habitat for wild life in our area and it adds aesthetic value to out land. We feel this waterway is an amenity to
our property but we understand it is to be moved and final plans have not been clarified from Settler’s Irrigation as admitted by Miss Bowcutt this evening. Also our concerns about landscaping
buffers have been ignored. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you Tom. Anyone else to give testimony? Okay. Becky, do you have answers?
Bowcutt: For the record, I have read the English’s letter. Its similar to a letter written in April. I’d just like to go on the record and state there is a drainage ditch that comes
through their property and picks up wastewater. It does exit and go west through our property. I have indicated to the English’s that we will cooperate and coordinate with them on the
piping of that facility that we cannot interfere with any natural drainage. They’ve asked us to work with them on mitigating any lights from this entrance that may shine into their windows.
We always have a little bit of flexibility in how that outbound lane is positioned. I told them that I will coordinate with them on that issue. As far as traffic is concerned. With Linder
being the river crossing obviously it does carry a lot of traffic up there around that Chinden area. I know there’s discussions on an additional river crossing further west. Until that
happens, obviously Linder is going to be popular with the high school out there in that Eagle are. There’s not a lot that I can do about that. The other thing brought up was the PUD
versus the Preliminary Plat. We had to design the property in its entirety in order to make sure that everything fits. That white drain trunk has to come through there. It was the preference
of the city that that be placed within a public roadway so, we pushed ourselves very hard. We’re behind schedule and I know we caused some delays for Gary but we pushed hard to get this
tied down. That’s why we designed everything because everything’s got to interconnect and everything’s got to work, all the pet paths, pathways, roadways, collectors, everything fit
together like a puzzle. We are asking for Preliminary Plat approval on this area here, this area here and then these lots right here. So, you’ll be basically approving the annexation
in its entirety, the planned unit development in its entirety, conceptually for the office and commercial. As Shari indicated they’ve got to come back through with a site specific conditional
use. So, they’ll have to go back through the Highway District. They’ll evaluate their impact on traffic depending on the intensity of the uses. They’ll have to come back before you and
your staff to evaluate their landscaping, parking and design. There’ll also be new Public Hearings and opportunity for public input. The Preliminary Plat we basically sectioned this
off because that’s what made sense. We still make our collector connection here
and out to Ten Mile so we have secondary means of access to meet the fire departments requirements on the interconnectivity that’s necessary. We didn’t have any choice in doing that.
I think the neighbors should be happy that I’ve got to come back through with a Preliminary Plat here because we’ll look at this all over again and evaluate the impact and a year down
the road or whenever that comes before this body and the neighbors have an opportunity, I’m sure there will be more things that will crop up that will give us more insight into how this
area is going to develop and what’s going on out there? What is this partnership going to be about and that criteria. Mr. Anderson, I’ve been working with a friend of his that’s a civil
engineer to try to make sure that we accommodate their needs. There are 3 parcels here. He owns the largest. The property drains to the south. The white drain came through here and exited
there. In my conversation with Settler’s Irrigation District I voiced to them that Mr. Anderson was not very happy about us relocating the drain. Settler’s Irrigation District responded,
the drain is ours. That is our facility. We are a proponent of relocating it and improving it. We’re always in favor of improving a facility and enhancing our access to it and minimizing
our maintenance to it. Now, what we need to do for Mr. Anderson, is make sure that we can accommodate his natural drainage. So, I pushed this block down and I’ve got landscaped area
here. I added another landscaped area here. We would also create another pathway between these pods here so we can get his drainage down to the drain. I also did a concept on their parcel
that I took to the engineer accommodating for their homes and giving them the option of a stub street connection here or a stub street connection on their south end. This particular
fashion gives them more lots. They don’t have the burden of turn around. They still have interconnectivity to me. We also would not, this pod if it goes straight out would be more apt
to dump traffic out to McMillan through this future development. So, we’ll also have to stub sewer and water to them under your old city standards. I’ve always been a proponent of working
with the neighbors and making sure that they are aware of what we’re doing. That we’re cooperating with them. That there is no questions, no property damage and that they’re happy and
pleased. My record stands for that. Do you have nay questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So, you showed them that concept?
Bowcutt: Yes, I faxed it to their friend on Friday and I gave them a hard copy this evening. Based on the property configuration they would have to obviously cooperate with each other.
There are 3 parcels there. Mr. Anderson owns the largest right in through here. There’s a parcel here with a little tail that comes down and there’s a parcel here that has just an easement
access out to McMillan. What I show is, potential redevelopment of them. If they could coordinate with each other then this would be one of the few, there’s very few
options the way the parcel is configured. We’ve done that so they can kind of get an idea of how it could redevelop and then I gave it to your staff because your staff was concerned.
One problem we have is, we stick stub streets places and then the parcels come in and get laid out and then people go well, that was a stupid [place to put the stub street. Because this
is so small it was very easy to kind of sketch it out so they could look at their alternatives. What I told the engineer, who is a friend of theirs, that if they wanted a stub street
to the south we could accommodate it. If they want a stub street out to the east, we can accommodate that. They have a couple of options. This just gives them some ideas.
De Weerd: Becky, what kind of buffering? You have a real high density with the duplexes there, or townhouses just to the west of their property line. What are you dong along that area?
Bowcutt: Well, they’d all be single story. They would only be in pods of 2. Those lots I think are 100, I think those are 120 feet deep up against them. So, they’re not real shallow.
It’s never a good idea to try to put some landscape strip corridor behind lots when eventually they’re going to redevelop. Here you end up with this strip back there that may or may
not be maintained in the future. I never thought that was a good idea when you’re talking residential to residential. IF I had say, commercial or office next to them, obviously your
own landscape ordinance requires that we put landscape buffering in since it’s open to parking lots and so forth. That’s easily maintainable. We’re not creating corridors.
De Weerd: Well, yes, but just like in another application that’s talked about, you’re talking transitioning too. That’s a large county lot. Who’s to say they’re going to redevelop? I
don’t know if they’re developing or not.
Bowcutt: In the future they may. Who knows? You’ve got to understand that you’re up on McMillan too which at some point and time is going to be a 5-lane highway. The condition today
is not necessarily going to be the condition a few years from now. You go and you put low density there, then you end up with things like, you know Banbury was a good idea when it first
started too until they built Chinden out. Now, here you’ve got high end low density right up next to a major intersection, Eagle and Chinden. Those people were a thorn in the side to
IDT for a long time when they did the rebuild.
De Weerd: In an ideal world that works great. But, you look at all the enclaves in the City of Meridian and that’s people just like to have their large piece of property. You know you
still have to somehow buffer. Have you talked fences or trees or anything like that?
Bowcutt: I have not. Mr. Anderson and I spoke briefly after one of the meetings and I told him I would like to get a meeting together. When I met with his representative last week, I
indicated that again. I’d like to get together and
discuss fencing. We are required to put fencing on our perimeters. Fencing style height. I’m not opposed to that at all. I told his representative we’d love to get together and we’ll
meet with all 3 of the neighbors and walk that and talk about your drainage. We talked about issues like pressurized irrigation and could they get access to our pressurized irrigation
system since we’ll have main lines running all along their perimeter. Things like that. The project has a lot to offer them as far as the future development of that property. They’ll
have very little to do when a lot of the stuff’s done all the way around them, you know fencing, ditch relocation. With the slough being there, or the drain being there, it eats into
the number of lots they can get and the depth of their lots. By us relocating it, it helps them.
De Weerd: Well, I guess I’m really confused that you haven’t talked with them and worked these details out. You are normally very good about doing that before you even get to the –
Bowcutt: Well, I offered and, as most people’s schedules, I think their schedule’s been busy and mine’s been busy. I met with their representative who’s a civil engineer. His name is
Bob Walker and they had asked him to contact me. I offered to go out to the site and meet Mr. Walker and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Walker said no that’s not necessary. Lets just get together
you and i. So, I did what they were willing to do. I can’t force them to meet with me. I can make the overture.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Becky, to clear this up, do the Andersons own all the perimeter of that ground that is not being annexed? Have you contacted the other owners? I take it there are 3 owners. I was
under the impression at the start that the Andersons owned the whole lot.
Bowcutt: Councilman Bird, Mr. Mayor. There are 3 owners. All 3 of them came to one of the previous hearings at the Planning and Zoning Commission. After the hearing I chatted with all
of them. An older gentleman owns that half (inaudible) right there. He indicated to me that he didn’t have a problem with it. He just wanted to be left alone and he wanted us to know
that he had a couple of pigs or something like that. They wanted to make sure that the drainage was accommodated and that there was some fencing that was done. They seemed to be happy.
Mr. Anderson, I think has attended all the meetings. That gentleman and the other couple, I think it was a couple. Who was your other neighbor?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: The Rupps. They’ve never been. But the Rupps are the ones that we purchased the ground from on the east side of this parcel. So, they sold that portion (inaudible).
Bird: So, we have 3 owners? 3 deeded pieces in that –
Bowcutt: Yes sir. There’s I think a little over 9 acres total between all of them.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you Becky. Does Council have any questions from the testimony?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I do have one of the attorney. Can you approve a development like they’re suggesting with the overlay and whatever plan is implemented in any special impact fees or what have
you that is imposed on the roadways? How do you go back and do it if its not part of our development agreement?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council and Councilwoman de Weerd. Let me make sure I understand your question.
De Weerd: It just goes back to the same concern that Councilman Anderson had. If we approve this without knowing the outcome of what this overlay group is going to come up with and kind
of share the first one in last one in type of issue.
Nichols: Okay. I understand the issue. What I would recommend is in the development agreement would require participation in this term partnership has been used. But whatever the program
that is developed with ACHD by the north Meridian area interested parties that would provide for road improvements contemporaneous with or ahead of development as opposed to behind development.
I’d have to come up with some kind of proposed language for the development agreement and see if we can get something hammered out. That’s what I would de because the standard language
in your development agreement, if they don’t meet the terms of the development agreement and you give them notice and they don’t have a real good reason for why they’re not doing it,
you can de-annex them. I think we’d tie in the water and sewer with that too so that it becomes really critical that they comply with the development agreement. So, Miss Bowcutt testified
that her client is willing to participate in whatever the other developers might be willing to do for that and we would tie it into the development agreement so they’d have to participate
in that program whatever its going to be. You cant say for sure that there’s going to be one but you don’t know that there’s not going to be one either. But you do know that one of the
dilemmas you faced
is how to get the roads there contemporaneous with the development as opposed to after the fact which is the way they’ve typically done it because it’s the only way they can pay for
it.
De Weerd: In worse case scenario, if something wasn’t reached, how do you mitigate the impact of this development on the surrounding roads?
Nichols: I see the discussion and the problem, ACHD has a problem with their impact fees. They have in their view, the impact fees are inadequate to do what they need to do. The development
communities view the impact are adequate to do what they need to do if they didn’t try to do a Rolls Royce every time they did it. I think what they’re getting to is trying to find some
way --. The alternative is for ACHD to jump through the hoops and get the impact fees where they need to be to do what they need to do. That development community doesn’t want to do
that because they’re thinking we’re paying too much for what we’re getting if we were able to do it. I think that’s where, both sides have something to gain. ACHD is able to get roads
that they can maintain at a lower cost. The same thing, the development community can get the roads at a lower cost than what the impact fees might be. That’s where is see this thing
going. No, there’s no guarantee. No iron clad guarantee. But at the same time the forces are there, the emphasize is there on the part of both parties to find something that’s going
to work. That’s the way I would propose to do it. Put it in the development agreement.
De Weerd: Then you’ll come up with some kind of wording for that?
Nichols: I’ll do my best.
De Weerd: I guess my second issue is it seems that things are still unresolved with the 3 property owners in that little soon to be enclave.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: How would you proceed with that? Maybe I have a question for Mr. Anderson.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: Have you talked with the representative that you have working with Miss Bowcutt? Do you feel comfortable that --? Do you have future plans to develop, the 3 of you to develop
that piece?
T. Anderson: We talked to Mr. Walker yesterday afternoon and he showed us the proposal that him and Becky Bowcutt came up with. It does involve the other 2 neighbors, which we have not
discussed anything with. Developing that parcel of ours is just one thing in the back of our minds. We would want to know what
options we would have once this development takes place. SO, it is an option that we you know want to reserve.
De Weerd: Do you feel comfortable that they continue to talk and that your representative will come to some kind of a reasonable solution on your behalf?
T. Anderson: Well, just being presented with it yesterday we really haven’t had time to review anything or have any discussion at all.
De Weerd: But, your concerns were drainage and --?
T. Anderson: The aesthetic value that the stream behind our property adds to our property.
De Weerd: Well, I think both Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and Settler’s could care less because we kind of like that and it went away. They do own it. Unfortunately you’re at their
mercy as far as that goes. But they are stubbing into your property and that will help you at some point if you are to –
T. Anderson: If we decide that’s what we want to do yes. We haven’t decided exactly what we want to do. That’s for sure.
Corrie: But, you were given some options? That’s the point.
T. Anderson: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
T. Anderson: But, that was just yesterday when we first saw the –
Corrie: You may not develop that for 20 years and that’s you option.
T. Anderson: That’s true.
Bird: What part of the 9 point acres do you own Mr. Anderson?
T. Anderson: On the western part all the way from McMillan --. Yes, right there.
Bird: Okay.
T. Anderson: All that front –
Bird: You have that whole –
T. Anderson: Yes.
Bird: Then you’ve got an easement coming up out of there to gain access to McMillan, right?
T. Anderson: Correct. That’s our lane right there.
Bird: Okay. You come down the west side?
T. Anderson: Correct.
De Weerd: You own two thirds of that?
T. Anderson: I would estimate that. Its 5.68 acres.
Bird: So, you’re over half of it. So, you’ve got the big parcel there in the back there.
T. Anderson: So far we have enjoyed our privacy out there but we know things change.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: So, the stub for you –
T. Anderson: What they propose now is stubbing from the east side right there which is the Rupp’s property into the Kelso property and then into our property. There was some discussion
but nothing on paper saying they could have a stub going to the south out of our property.
De Weerd: Which you showed, didn’t you Becky?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: And, you’ve moved it? SO, that option is no longer there?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: No, the option is still to go to the south also because I put landscaping next to them. If they had one neighbor lets say did not want to participate and their only option
was to come through here. This is just a landscape lot. They can come right through here and I told their representative, Mr. Walker that, that was still an open option. Originally I
had it stubbed here. They got more lots and bigger lots if this went through here versus bringing in a cul de sac and terminating it here and then bringing that down.
De Weerd: So, if they all got together and wanted to develop, that option would be the best way?
Bowcutt: This one yielded the best, yes.
De Weerd: But, if they were the only ones that wanted to do something, they would still have the stub to the south?
Bowcutt: Yes, because they will exceed the maximum dead end length of 450. They’d be in excess of 900. I have to provide them secondary access either here or here. What I indicated to
them that we could accommodate it here and we’d leave that option open since that’s just open space.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any further questions? (inaudible) none, I will assume that we’re all through with the Public Hearing and I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Before we do that I do have one more question for Becky. On that relocation of that drainage, you said you’re still in negotiations and that’s kind of unsettled at this point
as far as your plan and whether you’re actually going to be able to do that, is that correct? Or is that pretty firmed up?
Bowcutt: We’ve gone before their board twice, met with their representative 3 times. They’re giving us the option but they’re setting forth the criteria. If you leave it open this issue
of indemnifying the district. I provided them a copy of the agreement that you guys entered into with Nampa Meridian for their review, fi they wanted that to be pursued. What I told
your staff is that we will be providing a water amenity whether it be natural or whether it be artificial. We will be having ponds. The ponds will be interconnected, circulating like
Two Rivers with either fountains or waterfalls in them to keep the water moving. Hopefully we can make that drain into an amenity. They have agreed to relocate it. That’s a done deal.
They said yes, relocation fine. The issue is what criteria are they going to put upon me if I leave it open? Can I meet that? Is it best just to spend the money to pipe it? To pipe it
is $200,000. So, it’s a spendy ordeal. They require concrete pipe. We had planned the development with it open. That’s why we allocated so much open space along those collector roads
was so that we could slope it appropriately and make it look nice. But I think its just a technicality as far as is that hanging in the wings going to cause a problem? I don’t feel so,
like it will.
Anderson: Now that you clarified it. The relocation –
***End of Side Four***
Bowcutt: -- location. It’s our facility. We want something done with it. Move it. So, that’s done.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just one more thing. Can you show me your phasing, the phasing of you project one more time?
Bowcutt: Yes. This is phase 1, phase 2 is right here. This loop. This one will be on line the middle of August. This one we hope to start construction this fall and come on line next
spring. Phase 3 is under design now. It will consist of this south area this collector roadway where your sewer line is going all the way to this point here. We intend to build that
next year. That’s phase 3. We will be installing, relocating the drain, installing the collector roadways from here to here and putting in landscaping on both sides.
De Weerd: So, you’re not even near the Anderson’s property for –
Bowcutt: No. This is phase 7. This is phase 4.
De Weerd: So, to the south of them is phase 4?
Bowcutt: Yes. This one on the south would be phase 4. That would probably be I’d say in 2003 this would be constructed. This would be out probably 2005. The townhomes will be one of
the last things that we construct.
Anderson: When do you do that phase that connects the two?
Bowcutt: This one?
Anderson: Yes.
Bowcutt: We’ve discussed that. I’ve indicated to them that we need to complete this (inaudible) and get this in. I probably need to get with Kenny and when we build to this point, we
may end up having to do a gravel emergency access loop there in the interim.
Anderson: How are you meeting the access on 1 and 2? Do you have a second access?
Bowcutt: There is a secondary access into the property right here. But it would be an emergency vehicle access only.
Anderson: It crosses the ditch?
Bowcutt: We built a new bridge here but there’s an existing bridge there that we’re leaving in for pet path. But, we could use that for secondary emergency vehicle access. I think Kenny
indicated that 100 is where the path is for one of (inaudible). We do that with Boise Fire Department a lot of times. We’ll just put in a secondary access for every 20-foot gravel path.
They even take a truck out to make sure that its compacted appropriately.
Anderson: Is that existing bridge, is it strong enough to support a fire truck?
Bowcutt: Oh, yes. Its concrete and they run trucks over it and have for years. Its in very excellent condition.
Anderson: How would you meet your secondary access on that first phase up in there?
Bowcutt: We’d probably end up having to do either installing this collector or building a 20 foot emergency vehicle access. Typically we come in and etch these streets out anyway. So,
they’re etched out, its just a matter of laying down some temporary gravel that we end up wasting. But we do it quite often and Boise is a stickler for that. As far as the rest of these,
the phasing will come this way and then move south. The last phases will be the office, commercial and the (inaudible) in this area over here on Linder.
De Weerd: Becky, you wouldn’t have to divert the drain until you get up into those phases then. Is that correct?
Bowcutt: No. We would have that, that’s going to be something that will have to be done this fall because it would have to be in its new alignment. This is its historical alignment and
we’d follow that but then it diverts here. So, that would be a this fall type situation. It would have to be engineered whether its piped or made into a water amenity> I think in your
staff conditions they ask that they, your staff review it to make sure that they’re happy with the slopes, same with the ponds. To make sure that they’re going to look nice. We’re utilizing
a landscape architect in unison with the civil engineer ion the design of both ponds and drain, if we do in deed end up leaving it open. So, its aesthetically pleasing because its going
to be our main amenity along that collector as you drive in with pathways and little bridges that cross it and so forth.
De Weerd: So, on the southern part of the Anderson’s property where the drainage is, you have that landscaped anyway too? Correct?
Bowcutt: Yes. Right along here?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bowcutt: Yes. I’ve got open space allocated here and then open space that comes down through here and opens up into this wide area. Then I’ve got 2 ped paths that come across. As you
can see, the pod has pet paths.
De Weerd: Do you have connectivity between the residential and the commercial? I know you have one path there. How do you get over the marshy, the green space? Is that ped path
between the houses there? How do you get over that water? No. Right there.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: Oh, it would be a culvert. This would be a culvert.
De Weerd: A bridge and then you have to apply for it.
Bowcutt: Not necessarily a bridge. It would just be a pipe. It would go, (inaudible) it would be visible then it would go into a pipe then it would exit out here. This is an open space
lot here. Your staff has asked that we put a ped path connecting out to the Ten Mile sidewalk here. Also they’ve indicated that they think that may be where they want the well. I guess
the city needs a well in this section and we’ve got this nice big open space here and then we’d have the ability to discharge into the drain. So, we’ve been working with you staff on
that issue.
De Weerd: But if you open that up --. Gary, we’re all okay with the white drain and that can get started tomorrow right? Or yesterday?
Smith: tomorrow’s a holiday. Thank you. We’ve received some information back from the developer on our request for easement that they wanted to add as conditions of the easement. We
have in turn submitted that to our consultant for their review and comment. We should be getting that back Thursday or Friday. Then we can move forward on finalizing the easements.
De Weerd: So, we don’t need to hold this up for them?
Smith: I don’t think so. I think that they’ve given us enough written information to validate that the easements are forth coming.
Bowcutt: I think I can answer that Councilwoman de Weerd, Mr. Mayor. We did receive the easement form your staff. We have been cooperating with them in providing legal descriptions and
computerized information. My client just asked for a couple of provisions to be included. One o f them was just asking, I believe the city, for a time frame for the construction. Secondly
was asking for a provision in the event that the city for whatever reason did not install the sewer that we could do it. I mean, if the city decided 2 months down the road that we’re
not
going to do this until 2006, we could install the white trunk. So, that we could continue on with the project. I think in frank conversation with Brad –
Smith: There was another provision whereby they were going to lower the grade of the ground 4 feet and we had to get that resolved and the installation of the gravel access road timing.
So, there was some design consideration. So, it wasn’t quite as simple as that.
Bowcutt: I forgot that. Sorry, Gary. Yes, for the record, we are cooperating 100 percent. We are ready to sign the easement once Gary reviews those. If we are in agreement, we’re flexible
and we’re ready to go. One thing I did want to mention. There is an error in that finding that Shari showed me. Originally the staff said that this corner could not be sewered because
they were looking at one of your sewer serviceability maps and somehow that provision, I know at the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff said that should be omitted. But it popped
back up in the Planning and Zoning recommendation. That can be serviced, that corner. In fact the sewer right now is within 200 feet of this new entrance. We’ve designed it, I think,
within 100 feet if this intersection. I know we’ve instructed our contractor to --. We’ve got approval for that to take that up to that point. Then that will service that corner. Staff
withdrew that condition because it was not correct. I believe that was Bruce, went on the record at Planning and Zoning Commission and Brad Hawkins-Clark concurred.
De Weerd: I think still by including that, you know, we right now have a policy that we wanted to keep it within the light and south of McMillan.
Bowcutt: Right. But, I’ve got to take sewer to and through. You’re going to make me take sewer--. See what I’m saying? I’ve got sewer right here.
Bird: You’ve got sewer at McMillan, don’t you?
Bowcutt: I have to take sewer to and through. So, this will go in. This is technically the white. The white splits, goes east –
Anderson: That’s the north.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: That goes north. You labeled north slough (inaudible) goes way up and then it heads east on its own. But, I’m going to have sewer right here.
Bird: It doesn’t go that far up north. You could run it on up to Ten Mile. We would let you.
Bowcutt: Well, if I go to here –
Bird: Gary could probably give you about the location you needed to stop.
Bowcutt: Gary would require that I (inaudible) just keep going. Right here, wouldn’t I have to run it then to this corner? To and through? (inaudible) take it to the north corner, the
northwest corner of that commercial.
Smith: Right, that’s been our policy to run it across the frontage of the property that develops.
Bowcutt: But, in your comp plan. I know you’re drawing the line here. But in the comp plan today which is applicable that’s designated as commercial. That’s what we’re asking for. That’s
going to be the last thing that ever happens out here because that’s like a grocery store and they’re not going to be there until there’s a lot more houses than I show on this map. It
will come back through as a CU. At this time, all you’re doing is annexing it and its part of this concept.
De Weerd: That piece is in the white and not in the north slough?
Bowcutt: Well, it depends on where Gary labels it.
Smith: Right. Technically the drainage area is McMillan road. However, the sewer going to the north slough passes along the frontage of this property. I guess, technically it’s the drainage
from the north slough that’s draining into the white drain which is collected by the same line on Ten Mile Road. Ten Mile Road, you can consider as a trunk line that’s accepting flow
from the north slough and from the white drain. Kind of like a manifold.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: I’ll have sewer going to these buildings here right across the street. In fact, depending on hoe its designed, this may dump its flow right here into this project this way.
Depends on how the engineers do it.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: We’re just trying to get the whole picture identified. Obviously this area is going to need neighborhood services. You want to cut down on the vehicle trips, do you want everybody
to go to Fairview to the Fred Meyers? No. When we start building these suburbs like this we want to try to provide essential services, offices, doctors, grocery stores, video stores,
beauty shops, all those essential neighborhood services. That’s why we’re trying to do a community, not just another subdivision.
Corrie: Okay. Once again, I’ll ask if there’s anything else that needs to be in the Public Hearing?
De Weerd: I have nothing.
Bird: I have nothing, Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I have just one more question for Becky.
Corrie: You just said that last time.
Bird: That’s what you said 6 questions ago Anderson.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: He just keeps waiting for you to sit down.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: I know. He’s making me --. I must look like I need the exercise.
Anderson: You do. There’s a letter from Ada County Highway District in there dated March 15th or something like that. It recommends that the city not act or not approve this until
they make some type of decision what they’re going to do out there. I guess, your comments on that, I’d like to hear those.
Bowcutt: Yes sir. That is correct. There is a letter there and they’re waiting for direction from this body. I guess we’re looking to you guys to give them direction. They have to make
a final action on this project. You’re correct. They have not made final action. I anticipated this evening that you guys would probably --. I had hoped that you guys would give them
some direction this evening. That yes, we’ve got this project here. We’re going to hold onto it, defer it but you need to act on it. You’ve got to give them some direction.
Anderson: We just had a meeting with them Monday. I wish we would have put that on the agenda and talked to them about that. I’d like to discuss it a little bit with them.
Bowcutt: But, I guess your final action isn’t until the findings are adopted anyway, is that not correct sir?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: I guess you need to think about that and give your staff some guidance on what to tell ACHD. They told me that they know they can’t sit and wait forever. What do we do?
Bird: Becky, as I understand, you guys are very willing to participate in the private sector doing the roadwork which, thank goodness the private sector don’t have bureaucracies like
the public sector does and you can get it done for half the cost. That was proven out at, out there behind the Chevron station across from St. Luke’s and W. H. Moore put that one in
for them at about half the cost they estimated it would cost. Would you guys be willing to --? I realize probably wouldn’t happen right up front but as we get into the development, would
you be willing to have that in your development agreement that you would pursue something like this and would do it with late comer fees as future impact fees as they could pay you?
That’s the way the agreement was there.
Bowcutt: Yes, I believe we could support some provisions like that. I just want to make that the playing field is even.
Bird: We would want that.
Bowcutt: That’s the only thing. I guess I wouldn’t want to say okay we’re going to build 5 lane roads on everything we touch on our exterior and then no one else does it. I’m hoping,
it appears that the development community is very serious about doing this partnership and coming up with new ideas. We are willing to participate. It only benefits us when these roadways
are approved. My client has stated that for the record before. When you’ve got these crummy little 2 lane substandard roads with weeds on the sides, it doesn’t do a lot for the looks
of your development. We like that finished look. We are willing to, I don’t know how Mr. Nichols could write that but we are willing to whatever these groups, whatever we come out, you
know solutions come out of these meeting and commitments across the board for this area. We are willing to do it. But I don’t want to be the only one.
Bird; I agree with you. Like on Cloverdale, or McMillan, even though you own all the south and could get all the right-of-way there we have no guarantee that you could get on the north
right-of-way. We don’t know who owns that and they’re not coming forward and I think it would have to be a group participation.
Bowcutt; Well, that’s one thing ACHD’s talking about is trying to get all those right-of-ways as soon as possible and how to deal with the out parcels. What they hate happening is that
the road widens out to say 4 lanes or 5 lanes and then it narrows back down for 200 feet. They claim that that’s dangerous.
Bird: That’s called Curtis Road and they’re spending another six million dollars.
Bowcutt: There you go.
Anderson: Why do they keep doing that on Franklin Road and everywhere else.
Bowcutt: I know. The advantage we have is that most of these developments are
pretty massive in size. SO, the out parcels are a lot fewer than we normally see as we bring in these little 40 or 60 or 20-acre projects. So, we do have a big advantage over most sections.
Bird: I personally believe that you developers in the north end, if this is going to come off and be successful like I think it will, you are going to have to be the forerunners in getting
the roads in. If we wait for ACHD, there’s probably not any of us sitting in the room that’s going to see it done.
Bowcutt: Good point. That’s our concern.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Tammy and I might see it in our lifetime.
Bird: I doubt it.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Since I’m still leading the group, I’ll ask you a question one more time. Have you got another question?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have no more questions.
Corrie: You made my night shorter.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearings on items 12, 13 and 14.
De Weerd: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: I didn’t know I could do –
Bird: I don’t think we’d better do that.
De Weerd: Oh, come on.
Bird: (inaudible). Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearings for AZ 01-003 request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones for the proposed Bridgetower Crossings Subdivision
by Primeland Development Company for a planned development consisting of residential, office and commercial (inaudible) located at 2420 Ustick Road. Also close the Public Hearing request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in a proposed R-4 and C-G zones for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development
Company. And close the Public Hearing for request for Conditional Use Permit for 692 single family lots, 58 townhouses, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres in a proposed
R-4 C-G zone for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development.
De Weerd: Could you repeat that?
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Bird: No. I’m out of air.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on items 12, 13 and 14 pursuant to the motion. I hope its on record. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Let’s do 12, 13 and 14 then. Item No. 12 is a request for annexation and zoning. AZ 01-003, discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland
Development Company for a planned development consisting of residential, office, commercial use, generally located at 24290 Ustick Road and within that development agreement the parties
between our attorney and their attorney can draw up an agreement requiring participation in the ACHD program after the master plan has been bought and also to include the staff comments
and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and zoning according to the motion and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I do have to comment on this project. First of all, I wanted to compliment Becky that I think this a great looking project and I realize that there's been a lot of effort
put into it. It takes into consideration a lot of the things that we’ve been talking about in our comp plan, mixed use, and you know a little bit of diversity. The lot sizes and all
those types of things. It looks like a very good project and you’re correct. We are building a community. I do have some major concerns and that is the roads and being able to handle
the capacity that this project is going to add to that are. Then, as I’ve been stating for the last year, I have some real concerns about public safety. Every time we keep adding subdivision,
and this is a very large project. This is going to add like I said close to a 1000 homes in this particular area, that it stretches our police and our fire even further. I hope that
you do take your time and do this in phases because in 10 years, hopefully we’ll be able to provide that type of protection. But, it needs to be said on record too that we’re under staffed
in both those departments for the amount of subdivisions, the amount of people that we have and we are struggling with a very low mill levy in Meridian. We’re trying to get that increased.
We’re probably going to take that back in front of the voters again. If that doesn’t happen, I mean, I’ve got to say that is the roads don’t happen and if the mill levy doesn’t happen,
we’ve got to slow growth in Meridian. This project, to be honest with you, just scares the heck out of me because it’s the first step and it opens up the door to a whole bunch of large
development. If we don’t have that support from the development community in help to pace the growth and help to get us a mill levy that we can provide the basic services, we’re going
to have to slow growth. We’ll have no choice because we will have to cut off the services that we can’t provide. I’m going to vote in favor of this project to night but I have some real
reservations about it and I just want to go on record as stating those and hopefully the word gets out that we are very concerned and that massive development cannot occur without additional
support from the development community.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I agree totally with what Councilman Anderson said. You know one thing the development community is doing with the overlay is kind of, its definitely unique to Idaho. We’re
putting a lot of trust in that this is going to happen and that you will be, this development will be a participant in that. In the recommendations that you participate financially just
like everyone else does. I think that’s been the largest concern with the infrastructure part of it. I look forward to the creativity of our attorney and how he’s going to word that.
You know I will blind trust on that too. Whatever provisions we can include in that to make you a full partner along with everyone else in giving you this early approval. Hopefully that
will not mean we’re opening the flood gates to all the other developers that now that this one’s through we’ll do it with everything until that overlay is done. I’d like to.
Corrie: Any other comments?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I agree with Ron and Tammy also. I really came into this with a lot of misgivings because of my stand on 2 lane roads. But, I listened to what you said Becky and I think
its possible. If its possible it would work. You know if you follow through on that it will work. I’m going ahead on a blind faith also.
Corrie: Okay. You heard my comments earlier. I think the developers, other developers in this area should pay very special attention to what the Council said tonight because if it
doesn’t happen, this night will go down in emphany rather than being a good night. I think we’re taking a pretty good step here. The biggest thing that’s Meridian has ever done. Like
I said, I think it will work. I really do, or if it had been a tie I would have voted against it. Now, your job is to see that it does, help us see that it does. Anybody else have anything?
Well, then I’ll go down in emphany saying (inaudible). All right, Mr. City Clerk will you please call the roll please.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Council, we stuck our neck out. Now lets see where we get out. Okay, thank you Becky.
Bird: We’ve still got 2 more to pass.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. Now we need a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat approval. Is there any discussion on the Preliminary Plat?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just a couple of housecleaning items I guess before the motion’s made to see if everyone’s in agreement with it. You know I do want to make special notation that the applicant
has said that they would coordinate with the English’s the entrance of their development onto Linder since there’s only one I guess I don’t have to be real specific about that. I would
like that as a special notation as well, to coordinate with the Anderson’s the fencing along their western, the boundary to the west of the Anderson’s proper line.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: The one with the English’s is on the CUP. I guess I’ll make the motion.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request PP 01-005 request for Preliminary Plat in the proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision to include a
special notation to coordinate with the Anderson’s the fencing that will go along the west property line of the Anderson’s property and to include all staff comments, to direct the attorney
to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: I will second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to approve the request for Preliminary Plat 01-005 incorporating the comments of the City Council and staff. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll please Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item No. 14 is a request for Conditional Use Permit on Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve CUP 01-006 request for a Conditional Use Permit for 692, oh well, et cetera, for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision to include all staff
comments, to also include coordination with the English’s on the entrance of the Linder entrance, I’ve already included all staff comments. Is it getting late? For the attorney to draw
up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 01-006 and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law including
all comments from staff and Council. Any further comments? Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: PFP 01-001 Request for Preliminary plat approval of 4 building lots on 4.94 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision by
Dakota Company – southwest corner of Commercial and Machine Avenue, east of Nola Road:
Corrie: Item No. 15 is a Public Hearing. It has been requested that we continue this to a, re-post it on the Seven Gates Industrial subdivision by the Dakota Company. Is there a certain
date on that one that you know, Mr. Berg?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. This had a noticing, posting problem. So, we have to just re-notice it from the start again at City Council level. We’ll be sending out notices plus
notice in the paper plus posting the property. We’ll be coordinating that when is the soonest that we can get done. But, it’s not a continuance, its just take it off the agenda.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is this the same one we’ve had before us by different people? It is a different lot, that is its not quite all the way down on Commercial there?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: We’ve had it here before us before.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: It was under another name at that time, right?
Stiles: I think they called it Seven Gates.
Bird: They called it Seven Gates but it was a different developer bringing it forward?
Corrie: Dakota Company now, somebody –
Stiles: Their representative was different, yes.
Bird: That’s what I figured. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we take the Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat for Seven Gates Industrial off the agenda. Is that what we have to do?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and second to take item No. 15, the Public Hearing request 01-001 off the agenda completely. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Public Hearing: AZ 01-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio Building Development generally
located at the southeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Ustick Road:
Item 17. Public Hearing: PP 01-012 Request for preliminary plat approval of 23 building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Staten Park Subdivision
by D’Alessio Building Development generally located at 46254 Ustick Road, corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: Item No. 16 and 17 has been requested to table until 7-17-01. This is for annexation and also for Preliminary Plat of Staten Park subdivision. Is there anyone here that wanted
to issue any testimony at this time? I guess, Mr. Counselor, we need to open the Public Hearing and continue it. Is that correct?
Nichols: That’s correct Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing on item No. 16 and 17, repeat that again. Anyone form the public want to testify? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to continue the Public
Hearing until the 17th of July.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearings for the annexation and zoning of 8.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Staten Park subdivision by D’Alessio Building Development,
generally located in the southeast corner of north Black Cat Road and west Ustick Road until July 17, 2001.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue the Public Hearing for request for annexation and zoning of AZ 01-009 until July 17, 2001. Any further discussion? All those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on item No. 17 the Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs./ de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we continue the Public Hearing PP 01-0112 request for Preliminary Plat by Staten Park subdivision to July 17, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue the Public Hearing on item No. 17, Preliminary Plat 01-012 until the 17th of July this year. Hearing no other discussion, All those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. Public Hearing: CUP 01-018 Request for the continuation of a three-year CUP granted in January 1997 for modular buildings in an L-O zone for the Meridian Assembly of God by
Meridian Assembly of God – 1830 North Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 18 is a Public Hearing request for continuation of a 3 year CUP granted in January of 1997 for modular buildings in an L-O zone for the Meridian Assembly of God by
Meridian Assembly of God, 1830 North Linder Road. At this time I’ll open the Public Hearing and staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the church property on Linder Road. They were approved back in 97 for a 3-year period but they had not yet built their sanctuary, their
main buildings. They wanted the temporary classrooms to be allowed because our ordinance does not allow modular temporary buildings without a Conditional Use Permit. What prompted the
application was they were proposing to put a stealth tower, cellular tower by Crickett on their site. Then when we started looking at the conditions of approval of that Conditional Use
Permit, it was found that the time had expired and that the buildings were to be removed. They have extensively landscaped around the buildings. I don’t know what happened to my pictures.
You can see the back of the building here. This would be on the south side of the existing buildings. What they’re proposing is that they be allowed to keep these modular buildings for
an indefinite period. It is difficult to enforce these when they have a sunset clause. We have a few like this and they are going to be very difficult to enforce to try to get the buildings
removed once they are there. We as a staff do not encourage temporary buildings or modular buildings. In this case though, they are not unattractive and they do have the landscaping
in place and sidewalks to them. We did have the recommendation that if you find these buildings are acceptable that we would recommend approval with deletion of the period provided they
meet all the uniform codes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, what did you say for time period?
Stiles: What we’re recommending? We recommend that if the buildings are acceptable as they are presently that there not be a time period.
Bird: We cant legally do that, without it being a permanent building on a CUP. You’ve got to have a time deal on it. You can’t let it go indefinitely.
Stiles: With conditional uses --. We rarely put time limits on conditional uses.
Bird: Yes, but you do when they’re mobile buildings. You don’t put an indefinite period on a temporary building which these were temporary buildings. Now, permanent building, that’s
right you don’t put a time limit on them. These are not permanently in the ground, coming out of it. I have no problem recommending it but I don’t believe legally by ordinances or anything
that we can do it indefinitely. We’re going to have to put a time period on it. Maybe the attorney will over rule me but I don’t think so.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: It isn’t a permanent building.
Corrie: What did you say about a tower?
Stiles: The stealth towers that recently had been discussed about being approved administratively. They are proposing to put one at this site.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: When you were looking into that, that’s when you found out this CUP had ran out of time?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Any other questions of staff? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. The request from the Meridian Assembly of God here tonight?
Wilson: Good evening. My name is Nat Wilson. I am a representative form the Meridian Assembly of God church. Do you want my address?
Corrie: Yes please.
Wilson: I live at 1799 South Blacksmith in Meridian. Do you want me to wait for questions?
Corrie: No, just tell us what you want.
Wilson: Okay. Shari has done a nice job of presenting that information. 3 years ago, a little over 3 years ago, January of 97 we did request a Conditional Use Permit. It was granted
for 3 years on these modular buildings. I wasn’t a part of the church at that time. My understanding is the thought was when the sanctuary
was built there would be classroom space built into that and that these modulars would not be needed after that. The new sanctuary was built. It was built to a little scale than originally
planned. There are classroom phases planned for future to where classrooms would be added and then these modulars would not be needed. Right now they are needed. We use them extensively
on Wednesdays and Sundays. We’ve opened them up to a couple of community groups different times during the week for meetings that they have. Like she says, they have been landscaped
extensively, sidewalks, parking. Trying to go back a little bit to the Planning and Zoning discussion, we had proposed maybe a 10 year Conditional Use Permit. Planning and Zoning came
back and said that they would recommend 5 years and in that 5 years for us to do whatever ground work we needed to do to make them permanent should we want to do that, which from my
understanding pretty much would require us to jack them up, pour the stem wall I believe it is. I’m not a carpenter, not a construction person. But pour a foundation for them to get
them on a permanent foundation. They do have restroom facilities in them. 2 restrooms in each building, drinking fountains. You know, there's sewer and water connected to them but they
are not on a permanent foundation right now. Should we want to pursue that --. I wish you had those other pictures. I had some great shots. If we wanted to pursue that, then that would
be something that we would do in that 5 year period of time and come back to you at that time and say hey we’ve decided we would like to make them permanent. These are steps that you
know –
***End of Side Five***
Wilson – meet all codes and go that route.
Bird: So, you are willing on the 5-year extension? We have to give it, as I understand legally we need to give a time.
Wilson: That was what I understood from the Planning and Zoning.
Bird: We just cant through it out indefinitely. 5 years would give you a chance to determine, and they are nice buildings –
Wilson: They are very nice buildings.
Bird: Its probably cheaper to go, and you’re probably up to code anyway –
Wilson: They are except for the foundation.
Bird: -- other than just putting the foundation down. Its probably cheaper than building block classrooms and stuff. You’ve already got them in there. You’ve got them landscaped and
everything.
Wilson: Again, there is future phases planned for that property classroom addition to where when that was done those would probably be removed. But then again that could be you know
5 to 10 years down the road.
Bird: But 5 years would be fine to give you another CUP for 5 years?
Wilson: Yes.
Corrie: Any other comments? All right. Thank you. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Council any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I don’t see in our packet the recommendation from P&Z. From the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Corrie: I guess that’s (inaudible)
De Weerd: No, that’s the staff recommendation.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: There's no Public Hearing for Cup –
De Weerd: They still usually give recommendations.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: CUP, you don’t have to go through Planning and Zoning do you for an extension?
Wilson: we went through CU, I’m sorry. We went through Planning and Zoning and their recommendation was for 5 years.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: It’s a modification of their original conditions of approval so they had to go through Planning and Zoning Commission.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Then where are those recommendation? Shari, they did recommend a 5-year extension?
Stiles: I don’t know.
Bird: Shari wasn’t –
Wilson: Shari was not there that night but that’s what they did.
Corrie: We don’t usually take the word of the applicant.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: I have no problem taking his feelings. The staff was very happy with it. I can’t believe that Planning and Zoning turned it down or denied it for any reason. It’s actually our
final vote anyway. As long as we feel comfortable with it. I’m like Tammy, I’d like to see their recommendations – We’ve got another person here Mayor, that wants to testify.
Unidentified Speaker: I happened to be at that meeting and they –
Bird: Name, --
Pollock: Chad Pollock, 3114 West Cherry Lane Boise. They did recommend a 5-year extension to the Conditional Use Permit.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing for the request for the continuation of the 3 year CUP granted in January for modular buildings in an L-O zone for the Meridian Assembly
of God by the Meridian Assembly of God church at 1830 North Linder Road.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on the request for CUP 01-018. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion for the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for a continuation of a CUP granted in January 1997 for modular buildings in an L-O zone for the Meridian Assembly of God by the Meridian Assembly
of God Church at 1830 North Linder Road for a continuation until August 1, 2006 and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the request for continuation of CUP until August 1, 2006 and to have the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law. Any further discussion? (inaudible) roll call vote.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wilson, just to kind of echo the sentiments of the commission is to take steps to either make this permanent or you know you have 5 years.
Wilson: Great.
De Weerd: Thanks for sharing what they said. You know, its good advice.
Item 19. CUP 01-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing bank building with a drive-up window and ATM machine in an I-L zone for Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center
by the Dakota Company – south of East Fairview Avenue and east of North Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item No. 19 is a request for Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding bank building with a drive up window with ATM machine in an I-L zone for Meridian Crossroads Shopping
Center by the Dakota Company south of East Fairview Avenue and east of North Eagle Road.
Anderson: You said a free bank building?
Corrie: I think it’s a freestanding or a free bank. I don’t know --. Staff, comments?
Bird: Freestanding bank.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Save the most troublesome project for last. We would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions. We’ve extensively gone through, we went
through several site plans and we finally came to an agreement. We would recommend approval with those conditions.
Corrie: Oh, that’s really tough. Council, you heard the staff’s comments. Any discussion? Does the developer have any comments as far as the conditions set forth?
Paulsen: I’m John Paulsen. I’m with the Dakota Company Incorporated, 380 East Park Center Boulevard. We are in agreement with staff’s recommendations and wholeheartedly concur with the
recommendation to approve.
De Weerd: Is there anything we need to know that happened at P&Z?
Bird: Because we don’t have that recommendation again.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: Did they put a lot of additional conditions on this?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: Should we believe you?
Bird: They did recommend approval or denial?
Paulsen: unanimously --. You’re testing me. This is my first opportunity to present before you.
De Weerd: Its our opportunity to –
Bird: To harass you.
De Weerd: -- make sure it’s memorable.
Anderson: Break you in right.
Paulsen: As you are aware I have an excellent teacher in Larry Durkin who is very astute in these matters.
De Weerd: Did he pay you to say that?
Paulsen: He doesn’t even know saying this. It’s an honor to have him as my friend and as my mentor.
Anderson: What did you say his name was again?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: He’s not going to spend an hour and a half up here is he?
De Weerd: No, he’s done.
Corrie: All right. Council, any discussion on the request for CUP? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding bank building with a drive up window and ATM machine in the I-L zone for Meridian Crossroads
Shopping Center by Dakota Company, south of East Fairview Avenue and east of North Eagle Road and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
of Order.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-019 and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: I have one piece of advice for John. If Larry is going to be your mentor, shorter is better.
Bird: Tell him we were saying that too, would you? Tell him we gave him a bad time.
Corrie: Council, that’s the last of the agenda. I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Anderson: Give her 1-minute.
Bird: One minute.
De Weerd: You’re so funny. We were suppose to have on our agenda tonight, the Meridian Development Committee.
Bird: (inaudible) a resolution yet. Bill’s got other things to take care of.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we adjourn.
Anderson: Second.
De Weerd: Just one more thing.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Motion has been made –
De Weerd: Our comp plan went through Public Hearing last week and they continued it to August 30th. I have a problem with that. You know I’d like to see this done in a timely manner
and 2 months is not timely.
Bird: I agree with you 100 percent.
Corrie: Okay. Do you know why it was done and any reason for it? Were you there?
Stiles: I wasn’t there but I understand that they looked at some different times they might possibly be able to meet and decided they wouldn’t be available until the end August.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, any comments?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Some discussion about staff working with some of the development theories about the neighborhood commercial that was a hot topic. Other discussions
about the urban service planning area as a priority rather than an area and trying to meet at common dates that a majority of the commission can be there. The summertime made it difficult
with vacation schedules and them meeting on Thursday nights. They couldn’t accommodate everybody’s schedule. They pretty much kind of put their heads together and came up with that date.
De Weerd: In my opinion, its more important than even our applications. If they’re going to meet the first and third Thursday, then this should fall on the first and third Thursday.
Corrie: Well, you want to make sure that you’ve got it all together. I know it’s timely, but you better not rush it too much. If their not going to be here together to hear it, I don’t
know what else you can do.
Bird: I personally don’t think we’ve rushed it. We’ve only been 2 and a half years. We’ve had plenty of time to do it. These developers have got to be pulling their hairs out. We’ve
promised them this. We’ve promised them that. We’d get it done. We’d get it done. We just have drug our feet on every corner in the road. Now we’re dragging it 2 months. I thought we
were getting it going. Now we’re 2 months back.
Anderson: You should have made that clear before they had their hearing because now, they’ve already set the date.
Bird: I know.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. They had developers there discussing it and they wanted some more discussion. It wasn’t like the P&Z Commission was dragging their feet as much as
some of the other discussions that were brought up by the other developers. In all fairness, they're trying to do a complete job and thorough job and get their input and get other people’s
input. We did hold it at another facility to accommodate more people to be there and to have a more open area. It was in my opinion well designed. They had maps in the hallways for people
to go talk to the staff prior to the meeting as well as during the break that they had. They’re trying to accommodate to get the input and that’s what they’re designed to do. My minutes
up and I’m sorry.
De Weerd: From what I understand from talking to staff though, the issues that were raised didn’t really demand any timely research or anything from staff. The delay is not looking
for answers.
Berg: Maybe the staff needed to tell that to the commission because I don’t think that’s what the commission understood from the staff.
Stiles: I guess the staff didn’t understand that they gave them any direction whatsoever to do anything.
De Weerd: So, we can’t change this date?
Corrie: Planning and Zoning is the one that set that (inaudible). Council can’t go back and change their schedule.
De Weerd: Can it even be put out 60 days legally?
Corrie: I don’t see why not. There's nothing (inaudible).
Stiles: Does our ordinance, Bill? When we have something before the Planning and Zoning Commission, they can table it up to 45 days. Doesn’t that also apply to a comp plan amendment.
If our ordinance says they can table it up to 45 days, to continue the matter up to 45 days, shouldn’t that also include any application?
Nichols: The comp plan amendment I think is a completely different. It’s not an application. I mean the comp plan is essentially legislation and it’s not a quasi-judicial process.
It’s treated differently than an application would be. I don’t think the 45-day rule kicks in with the comp plan. I can look at the ordinance but I don’t think the same thing applies.
Stiles: Would you mind? Just double checking to make sure we’re not violating some process requirement.
Corrie: I agree. I put some pressure on staff getting things done. I don’t know what you’re going to do to Planning and Zoning Commission? What authority, we can fire them but –
Bird: you’d better be able to take their place.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Like Councilman Anderson said, they made the decision and they made the time when they could get together. I don’t think we’re going to be legally able to tell them well you’re
going to come back in whether you like it or not.
De Weerd: Well, yes, but they were trying to make a time outside of their regular meeting time. If its okay that they do it during their regular meeting times then they need to
know that.
Corrie: They made a decision.
Bird: If there’s still that much interest like Will said we might have to (inaudible).
Corrie: It doesn’t sound like it staff that’s doing it. Its developers themselves and if they’re not happy with it, you’re going to have a battle on your hands come up to us.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: We’ve already been hearing about the urban service area for a year now.
Bird: Mr. Mayor I move that we adjourn.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to adjourn at 11:05. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:05 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK