HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 02-19Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at
6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie
McCandless, and William Nary.
Others Present: William Nichols, Mike Worley, Tom Kuntz, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles,
Brad Watson, Ken Bowers, Dean Willis and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: All right. I will open the Meridian City Council Regular Meeting, Tuesday,
February 19, 2002, at 6:30 P.M., in the Chambers. Item Number 1 is the roll-call
attendance. Mr. Clerk.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. First off, let me thank everybody for being here tonight. There are still
some seats up here if you'd like to sit down and join us. Happy to have you. So thank
you for coming. Council, second on the Agenda is the Adoption of the Agenda.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I will be moving to take an item off the staff report, because of lack of
information.
Corrie: Okay.
McCandless: That would be the White Drain Trunk Sewer Permit and Temporary
Construction Easement.
Corrie: All right.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 2
De Weerd: There is also a request by the applicant on Item Number 22 to table this
until March 5th
.
Corrie: All right. That's the Final Plat on Tricia's Subdivision No. 3, Autumn Faire, LLC.
Okay. Any other additions, corrections, or changes? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the Agenda as presented.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Agenda. Any
further discussion? All those in favor say. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes from July 17, 2001, City Council special Budget
Meeting:
B. Approve minutes from January 7, 2002, City Council special joint
meeting with Ada County and Ada County Highway District:
C. Approve minutes from January 29, 2002, City Council Regular
Meeting:
D. Approve minutes from January 29, 2002, City Council Regular
Meeting:
E. Approve Minutes from February 5, 2002 City Council Regular
Meeting:
F. Approve minutes from February 6, 2002, City Council Special
Meeting:
G. Tabled from February 5, 2002: Five Mile Trunk Latercomer
Agreement:
H. Tabled from February 5, 2002: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law of Approval: VAR 01-012 Request for a
Variance to the Landscape Ordinance for Elixir Properties
Subdivision by Paul Clayton - 521 North Eagle Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 3
I. Tabled from February 5, 2002: Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Approval: CUP 01-028 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a fast food restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for
proposed Wendy's by Wenco, Inc. – northwest intersection of
Corporate Drive and East First Street:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-
035 Request for a conditional Use permit for the Construction of a
building to be used for wholesale building arterial distribution in an I-L
zone for Intermountain Wood Products by The Banks Group, LLC -
south of East Franklin Road and west South Locust Grove:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-
022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.66 acres from R-1 to
C-G zones for Queenland Acres by White-Leasure Development,
Co.- southeast corner of South Stoddard Road and Waste Overland
Road:
L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-
024 Request for Annexation and zoning of 4.0 acres from M-I to I-L
zones for Idaho Trucking Specialties by Victory Properties LLC -
600 N. Eagle Road:
M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 01-
007 Request for rezone of 3.35 acres from R-8 to C-C zones for Sol
C.Yaun by Hubble Engineering Inc. - 25 East Fairview Avenue:
N. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-
023 Request for annexation zoning of 5.97 acres from RUT to R-4
zones for proposed Inglenook Subdivision by Providence
Development Group, LLC - 2720 South Locust Grove Road:
O. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-023
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 building lots and 24 other
lots in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Inglenook Subdivision by
Provident Development Group, LLC - 2720 South Locust Grove Road:
P. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-
020 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.58 acres from R-1 to R-8
zones for proposed Silhouette Subdivision by Tyler Torkelson - east
of North Meridian Road and south of East Ustick Road:
Q. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Approval: PP 01-021
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 3 other
lots on 3.00 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Silhouette
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 4
Subdivision by Tyler Torkelson - east of North Meridian Road and
south of East Ustick Road:
R. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-
039 Request for a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Development
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Silhouette Subdivision by
Tyler Torkelson - east of North Meridian Road and south of East
Ustick Road:
S. Automatic Aid Agreement for Approval: between City of Boise, City
of Meridian, Meridian Rural Fire Protection District and Whitney Fire
Protection District:
T. Approval of Board of Appraisers as per city Code 9-1-17:
Corrie: Item Number 3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as shown.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and second to approve the Consent Agenda as stated.
Any further discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd just simply ask the Clerk to note for Item 3-A, the minutes from July 17, 2001,
to note an abstention from myself, since I wasn't a member of the Council at that time.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. The Consent Agenda with the abstaining
vote on Item 3-A. All favor of -- or roll call vote, please.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4: Department Reports:
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 5
A. Public Works Department - Gary Smith:
1. White Drain Drunk Sewer Permanent and
Temporary Construction Easement - John Kennedy:
Corrie: Department reports. Number 4. Public Works Department. Gary Smith. I
believe, Mrs. McCandless, you had a --
McCandless: Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor. I move that we table the White Drain -- I can’t find it
right now. Remove it from the Agenda, the White Drain Trunk Sewer Permanent, and
Temporary Construction Easement until March 19th
.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to table Item Number A-1 Public Works
Department on the White Drain Trunk Sewer Permit Temporary Construction Easement
to the 19th
of March. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
B. Police Department – Chief Worley:
1. Access control System Agreement with The
Security Group:
2. Intrusion Security System Agreement for Evidence Rooms
with The Security Group:
Corrie: Item B, Police Department. Chief Worley.
Worley: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I would -- with your approval I would like to
take both of these items at once. They are both for the same company. Item B-1 is a
contract with the Security Group for the access system for the new police building in the
amount of $33,475. This is the door access, the proximity readers, the general security
or general access system for the building and Item Number 2 is contract with the
Security Group in the amount of $5,255. This is for an alarm system for the evidence
storage area. Both of these are -- contracts are bid pursuant to an existing bid with the
City of Caldwell for the same type of materials and I stand for questions as to the
authorization for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Council, any questions --
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 6
Corrie: -- for Chief Worley? Okay. Hearing none, I will, then, entertain a motion for
Chief Worley's Number 1 and Number 2, the Police Department.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Items 4-B, the Access Control System Agreement
with The Security Group and Item -- 4-B-1 and 4-B-2, the Intrusion Security System
Agreement for the Evidence Rooms with the Security Group as well, as presented and
the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Police Department 4-B-1
and 4-B-2.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Discussion? Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nary, I would like to -- on this would like to see the amount made in the motion
if it's okay with you.
Nary: Oh, certainly.
Bird: $39,027 total.
Nary: Certainly. No opposition, Mr. Bird.
Corrie: Okay. Add that into the motion. All right. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion is carried. Do we
need a roll call, Mr. Attorney, on that one? The contract? Roll call vote, please.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
C. Parks Department - Tom Kuntz
1. Meridian Park tiling Project - Bid Award:
Corrie: Parks Department. Mr. Kuntz, Meridian Park Tiling Project.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 7
Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. On February 14th
, which was last week, we
opened the 11 submitted bids for the tiling project of the 56 acre park. You should find
in your packet the memo in regards to those 11 companies and their bids. The
engineer’s estimate on the project was $123,000. The low bidder was Sommer
Construction at $62,814. After conferring with our Public Works Department,
specifically Brad Watson and Gary, and a discussion with Sommer Construction today,
we are confident that Sommer Construction is the company to do the job for us and we
are requesting from the Council tonight to award the bid to Sommer Construction for
$62,814.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Tom, did you have any kind of reason why there is such a disparity between
the bid and the estimate?
Kuntz: The only one that I can give right now is that there is a lot of companies looking
for work out there, that there has been a slow down and --
De Weerd: This is 50 percent of the estimate.
Kuntz: Yes, Council Member de Weerd.
De Weerd: Well, no, I think it's great, but --
Bird: It's a first.
Kuntz: The estimate was 65 and I just doubled it to make sure that we looked really
good.
Corrie: No, Tom.
De Weerd: Well, this is a first then.
Kuntz: Yes. Yes, it is. I do want to point out one small item. Part of the project, since
this relates to an item coming up on your Agenda, we are trying to finish the easement
to the property, Mr. Howell's property to the north of us, that will include 400 feet of pipe
that we will put in the ground. It does include two clean-out manholes that are on both
sides of that entryway that will enter into Cedar Springs and that he will reimburse the
City at the cost of approximately $2,600 for those costs. So if you subtract that from the
62,814, our true cost will be closer to about $60,000.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 8
Bird: If there is no more discussion, I would make a motion that we draw up a contract
by our attorney and -- with Sommer Construction for $62,814 for the irrigation ditch tiling
project on the 56 acre Park, for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Sommer Construction in
the amount of $62,814. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All yeas. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5: (Item Moved from the Consent Agenda)
Item 6: Tabled from December 4, 2001 - Request for Service for
Westborough Subdivision:
Corrie: No items were removed from the Consent Agenda, therefore, we will go to
Number 6. This was tabled from December 4, 2001, request for service for
Westborough Subdivision. Staff comments first.
Watson: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I'm not sure that I have a report on this,
unless there are some specific questions you have on this request. I had gone over this
in December in a somewhat detailed manner. Would you like me to refresh your
memory on this at all?
Bird: Mr. Nary would --
Corrie: Would you, please, so we can -- if you don't, I can do it for you.
Watson: I'm not prepared with a map to show on the screen either. This proposed
project is the southwest corner of Chinden and Locust Grove. Approximately 40 acres.
The application went through Ada County last year. It was ultimately denied. The
applicant’s engineer determined through some on-the-ground surveying that
approximately half of the proposed 70 lots, I believe, could physically gravity sewer
back towards the Vienna Woods lift station. It would include about a quarter mile sewer
extension to the property.
De Weerd: Bill, it's that piece right there.
Watson: The technical hang up on the proposal was that the Vienna Woods lift station
-- the lift station itself is not at capacity, but line into which it discharges down towards
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 9
Ustick Road is at capacity and that that lift station could not be enlarged. The capacity
increased until the White Trunk was completed, so that the pressure sewer could be
turned into that White Trunk. That's pretty much the thumbnail sketch of --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: It's the South Slough that's held up already right?
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor, and Council Members, it's not the South Slough
Trunk, it's an eight inch lateral that ultimately feeds into the South Slough. There is an
eight-inch that goes up Locust Grove by Summerfield Subdivision.
Bird: It's from Summerfield down, then, is eight inch?
Watson: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion from staff? Okay. Is the representative for
Westborough Subdivision here this evening?
Jewett: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Jim Jewett, 3090 East Gentry, Suite 150,
in Meridian. I won't go over the whole thing, because most of the Council has had it
several times, except for Councilman Nary.
Nary: Thank you.
Jewett: Basically what we are asking for -- we did make an application with Ada
County for an individual sewer system, which was ultimately denied at Ada County.
That is currently in a tentative appeal awaiting this decision here, because it was at that
hearing at county, brought up by Mr. Watson, that we had never officially asked for
sewer for the City of Meridian. We went through the process of figuring out how once it
could sewer and we determined we could sewer a certain portion of it once the White
Drain was connected to this lift station -- the pressure line coming out of the lift station.
So all I'm asking for is basically the same treatment that Vienna Woods and Edinburgh
has been given out there, that being Edinburgh was approved with whatever
connections are available now, with the provision that once the White Drain hooked into
it they can have the rest of their connections. All I'm asking for is the same treatment is
given, whatever I can sewer into that lift station once it's available. That's all I’m asking
for. Just the same treatment that those two subdivisions have been given up there.
And I will stand for any questions.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 10
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you.
Jewett: Thank you.
Corrie: Any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: The attorney for them is here? State your name and address, please.
Bieter: Dave Bieter, 619 Grove Street in Boise. Mayor Corrie, Members of the Council,
I will be even briefer. I believe I gave the same sort of discussion last time that we were
before you. My input on this would be just to say we have filed an appeal, we -- I have
a number of years defending appeals like that from a city or a county perspective. It’s
as good a situation as I have seen before a developer. I don't say that with any -- I say
that just based on the experience that I have, but at the end of that road is not a place
that I believe any of us would like to see, for one thing for my client it's a fairly long road
and a not inexpensive one. For the city and county it could result in a place where
virtually every development in and around -- actually, every development in the area of
impact potentially could go their own way on sewer services, because if we can show --
I think the only real issue is sewer. If the applicant can show that he can provide that at
a means other than through the City of Meridian, then I believe there is a good chance
the appeal will be -- that we will win the appeal and the decision will be reversed. Then
when we are -- if we were to do that and go our own way to set up a Sewer District and
provide sewer to the area, there is no requirement that we eventually hook up -- I don’t
think that's the best result for anybody, really. I do think there is a pretty good shot at
that and I think if we were able to be successful, then I can see a number of other
situations like that. Again, I think we would all be well advised to try to reach an
agreement to sewer as much as my client -- as much as he can as soon as it’s
available. With that I will be happy to answer any questions and I appreciate the
chance to speak to you.
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Bieter: There is some legislation affecting cities that I think we might want to talk about
later, but we can do that later. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 11
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think we have kind of beat this one to death. I agree with staff that what --
it’s all been said, we can sewer just a very little bit of this and Edinburgh and Vienna
Woods didn't set a precedent. They were unique situations. Two wrongs certainly don’t
make a right and so I would like to see the city continue to look at developments in this
area of impact in a logical and reasonable manner and not run our sewer lines all over
our area of impact. I think these developers as they purchase property they purchase it
knowing the sewer treatment plan and when lines will be out there and that's the order
that a city should logically grow, from the inside out, not from the outside in. It just
doesn’t make good sense to the current users or to our taxpayers. So I know I went
and testified at the county, I don’t agree with this application, I still don’t, and I think that
we will get that sewer out there. This is a property that's in our North Meridian Area
Plan, we are planning in that area for a number of reasons, not just sewer, but for other
city services, and this piece of property should be a partner to that plan.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a question for Brad. Brad, what's the schedule on the White Trunk now?
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council Members, the bid date is February 27th
with a roughly six month construction schedule, which would begin mid March to late
March, September.
Bird: Okay. Now to follow up, Brad. With the development that I see coming through --
and I'm like Tammy, I hope people will wait until this North Meridian Plan gets kind of
finalized, but how -- that White Trunk, if the development comes through, is going to be
pretty full by the time it's through there.
Watson: Councilman Bird, it would be at -- it wouldn't be at ultimate capacity.
Whenever we size these we don't size them to only contain -- I mean they are not
running full they are --
Bird: Okay.
Watson: But that lift station cannot discharge into that lift station forever if that -- if
those three miles in the White Trunk service area build out, then there would not be
room for the total flow out of the Vienna Woods lift station.
Bird: Actually, that lift station will go away when the North Slough gets put in am I not
right?
Watson: That's correct.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 12
Bird: Because that's the natural flow is back to the North Slough?
Watson: That's correct.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess since Mr. Bieter had also brought up legislation, this is just a good
example of forced annexation at it’s finest. Boise went out and laid sewer lines out to
areas that weren't contiguous and then once the city started to grow around it, the city
needed to annex it, because it had services that these people were utilizing. It created
all kinds of havoc. We are not interested in making some of the same mistakes that
Boise has made and it just doesn't make good sense of all of our services and
resources to grow in this manner. Sewer is just one component of it and, again, I go
back to that's what this North Meridian Area Plan is supposed to address, all different
sewer -- or service areas, not just sewer. So, you know -- and like you did say, if you go
ahead and do your own independent sewer district, there is no reason why they should
annex into the city, although every piece of property around it will be part of the city. So
you would be creating an island in the middle of your city and I just don't think that’s
good planning.
Corrie: Anyone else?
Bird: I have nothing.
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the request. Are you ready to go with a motion? If you
are, I will hear it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I don't know what kind of motion is appropriate, but I guess I would move to
deny the request for services by Westborough Subdivision.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to deny the request for service for the
Westborough Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr.
Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 13
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion for request for services is denied.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001: AZ 00-019
Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4
zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development -
northwest Meridian Road and West Ustick Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001: PP 00-018
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots on 31 other lots
on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin
Howell Development - northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick
Road:
Corrie: Item Number 7 is a Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001. Let me
-- once we have been here before -- I have got to check the ground rules here for Public
Hearings. We have got a mess of them and what I would like to do is -- what we will do,
we will have the staff report first, then we will have the developer or the requestee have
the first on the podium for five minutes. Then we will have the Public Hearing for the
people in the public that would like to testify and we have three minutes for each person
that wants to testify. Then after we are through we will go back to the developer or the
requestee and they will have the last to answer questions that were brought up from the
Public Hearing. So, with that in mind I will continue the Public Hearing now on
December the 4th
-- hearing from December 4, 2001. This is a request for an
annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for revised Cedar
Springs by Kevin Howell Development, Northwest of Meridian Road, and West Ustick
Road. There is also a Continued Public Hearing involving a request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for revised
Cedar Springs. So if the council doesn't object I will open -- continue the Public Hearing
on Number 7 and Number 8 and testimony can be taken on both. With that, I will have
the staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I believe these applications were continued in part
because of the continued work on the North Meridian Area Plan. You did listen to a
presentation by Wardle and Associates regarding the plan at your last meeting. We did
receive since the December 4th meeting revised staff comments from the Ada County
Highway District and I believe a lot of that had to do with the road that was beginning
from Meridian Road to Venable Lane. Mr. Tom Kuntz, the Parks Director, has some
comments regarding this project and I would like to turn it over to him now.
Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. The parks department just wants to go on
record that we plan on submitting a letter to the developer agreeing to paying for four
feet of the road on our northern boundary of our park and the curb and gutter, totaling
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 14
approximately $13,500 by the engineer's estimate, and that is being done at the request
of Ada County Highway District. We just want to go on record for that. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: On our sewer through this -- this is the sewer that will -- that will eventually
run through to our park; is that correct? And staff recommendation -- is there a
recommendation that that sewer line be run to and through in the first stage or is this
developer going to phase it in from the north side and we will just get sewer whenever
the phase reaches the park? How does that work?
Kuntz: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council, staff's recommendation is that
the developer is required to run the sewer through and to their southern boundary line
to the northern boundary of the park as part of the first phase of their development.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Kuntz: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Is the developer representative here this evening?
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Lee: Yes, I do.
Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Your name and address, please.
Lee: I was just waving at you, I didn't know that -- my name is Gary Lee with JUB
Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing Al Murdock, the developer. I
believe the last Public Hearing that we had when this project was tabled, we had
addressed all the remand items that Council had requested prior to that meeting and
went back to Planning and Zoning. They re-heard those remand items and passed a
favorable recommendation on to Council and I believe the Council was comfortable with
that at that last meeting. I'm certainly glad to answer any questions you may have
about the project at this time.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right. Thank you, Gary.
Lee: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 15
Corrie: Mr. Berg, do we have anybody signed up on that one? Okay. Okay. Is there
anyone from the public that would like to speak in favor of this project? Okay. Anyone
against the project? I have Joe -- you wanted to speak on this subdivision? Raise your
right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Simanich: I do.
Corrie: Give your name and address, please.
Simanich: My name is Joe Simanich and I live across the street from this. I have been
to two or three meetings on this subdivision and I would like to have a little more
information as to what is taking place now. Apparently, there have been some
discussions with Venable Lane and other items and I would like to be informed of what
they are. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Gary, do you
have anything you would like to say in reference to what Mr. Simonich had to --
questions?
Lee: Yes. Gary Lee with JUB. The question about Venable Lane was brought up
about -- from the staff at the last hearing and the plan is to extend Venable Lane north
from Ustick Road -- I'm going to guess on the dimensions, probably about 1,500 feet
and we will dedicate our half of Venable Lane on the east side. There currently exists
an old deed granting right of way on the west side of that center section line where that
arrow is going down the map, so on the end there will be a full collector -- residential
collector wide street from Ustick to the north and it will line up with the existing Venable
Lane property. Thanks.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, any discussion on the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question for the attorney. This proposal was tabled for a
couple of reasons. One was the question as to when the White Drain would come on
line. The second was kind of a compilation of issues and those were in regards to
being able to provide city services to this property and -- as far as police protection --
police, fire protection, and roads, those kind of issues that we are hoping are addressed
in the North Corridor Planning. Can we take action on this and impose conditions that
are not yet defined by the North Corridor Planning or can you put whatever is a result of
that planning process to answer some of these issues that the city has in question? Is
that too vague? I don't think you can really put conditions on something that are not yet
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 16
defined. So I believe that in Bridgetower a condition was put on that they would adhere
to any of the recommendations that came out of the North Plan regarding roads, but
this is a -- we could look at something like that for this, but how about some of the other
things that come out of that plan as well?
Nichols: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, the only condition
on Bridgetower that pertained to anything that might come out of the North Meridian
Planning Area has to do with the requirement that the developer was willing to agree to,
which was that in the event there was an agreement worked out generally between the
development community and ACHD on how to more quickly fund arterials, the road
construction. That Bridgetower would participate fully, along with the others, in that and
what was contemplated there, if I recall correctly, was that the development community
was looking at how can we build things more quickly so that the roads are there
contemporaneous with or ahead of the growth, as opposed to lagging behind.
Secondly, is there a way that the roads can be built less costly than ACHD's current per
mile cost. So there were some ideas being explored, such as having the developers
build the roads, private enterprise building them to certain standards and then having a
reimbursement through some sort of phase-in thing out of impact fees or going to
ACHD and then come back to the developers, kind of like a latecomer's fee. So, you
could do something similar to that for Cedar Springs. If the applicant is willing to do that
we would put it in the annexation and zoning portion, we'd put it into the Development
Agreement, so that it's a condition of annexation, as opposed to a condition of
Preliminary Plat approval. With regard to some of the other issues, the public safety
issues in terms of furnishing fire coverage, police coverage, and those sorts of things,
from the things that I have seen in the North Meridian Planning Area. I'm not sure that
there is anything that's necessarily going to come out of that which would specifically
address that issue unless it pertains to the issue of impact fees for public safety, which
is something that city staff is already looking into. Those, of course, would have to --
they would have to be capital facilities planned. There would have to be zones created
so that those impact fees would only be spent in that particular zone and you have that
ability to do that now anyway. That is part of the building permit process and just
because they build the subdivision and have the lots for sale doesn't necessarily mean
that they pay impact fees at all once. So you could still do the impact fee ordinance for
those things subject to the Public Hearing process and the rest of it down the road that
would apply to this subdivision. It's not that this subdivision would get out from under
having those impact fees as far as any heretofore unbuilt upon lots. Somebody that
would buy a house that was already built would not have to pay the impact fee. But that
issue -- and I also think that -- although I wasn't here on the December 4th
meeting
when this subdivision initially came before the Council, that was before the last attempt
to raise the mill levy at .004. So I don't know if that answers your question, but it's very
difficult for me to put conditions into a Development Agreement unless you specifically
state what those conditions are. I haven't got my degree in mind reading yet, just ask
my wife.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 17
Corrie: Tom, I had a question. On this revised plat, I don't notice that it shows where
the street is blocked off at the park. So you will have a straight shot? Is that going to
be -- where is that place in there?
Kuntz: Mayor and Council, if you move the arrow right back -- or right there, that road
would now have to proceed to the north.
Corrie: All right.
Kuntz: And then come back around the block and come back down to the park. So,
that section would not have a road in it. Correct.
Corrie: Okay. That will be shown on the revised plat, though, for --
Kuntz: That would be my recommendation.
Corrie: Okay. So they don't have a straight shot down there?
Kuntz: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Kuntz: And that was actually JUB's suggestion and was supported wholeheartedly by
ACHD.
Corrie: And the developer as well?
Kuntz: I believe so, yes.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I believe the developer has been holding off
on granting the city sewer easement for White Trunk pending resolution of this plat. I
don’t believe there is a comment in our staff recommendations concerning the
easement for the White Drain, but we really need to get that easement moving forward,
if this plat is approved, by Mr. Howell.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess that would raise two questions for the applicant. One would be
would you be in agreement to participate in any road assessment that might come
down to help this North Meridian Area and you might want to comment on the
easement that runs through that property.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 18
Lee: Gary Lee with JUB Engineers. As far as the road situation with Ada County
Highway District, it really is similar to what they used to do in the old days where the
developer would construct their portion of the roadway up to their -- Ada County
Highway District standards. I think it's just kind of gotten away from that in the last few
years and I think it's catching up to them now. As long as there is an equitable, way for
a developer to get his share of the cost back through impact fees or whatever
mechanism they come up with, it would be agreeable to do so. As far as the sewer
easement is concerned, I have been working with Keller and Associates on the
easement document. I have reviewed the easement once and made some comments,
took them back to them to review. I have not seen anything back from them to date. I
would like to see the final construction plans through that alignment as well just to be
sure that we coordinate elevations for alignment and that sort of thing with the
developer and the discussion with Kevin Howell on the easement. I don't think he has a
problem signing that easement. He's reluctant to do so until we can secure an
alignment for a roadway. We don't want to put that easement in there and come to find
out the plan is denied and we got to come in with some sort of revised alignment and
still make the sewer work, because they both have to kind of work together. Does that
answer your question?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Lee, if I may, before you get down, since I wasn't here
December 4th
, I'm not sure I'm understanding what we are talking about in terms of
blocking off the street. Is that -- can you identify that lot and block, tell me -- or are you
not going to build that lower portion of the street at all in there?
Lee: That's correct. It's a non-continuous street. I handed out an eight and a half by
11 reduction of the plat kind of showing where that area was, but on the --
Nichols: So we have this drawing, which shows that --
Lee: Yes.
Nichols: Okay. Can you tell me that block?
Lee: We show that at least in our Preliminary Plat as Block 12 and it's between Alexis
and Greenwich Avenue and a portion of this continuous street is with that street. The
blocks will likely change in the Final Plat. They tend to do that, the numbering system.
Nichols: Okay. If we are going to put that into the Preliminary Plat findings I need to
have something to tie it to and --
Lee: I understand.
Nichols: -- I can't read the small numbers.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 19
Lee: I can't either. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Any other questions for the Public Hearing?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, only if Gary's response works for our Public Works Department.
Smith: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council, yes, we understand their
concern and we will be happy to work with them on their development plan, so that the
manhole rims will work with their roadway design. We just need to get this easement
document signed by the developer as soon as possible, so that this will complete our
plan set that's going out for bid. I don't know at what point the developer would feel
comfortable in doing that, but if this plat moves forward this evening, I would like to be
able to submit that easement document back to the developer ASAP for his signature.
De Weerd: I feel like I'm in a tennis match. Does that work for you, Gary?
Lee: Gary Lee with JUB. It certainly does. I just wanted to point out the one comment
that I did have on the easement is that there were -- there are two points of connection
up in the very northwest corner on that easement document. I think the reason for that
at the time was in negotiation with Mr. Kennedy and we'd like to see that northerly
portion of the easement go away, because it really is not doing us any good to have an
easement across that corner of the project. So hopefully you can get that situation with
that other parcel resolved, so we don't have two easements going across there to do
the same thing.
Corrie: We would hope to have this the 19th
of March anyway. Thank you. Anything
else? Okay. Then hearing no more, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing
on Items 7 and 8.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public hearing on Items 7 and 8.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on
Item Number 7, AZ 00-019, and Number 8, which is PP 00-018. Any further
discussion? All in favor of the motion say. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 20
Corrie: Okay. I will entertain a motion on Item No. 7, request for annexation and zoning
of 100.71 acres from an RUT to an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 100.71
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for the Revised Cedar Springs. To include all staff
comments, as well as the revised plat, to also ask that the applicant participate in the --
I don't know -- Mr. Attorney, you probably have better words than I do on how to word
the participation of anything from the ACHD road improvement from the north corridor
plan and to have the attorney draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to approve the annexation of 00-019 and to
include all staff comments and the original motion. Any further discussion on the
motion? Hearing none --
De Weerd: Do you want me to --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Wait a minute. Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do have a -- I'm in favor of it, but I would like to see a stipulation that no Building
Permits would be issued until the sewer is up and running through their place and ready
to go on line.
De Weerd: This motion -- I would agree to add that to my motion, if the second would
agree.
Nary: I agree.
Corrie: Motion was to include no building permits at that point until the sewer line is in.
Let the record show that both the motion and the second approve. Any further
discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, roll-call vote, please.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion has been approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 21
Corrie: Now Item No. 8 is the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots
and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin
Howell Development.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building
lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs, to also
make special notation on the map that we looked at with the -- what street is that?
Nichols: Mayor and Council Members, I'm looking at a drawing, which is dated
November 30, 2001, by Gary Lee, showing a portion of Ashby Street between Alexis
and Greenwich.
De Weerd: Okay. As noted, then, by the attorney, to include all staff comments, and to
ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the request for
Preliminary Plat with the conditions on Preliminary Plat 00-018. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2001: AZ 01-012
Request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8
zones for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development -
northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2001: PP 01-015
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single family lots, 4 future
office lots, and 23 common lots and 3.43 other lots on 69.79 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt
Development - northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian
Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 22
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing form November 20, 2001: CUP 01-026
Request for A Conditional Use Permit for 214 single family dwellings, 4
future office lots and 23 common lots to include a neighborhood park and
pedestrian pathways in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance
Subdivision by G.L. Voigt - northeast corner of East Ustick Road and
North Meridian Road:
Corrie: Items Number 9, 10, and 11 has to deal with Sundance Subdivision on the
northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road. Number 9 is a request
for annexation and zoning. Number 10 is for a request for a Preliminary Plat and
Number 11 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit. With Council's approval we will
open -- or I will open all three Public Hearings on 9, 10, and 11 and let the record show
that you can talk about all three, single, or all three under testimony. With that I will
open the Public Hearing on Numbers 9, 10, and 11 and ask for staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for property located immediately east of the
project you just approved. The city's 58 acre park would be located right here. The
Cedar Springs Subdivision wraps around in -- beginning in here. Approximately 60
acres. And there is a drain running through on this side of the property. They are
proposing to have office uses located on the corner at the intersection of Meridian and
Ustick Roads. There is some internal connection. They do not have any details yet
proposed for these projects, so it would be our recommendation that they come back
through with a Conditional Use Permit for all of the -- any buildings on the site. We
would like to see more internal connection and not have connections directly from the
arterials in this location. They have significant block length proposed as part of this
project. I'm not aware of any variance that they have submitted. I believe they are
acting on some of the -- some of the variations that could be granted as part of a
Conditional Use Permit of a planned development. Showing the park area with
drainage in the center of the subdivision. This was continued for similar reasons as the
Cedar Springs Subdivision. With that, that's all the information I have. I'm not aware of
any other extenuating circumstances with this project. The sewer that would eventually
serve this project, the property owner has already granted sewer easements I believe
north of here to extend through further to the east. That's all the comments I have.
Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments or questions of Council for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Do we have the developer representative here
tonight? Okay. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Arnold: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 23
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, for the record I'm Steve Arnold. I’m
here representing Voigt Development. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West
Overland Road. I guess this is a project you have seen many times before you, so I
won’t go into specific details, but I will go over a brief history of where we have come to
and where we are at now. Originally, you saw this project submitted to you in the year
2000 in September. It went before the P&Z staff and finally approved in February of
2001. It was originally denied by this board in April of 2001 for two reasons. One was
you weren't comfortable with the four lots that we were proposing at the southwest
corner of the project. We were showing this as R-4 lots, with the intention of re-zoning
those lots into office use in the future. One of the reasons that this board wasn’t
comfortable with approving that is that you believed that we should come back with a
PUD for the office uses. At that time the PUD ordinance didn't allow for the mixed use
of residential and office, so after the denial we quickly turned this project around and
submitted a PUD application, because during the process of being denied and our
resubmittal, you approved a new PUD ordinance, which did allow for this office use.
So, we submitted under the new PUD ordinance and we feel we comply with that with
the amenities that we have provided. Since then we went to Planning and Zoning. We
were approved by them, and then it came back to this board in November. We were
deferred then for a couple reasons, one was for the North Meridian Developers, which
has presented their plan to you. I know that's not been formally adopted, but I think the
overall concepts were presented and favorably looked upon. The other reason was the
sewer issue, which my understanding -- and after your approval tonight with Cedar
Springs, the sewer easement -- and I'm assuming that Cedar Springs grants that to
UHS. The sewer easements will no longer be an issue and that construction is literally
imminent. We are supportive of the condition and the recommendations that you
placed on Cedar Springs. I know my client is also supportive of that. There were two
comments made earlier by staff and I'm not sure that those were in relationship to the
staff report. There is only essentially two issues that we are asking to be waived on the
staff report. One is a stub street there at the southeast corner to the east. Basically, it
was made as a recommendation to avoid the block length variance. We are asking for
a variance of the block length in that location. The stub is being recommended. It goes
to a long narrow flag lot. That lot at that boundary is approximately 125 to 150 feet in
width. I know that we have worked on doing a layout. That long flag portion there, you
can’t put a public street in one. You'd get two problems. You'd get double fronting lots
for the one-acre lots to the east and on our side. So we are asking that that condition
be eliminated, the stub to the east. The stub up to the north into that 12-acre parcel, we
concur with and are planning to stub that. It is just that stub at that location that we are
asking that that be eliminated. The other condition was a ped access to the four
commercial lots. We are providing ped access just to the north of those four
commercial lots out to Ustick, which can be utilized by pedestrians to access those
future office lots. So that is the other condition. Staff had a comment in there in the
staff report that we provide a north-south ped access. It was Planning and Zoning.
They allowed us to eliminate that in favor of the one that we have got going east west
out to Meridian Road. Those were the only two comments in the staff report that we are
asking be eliminated. The other comment that was brought up tonight that was not in
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 24
the staff report was that because you have not seen the specific plan for those four
office lots, that we come back before you for conditional use. That's not a great issue
right now, but in the staff report it says that if we go with the office use as submitted in
the PUD application, that we wouldn't have to come back before you for the conditional
use. So I guess we'd ask that the staff report stand as is, with the eliminations of those
two conditions. My client, again, is asking that this board approve the Preliminary Plat
and annexation, and the conditional use. Had you not approved Cedar Springs tonight
I’d ask that you hold any kind of denial based on your comfort level of getting those
easements for that sewer, because this board approved that. I think that the comfort
level is there that you can look at this project, approve it based on your Cedar Springs
approval tonight with those easements, that is the last easement for sewer. We did
grant -- my client at this point owns the property to the north. We have granted
easements for the White Trunk. We have been working with the city and we will work
with them in the future on that. We are asking for an approval tonight and I will stand
for any questions and -- or any comments you may have.
Corrie: Thank you, Steve? Questions of -- Steve?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess -- Steve, stay up there, but I have a question for staff. On that road
that is being stubbed to the east, why was that -- why was staff asking for that? I agree
that we need to have interconnectivity between these subdivisions, but it's not feasible
for that property owner -- perhaps that could just be a pedestrian path or some kind of
access that you could get people to.
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor and Council, because the interconnection in
the subdivision is so limited, it would provide connection to this property, which is not
likely to remain this big parcel forever. There is also another parcel here that is
completely land locked of any public street connection and it would at least allow some
future connection and some interconnection within this square mile that hopefully would
somewhat comply or at least not detract totally from our plan in the North Meridian
Area.
Arnold: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. If I could follow up. The stub that is proposed up there
to the north, we are not going to object. The one that we have proposed we are not in
objection to.
De Weerd: Oh, not to the east?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 25
Arnold: To the east --
Bird: The one down here on the south --
Arnold: At the east. It's the one that's proposed by staff with the block length down
about that approximate location where the arrow is.
Bird: That little arrow.
Arnold: That's the one that we don't want to provide, just because at this point it will be
extended and it can't -- it can't service that parcel adequately. The one that we have to
the north, I agree, I think that needs to go in there and needs to the service that parcel.
That will most likely be developed, as you will see the other properties to the east
would.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't have one for Steve, but --
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Shari, why have we decided now that -- in our staff comments that it wasn't when
we had a PUD, we didn't have to come back for a CUP, but now we want to come back
for a CUP for the building lots, the commercial lots?
Stiles: Because that is what our Planned Development Ordinance requires.
Bird: It does require that?
Stiles: Yes. If they don't have details -- if they don't come in with a detailed plan when
they come in with these lots, then it does require a detailed plan through a separate
planned development application.
Bird: So that's why the staff has changed their mind from the original?
Stiles: Well, I believe they probably missed it.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Anything else, Steve?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, that being the case that that's under the ordinance, and it is, that’s
fine, we will comply. I was confused with that in the staff report.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 26
Corrie: Okay.
Arnold: I don't have anything further.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. This is a continued Public Hearing. Is there anyone here
that would like to issue testimony in favor of this Sundance Subdivision? Anyone
opposed to the Sundance Subdivision? Okay. I don't think there is a lot of questions
for you, Steve, so, Council, discussion under the Public Hearing.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: If there is none, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item
Number 8 -- or, excuse me, 9, 10, and 11.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearings on AZ 01-012, PP 01-015, and CUP 01-
026.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the
request for annexation and zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit,
request for Sundance Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion has been carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council, discussion? Okay. Hearing no discussion, I will entertain a motion on
-- the first one, the request for annexation and zoning, No. 01-012, Sundance
Subdivision.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 70.72
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt
Development, northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road, including
staff comments and have our attorney draw up the appropriate papers.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 27
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to approve the request for annexation and
zoning as stated in the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote,
Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, nay; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Nay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to explain the nay.
Corrie: Okay. We will do that. The vote was three ayes, one nay. Okay. Mrs. de
Weerd.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I was going through the recommendation from the Planning
Commission and we didn't impose the condition to include conditions to be met on what
comes from the North Meridian Plan regarding ACHD requirements and I -- we just
imposed that on Cedar Springs, we should impose that on this one, and the annexation
is probably the appropriate place to do that.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, can we still do that on a Preliminary Plat or should we --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd recommend we do it as part of the
annexation and zoning. You can immediately now move to reconsider the decision and
redo it if you want to do it that way.
Corrie: Okay. I'd entertain a motion to reconsider the vote on the annexation.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess since I was the nay, I would ask for a reconsideration of
the motion.
Corrie: Okay. Is there a second on the motion?
McCandless: I'll second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no.
Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I'm sorry I didn't --
Corrie: You're just making sure we got it all put together right. So, I'll entertain a motion
on the annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 28
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess you want me to make a motion?
Corrie: I don't care.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 70.72
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt
Development, to include all staff comments, and as well as to improve the -- or to
include the condition for participation in the ACHD recommendation.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: And the North Meridian.
De Weerd: And the North Meridian Plan and to ask the attorney to draw up Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: I will second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the annexation under
the new motion as requested for annexation and zoning as stated in the motion.
Further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Now we will entertain a motion for the request for Preliminary Plat 01-015.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Preliminary Plat for 214 single family
lots, 4 future office lots, 23 common lots, and 3.43 other lots on 69.79 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Sundance Subdivision, to delete in the recommendation to
Planning and Zoning Item No. 24 as noted on page seven, which references the stub
street to the east. I need to make sure that's the right stub. No. It's the right one. And
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 29
to ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
Preliminary Plat with the staff comments and related items on the motion. Further
comments? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Now Item Number 11. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for 214
single-family dwellings, 4 future office lots, and 23 common lots, to include a
neighborhood park and pedestrian pathway in a proposed R-8 zone for Sundance
Subdivision.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: If I can get everything on -- I move that we approve the request for a
Conditional Use Permit for 214 single family dwellings, 4 future office lots, and 23
common lots, to include a neighbor park and a pedestrian pathway in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt, northeast corner of East Ustick
Road and North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments, to have our attorney draw
up the appropriate papers.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
Conditional Use Permit 01-026 with staff comments made in the motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Would that include the necessity for the pedestrian path on the -- that staff
is asking for to access the office lot or would you be deleting that? I know I think it was
on the Preliminary Plat, but -- and just one other note. On page three of the
recommendation from Planning and Zoning, the last part of paragraph three needs to
be moved up into number two.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 30
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On discussion I think Planning and Zoning was to go to the east, which the
applicant said -- or west I mean. I'm sorry. And eliminated the one into the pathway in,
so --
Corrie: East west, instead of north south?
Bird: Yes. Instead of north south.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: I'm fine with it -- with the motion.
Corrie: Okay. Go through the motion.
McCandless: That's fine.
Bird: Second does, too.
De Weerd: One other notation. In the position statement by David McKinnon on the 9th
of November, he modified some of the language. Would that be included in that as
well?
McCandless: What language?
De Weerd: In Page Three, Item Number Two, to note the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation, including the gazebo, picnic tables, trash receptacles,
and --
McCandless: Staff comments are included in those.
De Weerd: Thank you. Sorry.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved for the Conditional Use Permit.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 31
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from January 15, 2002: CPA 01-001
Request for a text change amendment to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan
by Falcon Creek, LLC:
Corrie: Okay. Item Number 12 is a Continued Public Hearing from January 15, 2002.
This is a request for a text change amendment to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan by
Falcon Creek, LLC. So at this time I will continue the Public Hearing and have staff --
hang on. Mr. Nichols are you --
Nichols: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, members of the audience, just for
the record, when the City Council heard public testimony on the currently proposed
revision to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, there was a fair amount of testimony with
regard to this particular text amendment, as well as to the potential map amendment
regarding the Utility Subdivision area. Just so for the record that everyone here knows
that this Council heard those comments and they are part of the record and I would
suggest, Mayor, that you would include those specific comments that were made at that
meeting as part of the record on this decision, so that those who testified before know
that their testimony in that proceeding would be considered in this one. Also just so that
it's on the record that you have already heard comments pertaining to that proposed
amendment in regards to the overall Comp Plan. So people who have already testified
once on that, it can be considered, but it just should be part of the record.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Nichols, and let the statement stand that we did now -- I was
going to go into it just before we began the Public Hearing, but it's good to hear now, so
let that be part of the record from the attorney. Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Excuse me. Mr. Nary.
Nary: If I could make one more comment. I did not speak to Mr. Forrey, but he did call
my office and left me a message on my voice mail regarding tonight's hearing, basically,
it was just asking for the format of his presentation. I don't have anything to do with this
format, that's the Chair's prerogative, not mine, but I didn't have a discussion with him,
but I wanted to make that note for the record. He did call me.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, a little bit of history on this request for a text change
amendment. As you know, the applicant has submitted a request for annexation and
zoning and a Conditional -- and a Preliminary Plat for some property adjacent to the
wastewater treatment plant. The applicant had stated on previous public -- previous
Public Hearings that a Comprehensive Plan amendment had been submitted and that it
was refused. I just wanted to make it clear for the record that no Comprehensive Plan
amendment was received by our office and also that there was some testimony that the
land use committee during the Comprehensive Plan meeting recommended that all of
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 32
industrial type uses be located adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant. We could
also find no record of that. The applicant -- the application received did request a map
amendment and a text amendment. However, at the Public Hearing the applicant’s
representative testified that he had not requested a map amendment and changed --
changed -- apparently verbally changed his application to request only a text change
amendment to add the following language -- or the language shown up on the wall as a
requested text change amendment to the existing Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not
agree with the change to the Comprehensive Plan text. We believe that without specific
standards and some kind guidelines and qualifications behind the text change
amendment, it would be -- it would cause great problems in the area. We believe that
the change requested with the applications that had been submitted do require a map
amendment and with that the staff recommends denial of this request for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Corrie: Questions to staff from Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess my question would be if you change your text to something like that,
you would have to change your land use map as well. Would that not coincide
together? You can't just have text that's not supported by your map.
Stiles: I would think that would be logical, yes. The map should have to be amended
as well, because currently it's shown as rural residential, agricultural, and park.
De Weerd: And because Planning and Zoning took action on the land use map
December 6th
, that cannot be amended again until March -- or May 6th
-- or June 6th
.
Stiles: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Ms. Stiles, I'm looking at the minutes from the meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission regarding this request and Mr. McKinnon was the staff person that
night and he says that staff supported this change. So, what changed now that now the
staff doesn't support this change?
Stiles: Which minutes are you looking at?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 33
Nary: I'm looking at the minutes that are from the Meridian Planning and Zoning
meeting December 6th
, Public Hearing request to amend Comprehensive Plan, Mr.
McKinnon states the reason for -- this is on page five.
Stiles: Page five?
Nary: It says here the reason for that type of use is that would be appropriate adjacent
to the wastewater treatment plant. They are not residential, they are typically not retail,
they are typically not a park use, those types of uses that would be appropriate next to
the wastewater treatment plant should be assessed in terms of whether or not they are
an appropriate location for an industrial site. That basically covers the Comprehensive
Plan. We are in support -- staff is in support of the industrial zoning and change to the
Comprehensive Plan for this site. So, in December the Planning and Zoning staff
agreed with the applicant's text change, which is what Mr. Forrey limited himself to in
the Public Hearing. All I'm asking is what's changed now that you're saying that staff
doesn’t agree with that change?
Stiles: I believe Mr. McKinnon was referring to the Comprehensive Plan, the overall
Comprehensive Plan at that site. That was what was presented to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission to the Council. That was after the steering committee had met, that was
based on some of the comments from the public that was also based on our problems
we were having with the land use designations in that area. I don't -- I don't believe this
is referring to approving or recommending approved of the specific plan that was
presented. I believe it was just the specific plan that was presented that caused us to
change our thinking about what may possibly happen in that area and caused us to
reverse our recommendation that that should not be considered industrial use without
supporting policies.
Nary: Well, but, Mrs. Stiles, isn't this the supporting policy? I mean that's all we are
talking about is the policy of allowing industrial development adjacent to or near the
city’s treatment plant. We are not talking about -- tonight we are not talking about the
application for the use, we are just talking about the underlying policy that may allow it.
So, that was the Planning and Zoning staff's recommendation then and so all I want is
what’s changed now. Why is it different?
Stiles: If their recommendation is to include this that would permit all those uses
outright, then our recommendation -- I have to say that I would change the
recommendation. I don't think it was ever believed by staff that this would be going
through, that it would just automatically allow all industrial uses to be out at that area.
Nary: I don't think the text change says that, does it? It just says encourage and
adjacent, which I think would be the Planning and Zoning staff or the Commission or
Council’s prerogative as to what means -- what does it mean by encourage and what
does it mean by adjacent. But this is just a text policy change.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 34
Stiles: Right.
Nary: Right? This isn't approving any plan, it isn't even approving a zone. Therefore,
the map doesn't need to be changed; right?
Stiles: I believe it does.
Nary: So you believe all text changes require a map change without an application?
Stiles: I believe a text change of this nature needs a map amendment.
Nary: Even if no one -- if you change the text of your Comprehensive Plan and no one
even has an application before you, you then have to change the map? Is that what
you believe?
Stiles: I believe that in this case we should require a map amendment.
Nary: But that's not what I'm asking in this case. What I asked you was if you change
the text in your Comprehensive Plan without an application before you, must you then
always change the map?
Stiles: It would depend on what's being requested.
Nary: And all that's being requested is this application is a change to the text and
nothing else.
Stiles: That's true. But with what's permitted in the industrial zone -- and I know this is
not a request for zoning, but with the condition our current zoning ordinance is in, we
can’t -- we can't at this time recommend approval of this without further work on the
Comprehensive Plan. Further changes in the zoning ordinance, because of the uses
that are permitted in the industrial zone and testimony that has been received before
this body that certain uses are -- would be considered at least by some applicants a
permitted use with the change of this wording.
Nary: So then would it be your opinion, ma'am, that changing this text will change the
zoning, regardless of whether or not any application for annexation, an application for a
land use map change, an application for a rezone, any of that submitted, that this alone
will actually allow industrial uses to get developed there?
Stiles: I believe that it would lend credence to people requesting such type
applications, but, no, it wouldn't rezone anything.
Nary: Right. Those requests would then go to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and then before this body; right?
Stiles: Yes, sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 35
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. We will have the applicant's representative of the development first, and
then we will have the public testimony afterwards. Raise your right hand. Is what
you’re about to swear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Forrey: Yes, I do.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Forrey: Wayne Forrey. My address 701 South Alan Street, Meridian. 83642. Thank
you, Mayor and Council, and also let me thank you for rescheduling the hearing to
tonight. That helped us out immensely. Let me give you a little bit of background in this
area. Eight years ago, approximately, when the current Comprehensive Plan was
adopted for this area, we had the waste treatment plant, and the thinking was that the
city needed a regional park and that might be a good location. The thinking at that time
was, well, what would conceivably develop next to the waste treatment plant. Well, the
thinking was maybe that's a good place for a regional park. Since that time the City has
acquired an alternate site two miles east and I'm told that in the thinking of that, the
odors generated at the treatment plant went into some of that thinking in terms of an
alternate site. In addition, in your current park master plan and the proposed
Comprehensive Land Use Map, which identifies the potential park sites, this was not
identified as a potential park site. Okay. Now in 1999 Falcon Creek approached the
City with a subdivision application which included residential and a church site on this
same identical property and City staff said, no, that's not something we will support,
because that puts people too close to that waste treatment plant. Then in 2000 --
September of 2000 we started pursuing a technology park and employment center
there and in discussing that with the City we were informed that that would be
something inappropriate next to the waste treatment plant, because it would put too
many people, again, next to that waste treatment plant. So that led us on a path of
trying to find a use of that site that was not a park, not a subdivision, not an employment
center, and what -- and it was all driven by the waste treatment plant, what could be
determined compatible with the waste treatment plant. That led us to Sanitary
Services, because they are an industrial type use. It felt like it could be compatible next
to the waste treatment plant. That led us to the Meridian School District, because of the
storage of buses and their needs to do that in this community. Both of those entities
were running out of land, especially Sanitary Services. Then as your comprehensive
plan started to come together and we saw that there was industrial proposed at that
quadrant of that intersection, the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Ustick, it felt like,
well, this is something that might work. The planning process was generating industrial
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 36
and here we have basically some parking lot type uses. So we submitted applications
to the city. As we went through the hearing process with the Planning and Zoning
Commission we were then directed to submit the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
we submitted both a text and a map amendment. I believe, as an urban planner,
working on comprehensive plans, that the Idaho Local Planning Act does, in fact, give
you authority to make land use decisions based on one of two components of your
Comprehensive Plan. A text component or a map component, and, certainly, if you use
both those components that's all fine, but you as a Council of the city for many years
have made decisions on the development applications based on the text within a plan
and also made decisions based on colors on a map. Okay. So here we are tonight with
our Comprehensive Plan amendment application and throughout this hearing process
that we have had with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Then, of course, this is
our first hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but we were present and I did
talk briefly at the Comprehensive Plan hearing and that's when a lot of folks were here
and the city attorney alluded to that tonight, all the prior testimony. Throughout all that
process we listened to neighbors, plus a petition of numerous pages of petition that
were submitted. I received numerous e-mails and I'm sure you did, too, and telephone
calls and I spent considerable amount of time calling the folks that signed those
petitions, because we were directed to do that. Not only did we commit we would do
that, but your Planning and Zoning Commission said try and work out some
compromise or address neighbor concerns, work with the neighbors. So we have done
that. In the process of trying to define the uses on this site we ran into some real
hurdles and I want to hand to you a conceptual vicinity map. I know this shows a layout
and I know that we are here for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and that was the
nature of my call to Councilman Nary, I was hoping that you wouldn't say, well, Mr.
Forrey, don't hand out a map showing the buses, because we are here to talk about a
Comprehensive Plan. I want to hand this out to show you -- it's critical to the
information I want to provide tonight regarding the uses of this site and how it relates to
the Comprehensive Plan. Can I hand this out?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Could I ask question of Mr. Forrey? Is the purpose of that map so that as we
deliberate and decide whether or not this text change is appropriate for our current
Comprehensive Plan that we somehow look and see whether or not that proposal that
we don't have before us. That's still in the Planning and Zoning Commission stage, is
somehow viable to us, that we have use that as -
Forrey: Yes.
Nary: So essentially what you would like us to do to some degree is to forecast or look
at thinks issue and say if we are not going to -- if we are not real comfortable with this
concept plan, don't approve that?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 37
Forrey: No. No. I need to show you the bases for some neighborhood adjustments
that we have made and this will help do that.
Nary: But isn't that the proposed plan application for this conditional use for this
annexation and zoning? Isn't that still before the Planning and Zoning Commission?
So it would be premature for us to look at that, unless we were supposed to use that
map in some way connected to why we would want to change the plan.
Forrey: It is.
Nary: Okay. But tell me how we are supposed to look at that, unless we are supposed
to guess that -- unless we want to approve that or if you want to look at that in the
future, why do we need -- why do we need to approve this, unless we somehow want to
look at that? I don't know why that relates to what we are trying to look at tonight.
Forrey: I want to show you the relationship between industrial uses adjacent or near
the waste treatment plant in relationship to the neighborhood and then I want to show
you some flexibility that we can introduce into this discussion to implement this policy
and yet achieve some neighborhood objective as directed by city leaders.
Nary: You want to show industrial uses in general -- how industrial uses in general
interact with neighborhoods?
Forrey: With the waste treatment plant in relation to this policy.
Nary: But you can do that with colors and blocks and not necessarily your map, since
your map is -- I guess it seems to me like we would somehow be predisposed when we
haven’t considered that underlying application for review it at this point.
Forrey: Well, many neighbors have commented to you about the impact they feel from
this proposed development, because of the buses, for example, the sheer number of
buses, the arrangement of buses -- we are just using that as an example, and the
location of proximity and so I would like to put that into context. So I can show you this,
so you could see what neighbors have looked at and then I can draw some parallels to
some changes that I would like to propose tonight. So this background information is
critical.
Nary: Okay. Give us anything you want, I guess, but I don't know that we can -
Bird: I think Mr. Nichols --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, may I ask a question of Mr. Forrey? Mr.
Forrey, do you believe that this map that you have got in your hand helps explain how
your client interprets what would be allowed by that text change?
Forrey: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 38
Nichols: I would think it's probably relevant to your decision then.
Corrie: I think it is, too, and at this point it's the prerogative of the Chair and not ask you
to -- I think you're going to be back here later with another one and I agree it specifically
doesn’t really have that -- you have your own specific -- I'm sorry -- your own specific
request and at this point I'm going to ask that you not do that until the next meeting with
us. Is that correct, Mr. Nichols, or did you say that -- I'm interpreting that it's not --
you’re interpreting it another way?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I can appreciate Council Member Nary’s
concern that somehow whatever is discussed with regard to text amendment is not be
construed by anybody as any kind of approval or disapproval or any kind of decision on
any application that's not yet before this body for one. But if this map shows this body
how this applicant would interpret what would be allowed by this text change, I think
that is pertinent to the decision by this Council as to whether to adopt this text change.
It doesn't necessarily mean that you're approving it, it's just he's saying as he interprets
this proposed text, this is what would be allowed and so that may help you in making a
decision on the text.
Nary: Correct.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would agree with Mr. Nichols if Mr. Forrey said that's the way he wanted us to
consider it, but I asked him if he wants us to consider this text change in looking at that
piece of paper that he wants to give us, if we can foresee we would want that type of
use, therefore, if we don't, don't approve this. So if you want us to look at it in that
regard, like Mr. Nichols has said, I don't have a problem with that, but that's what you
get if you give us that. We are going to have to forecast and say do I want that, what
you handed me. If I don't, then there is no reason to change the text and you originally
said no and you're saying that's okay?
Forrey: Yes.
Corrie: That's what I heard as well.
Forrey: And I have two maps.
Corrie: Okay. Can you do it in five minutes now?
Forrey: This is a neighborhood vicinity map and it shows a conceptual development of
this site with Sanitary Services next to the Meridian waste treatment plant, a Western
Recycling facility on Ten Mile Road, a major school bus area for parking of about 330
school buses, plus the drivers and maintenance and all of that. This is the plan that
neighbors felt was too intense and basically the input that I received from all the
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 39
neighbors was the bus issue, that many buses and that much parking in that facility was
not close enough to the treatment plant. So, in other words, the Comprehensive Plan
amendment we are proposing says industrial development shall be encouraged to
locate adjacent or near -- neighbors felt that maybe like Sanitary Services is okay,
because it's right next to the drain, right next to the treatment plant, it's adjacent or near,
but the bus facility is stretching it too far. It is not near enough and that's why I'm saying
it does relate to this and our interpretation of this amendment. The bus facility was not
near enough to the treatment plant and it brought that intensity too far to the
neighborhood. It brought that intensity too close to the neighborhood and so what we
did is try to analyze how could we alter the arrangement of land uses on this site to
meet neighborhood concerns and we came to the conclusion that we had to eliminate
the bus facility. There was simply not enough room on this 35 acre site to incorporate
the buffers that the neighbors asked for, the setbacks that neighbors asked for, the
height restrictions that they asked for, the lighting restrictions that they asked for, the
access, the pathways, all of these things that I talked to the neighbors. We simply were
squeezing that bus facility down, down, down, down, from about a 17 acre site to about
a five acre site and the school district said, Wayne, that's not enough ground, you know,
we have got to have a 15 to 20 acre site for our school buses. So we had to make a
very difficult decision and inform the school district that we could not accommodate the
bus facility on this site given our interpretation of near and adjacent to the waste
treatment plant in contrast to the neighbors' interpretation of near or adjacent to the
waste treatment plant. Everyone was fairly comfortable with something right next to the
treatment plant, but as we got closer to the neighborhood and definitely to Ustick, their
interpretation was, boy, that's not near, you're really going way too far. So we then
have developed an alternate concept for this area that would comply with the
developers and my personal interpretation of adjacent to or near and I believe it
complies with the neighborhood desire and definition and interpretation of what near or
adjacent to the waste treatment plant is. First of all, you have to understand that it’s
appropriate to buffer a waste treatment plant. Your Comprehensive Plan calls for it, the
discussion calls for it, and we have a critical public service in this community that is an
arm of the city, in effect, with the contracts you have for waste collection and so we are
thinking that's an appropriate location. Well, what we have done to meet neighborhood
concerns is to move the Sanitary Services site to the west away from Ten Mile Road,
relocated Western Recycling -- proposed Western Recycling facility off of Ten Mile Road
between the waste treatment plant and Idaho Power. We are prepared to eliminate the
school district from this concept and then seek a mixed-use development designation
for the balance of the property, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, so that the
neighborhood has direct input through the hearing process, which they asked for, on all
activity that occurs in that development. I'd like to show you on a map in summary.
Okay. Now the area in pink is adjacent to and very near the Meridian waste treatment
plant and you can see that compared to the first map that I gave you we have moved
Western Recycling off of the arterial behind the Idaho Power substation right next to the
drain and we have moved Sanitary Services -- we have doubled the distance, we have
moved it 800 feet to the west and directly off the Meridian waste treatment plant. The
balance of the property, everything that you see in the brown diagonal line would be a
mixed use designation, it would be subject to conditional use. You see the landscape
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 40
lots that we are proposing and you see some dashed lines of a possible development
concept that could work if this Comprehensive Plan amendment was adopted. It would
give us the flexibility to go back with the Planning and Zoning Commission, meet with
the neighbors, and look at very specific -- the depths with the landscaping, the lighting,
the access, the types of uses and have input into all of that through your normal
Conditional Use Permit process, but it would allow Sanitary Services and Western
Recycling to proceed with this industrial very near and proximal relationship to the
waste treatment plant, but yet over 1,000 feet away from the neighborhood and so
that's why I say I felt it's important to show you this, so you could see the spatial
relationships in terms of how we would define near. Obviously, a mile away is not near
something, but how far is near? Well, we are showing here on this map that we are
willing to just go a couple hundred feet from the waste treatment plant and then we
draw the line. Now at that point we have put in landscape lots and we start a different
type of zoning and a different type of development pattern and a whole different
approval process by a Conditional Use Permit, so that we build a nice neighborhood
here and buffer that neighborhood from the waste treatment plant. I committed that we
would do that, there was very -- any developer that has an industrial development and
has a potential buyer, it is very difficult to say to him, I'm sorry, I can’t sell my ground to
you. We would have loved to have a good relationship here that we could have brought
the bus facility here, but it's not going to work. The neighbors were very adamant about
that. Planning and Zoning asked us to work with the neighbors, we did, and the end
result is we think we've got a better alternative, if we can have this Comprehensive Plan
amendment. We can solve some community issues, we can help build a neighborhood,
and we can make this work. Happy to answer questions.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any other questions?
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Forrey: Thank you. I'll leave one of each up here in case anyone wants to see that.
Thank you, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. As the attorney stated earlier, if you have issued testimony
that’s the same thing as you did before, we have it on record. If it's anything new, then
we will take it, in three minutes make your case. You have heard the situation tonight.
Okay. Anybody that is for this request? Okay. Those who are against it? Okay. We’ll
come up one at a time and start over here. Come up. Raise your hand, please. Is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Booth: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 41
Corrie: Okay. Give your name and address, please.
Booth: I'm David Booth and I live at 3744 West Niemann Drive in Meridian. 83642. I
have previously given testimony both for the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding this specific issue and before this Council with regards to the Comprehensive
Plan. There are a few new points that I would like to bring up. First, I'd like to point out
that what we just witnessed was this developer's interpretation of near and adjacent.
That does not mean that every developer is going to have that same interpretation. I
think that if there is a text change something to this wording, that it needs to be more
specific as to what defines near and adjacent. Next, I don't think anybody will say that
industrial is not compatible with the wastewater treatment plant. We are all in
agreement with that, but we are not in agreement with -- I speak for myself and several
friends in my neighborhood, is that industrial is not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods and that's our issue here. Also I think Mr. Forrey's done an excellent job
in addressing many of our issues. However, there was a substantial objection to
Sanitary Services, particularly the waste transfer station portion of that. There were
several testimonies given regarding odor and flying debris and stuff like that. That's our
concern. And last I want to set the record straight, a couple different occasions when I
was present there was a comparison made between the odor of the Meridian
wastewater treatment plant and the odor from the Lander street plant. I did a little bit of
research, I -- through the city website I contacted the engineer over at the wastewater
treatment plant in Meridian, asked him a few questions about the process there.
Meridian does have tertiary treatment in contrast with what has been testified before
this Council before by Mr. Perry. In fact, Meridian was probably -- was the first in this
area to have tertiary treatment. The main difference between Meridian and Lander
Street is Lander Street takes the sludges that are generated in the secondary treatment
processes, that's the biological processes, and they pump that several miles to their
other wastewater treatment plant for treatment and final disposal, whereas Meridian
handles all that on site. That's why Meridian has a lot more odor problems than Lander
Street and I just wanted to set the record straight on that. Therefore, I propose that the
Council deny this text change request and perhaps look at something that's a little more
specific. Thank you. Any questions?
Corrie: Thank you, David. I believe -- right here. Yes. Raise your right hand, please.
Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Hennings: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Hennings: My name is Cheryl Hennings. I live at 2396 North Burrello here in Meridian
and I want to thank Mayor Corrie and the Members of the City Council for giving us the
opportunity to give opposition to this amendment. I want to start off by saying the
proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment is based on a single site specific
development proposal that is most certainly not in the best interest of Meridian citizens.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 42
It is proposed because of a speculative rezone and development proposal and is not
generally applicable to the city as a whole. The sole purpose of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan text amendment is to allow industrial uses to be placed in the
center of a residential area. The water treatment plant does not in and of itself deem
this property appropriate for industrial use. There are other uses that are friendlierf as
either transition or buffer uses. The City of Meridian Planning staff has proposed a
revised future land use map for the new Comprehensive Plan. This new map is a result
of their careful review and assessment of the several months’ worth of public testimony,
developer, and land owner's input, and comparative analysis of the potential impact of
this very text amendment as being proposed by the Falcon Creek Development Group.
The new future land use map shows -- and this is the site that we were discussing -- as
being designated for a park, residential, and office mixed use. As such, the Mayor and
Council’s approval of the recommended future land use map would make the proposed
text amendment not only a moot issue, but if approved would create a direct conflict
with that future land use without this. Is it appropriate for me to ask for clarification on
some things concerning this map? The future land use map currently identifies the site
concerns as -- and I quote: Change industrial to public park, office, or residential. Staff
agrees with the mixed use designation. In a discussion that I had with staff this
afternoon I was given an interpretation that mixed use would be an overlay zone that
would allow industrial uses -- I need help. That's okay. So what I'm saying is is that
even what's being shown on this map, there is -- it is not clear what staff means,
because if you take it as it states, which I'm quoting: Change industrial to public park,
office, or residential, staff agrees with the mixed use designation. I had a discussion
with staff this afternoon and he gave me the interpretation that mixed use would be an
overlay zone that would allow industrial uses. We need clarification, because if it’s
mixed use of public park, office, and residential and that's mixed use, then that’s
something, obviously, that we could go for, but if mixed use means that they can just
tuck in industrial uses, which can be done under mixed use areas, then we do have a
concern about that. We do not support the Comprehensive Plan text amendment,
which would allow industrial uses even under mixed use review. Sorry. Any proposed
Comprehensive Plan text amendment should not proceed prior to or at a very minimum
concurrent to corollary changes and updates to the city's implementing ordinances.
The only industrial designation that the city has at this time is an open-ended, all-
compassing industrial zone. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment
were approved, it would result in 34.6 acre area of unlimited industrial uses to be
located in the very center of residential neighborhoods, both existing and proposed.
While the applicant of the text amendment may contend that the intended use would be
some mixed light industrial, no such zoning classification exists in the City of Meridian.
The net result would be to grant developers a vested right to place any industrial use in
this area and I won't waste any of my time. I hope that all of you have had an
opportunity to look at what the industrial uses as currently defined in the City of
Meridian are. Okay.
Corrie: Wrap up, please.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 43
Hennings: Yes. Just one more area. The proposed Comprehensive Plan text
amendment is simply not in the best interest of City of Meridian or its residents, as
evidenced by extensive public testimony, testimony and recommendation from public
agencies, and testimony from local property owners. The proposed text amendment is
being proposed by a single developer for a single proposed development site, which is
not appropriate for this site. I understand that we are dealing with what appears to be
two separate issues. On one side we have the Comp Plan with text amendment and
future land use and on the other side site specific development, annexation, and zoning
conditional use, but they are really interrelated. You begin with a text amendment that
goes to the rezone then you have annexation. A developer's application cannot be
denied by the city and the city can only apply current adopted zoning regulations, not
future ones, to that application. The bottom line is we are opposed to the text
amendment and an industrial designation of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to
present this information to you. On behalf of myself and the citizens that I represent I
deeply request that the Mayor and Council deny this proposed Comprehensive Plan
text amendment. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Thank you. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Hennings, had you seen this proposal by Mr. Forrey?
Hennings: No, I had not.
Nary: Okay. Do you have a comment about it? Do you have a comment about it? I
mean that's a significant change from what has previously been proposed and I
wondered if you had any comment.
Hennings: I still contend that with the -- with the text change amendment we are still
opening ourselves up for what I perceive to be problems in holding in check what is
going to be allowed on this property. I mean my personal stand is -- and I hope I'm not
-- the people I represent aren't upset by this, but we are really hoping that this new map
that is going to be presented is what we can look forward to and not mixed use with
industrial use. We are hoping that what is recommended by staff, which was a change
from industrial, to go public park, offices, or residential. That is what we would like to
see.
Nary: Mrs. Hennings, the other thing -- I guess I was curious about your comment that
we couldn't deny a request for annexation and I don't know what you base that on.
Hennings: No. The application to the city.
Nary: For annexation?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 44
Hennings: No. What I'm saying is that the order that this all being taken, okay, it starts
with a text amendment.
Nary: Right.
Hennings: And then what we are asking for is a rezone.
Nary: No. It's not part of the city currently it has to be annexed.
Hennings: Okay.
Nary: We are never obligated to annex anyone's property just because they ask.
Hennings: Okay.
Nary: They have to ask. But at the time they ask is the time when the zoning is applied
as to what the staff or Planning and Zoning Commission and this Council believes is
appropriate at the time they ask.
Hennings: So I got my annexation and rezone mixed up?
Nary: Right. We never have to annexation anyone just because they ask for it.
Hennings: Okay.
Nary: Once they ask we have to annex it. Once we annex it we zone it to what’s
appropriate.
Hennings: Okay.
Nary: What's proposed on that map -- one of the proposals, which hasn't been
approved by this Council, is a mixed use zone, which is what they are proposing.
Hennings: It's not -- so the map isn't right?
Nary: No. That map is just -- that map includes every request that everyone made in
regards to the land use map, some of which the staff agreed with, some of which the
staff doesn't agree with, some of which the staff has left open for the Council to decide
what the Council would like it to be. But it's just a proposal. It has everyone's request,
whether they -- it's a small request or a large request, this particular piece on that
proposed map has park, mixed use, residential -- sort of a -- basically left open for this
Council to decide exactly what's to go there. What they are asking is a mixed use that
would allow, as Mr. Forrey stated, public input every time, anything they wanted to do
would require a public hearing, because the conditional use process requires that. So
you would always have an opportunity to comment about what goes there. So now,
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 45
understanding how the process works, what are your thoughts there as to at least what
they are asking us to do?
Hennings: At this point I would have to say we are still not in favor of any kind of
industrial on this particular parcel of land.
Nary: I think Mr. Forrey's statement, Mrs. Hennings, was that the Sanitary Services
piece is about -- I thought I heard it's 200 feet from the plant, the furthest piece, and that
the -- that it stops 800 feet or 1,000 feet from the homes. I mean that's almost 300
yards. I mean that's a long way. You still think that's just not compatible?
Hennings: No. I don't think any of what is being proposed that deals with industrial
whatsoever is appropriate in the middle of our neighborhood and I'm talking about
industrial --
Nary: You don't think the wastewater treatment plant is in the middle of your
neighborhood?
Hennings: Yes.
Nary: So even if there was a building across Ustick Road that's two stories tall that
went all the way from this end of the property on the west end, all the way to Ustick
Road and you couldn't even see the treatment plant from your house-
Hennings: And you know what, I wouldn't be able to see the beautiful trees. I wouldn’t
be able to see the creek. That is a beautiful area out there.
Nary: I understand that. What I'm asking, ma'am, is that even if you had a building
here, that's not enough of a buffer from this industrial use, in your opinion?
Hennings: Yes. I mean I -- my stand at this point is we don't want to see industrial --
Nary: Okay.
Hennings: -- use on this parcel of land.
Nary: Thank you.
Hennings: Pardon me?
Corrie: That's all right. You're fine. Anyone else? Raise your right hand. Is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Blumenschien: Yes, it is.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 46
Corrie: Okay.
Blumenschien: Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is George Blumenschien and
I reside at 2911 West Ravenhurst. I guess I can put my hand down. It's still the truth.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Forrey he's a fantastic wordsmith. If I could be as
good of a salesman as him I would definitely get out of the business that I'm in.
Corrie: You're good in the business you're in, too.
Blumenschien: Thank you. I'd like to say, first off, that the bus wasn't our biggest
problem. In fact, our website is call Stop The Dump. The bus people pulled out early in
the game. As we saw in our original meeting that the bus people were hot and heavy to
get to this closed, get their buses in and to get it rolling. Once the gentleman that came
up here and kind of blew himself up in front of everybody, he had kind of realized he
had lost the battle. They are already looking at other sites right now and so as far as
Mr. Forrey's company being so considerate in letting the bus people off the hook, I think
we have some discrepancy there. Your map that you have, no, I have not seen it. My
problem is I don't care where you stick the recycling, you're not doing a self-contained
building, you're talking about seven ton trucks frequently going in and out of there to
remove garbage, you're talking about excessive waste on the property, I don't care how
big of a buffer. Noise is only one aspect of the situation. I had this beautiful speech,
but after watching that we are going to get two new subdivisions on Ustick, on Meridian
Road, if I'm not mistaken, what, 400 homes, plus other items? The average home has
at least three vehicles. That gives us 1,200 new vehicles on that road. Compound that
with how many garbage trucks -- not only garbage trucks, but other vehicles that are
going to be removing trash, the vehicles that are going to be adding recycling and
maybe even the opportunity for the public to bring their recycling there. What is this
neighborhood going to look like? I'm a small businessman. I believe in growth. The
more growth we have the more people come to my store, but I believe in growth in the
proper area in the property planning. I love Meridian. I don't want Meridian to be
Garden City. I paid good money to go to Meridian. I could go to Garden City and live
next to Gem Pack and listen to the pigs be killed all night and that is my biggest fear --
not my fear of buses and, like I said, it does not matter where they put this treatment
facility or what we call a dump. I'm sure it has more policitically correct words, but it is
not a self-contained unit. It is frequented by traffic and we are not going to get any
wider roads on Ten Mile, we are not going to get a wider road in that area and so what
is that area going to look like with, again, 1,200 cars and all these items? You can paint
a picture -- and I know this is only a text amendment, but there is a thing called a war
and in order to win a war you must conquer a group of battles. One of the first battles
that Mr. Forrey is waging is to get this text amendment and it's just another step in the
process to eventually accomplishing his goal, which is to have that property be sold or
be utilized, because he does not get a check until that project is closed. So his
interests are personal, for personal gain. His interest is not in the community or the
interests of the City of Meridian. If you were going to put a mental hospital in there,
then we would have an argument, because you are encouraging or are fostering
infrastructure in order to help people, but putting a waste recycling there and telling me
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 47
that there is no other place to put it, does not sound to me that it's benefiting the City of
Meridian. I'm a very simple man, I see things that are in front of me. I'm not a
wordsmith such as him and I don't have the eloquence or the intelligence of the people
I’m facing, but just facts tell me you stick 1,200 cars out there. You stick seven ton
trucks down there, they are going to be moving around at 3:00, which is when they
have their shift change, you're going to have children in the neighborhood and, you
know what, I can't believe that as the City of Meridian you cannot find a home for
Sanitary Services. One thing real quick. The Department of Environmental Quality has
not received any plans regarding the proposed Sanitary Services transfer station in
Meridian. So it tells me that they are not even interested until this guy says it's a go.
So these people aren't even applying. The EPA also has given a guideline on what to
look for and if you read these guidelines, you'd almost laugh that we are even here
tonight as to what is required. So, like I said, I can leave these with you and I guess -- I
don’t even need to tell you this, I am against it and I am not against this particular
project, I am just against it in this particular location.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, George. Anyone else like to issue testimony that hasn't -- if
it’s the same thing you have done before, I don't want to hear it, but if it's different, step
right there, sir. If it's not the same thing, that's fine. Raise your right hand. Do you
swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Crane: Yes, I do.
Corrie: State your name and address, please.
Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3610 West Ustick Road. I would like to talk
about the area and the wording of the proposed text amendment. Here is pictures I’d
like to -- these are the three subdivisions that are immediately adjacent and this is the
subject property. This is -- the green part is my house or my property. Across from
Nine Mile Creek is the existing farmhouse there and this is our location. As you can see
from those pictures and if you can -- you have Dakota Ridge, Candlestick, or
Inglewood. I'd like to compliment the City Council on doing such a fine job of working
with the developers to make such a beautiful location. We can see the effort you guys
put into the landscaping and working with the developers to make a beautiful
neighborhood and there is Candle -- I said light -- yes, Candlelight and then there is
Inglewood. So what a fine job the City Council has done to make this a beautiful area.
I'm not sure if you have approved Bridgetower Subdivision yet, but I'm sure you’ve
worked very hard with them to make a beautiful landscaping and a good design and
what I'm saying is the wording on this text amendment says that we want to place
industrial next to the waste treatment plant. These are the areas next to the waste
treatment plant. The waste treatment plant doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is the area.
So you can change the wording, it would be the same thing. It says we encourage
industrial development next to residential homes, because this is the same area we are
talking about. There were a couple other pictures, but for time wise I won't go on those,
I will just leave these pictures with Mr. Berg of the industrial development. Then there
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 48
are some of the other proposed uses. This being an industrial area, this is an example
of an industrial recycling center in Boise called Pacific Recycling. And originally they
started the same as these, just a little industrial area, I'm sure to get through their
planning and zoning and city council, they looked real nice to start with, but how long
before our neighborhood becomes that. That's one of our big concerns. And, you
know, once we start down this road where does it stop? Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Beckwith: Yes.
Corrie: Your name and address, please.
Beckwith: I'm Ken Beckwith, 2866 West Park Stone Street. I'm also opposed to the
text change. I have testified before against the buses. I just want to clarify that I’m
against all of the development in that area. The Sanitary Services picks up my trash in
the summertime -- well, all year around, really, but in the summertime at least once a
month I have to go out and hose off the road in front of my house from the drippings
that comes out of that sanitary truck and if it gets on my driveway where they are only
parking there for a moment or two, what are they going to over there? Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else? Is the testimony you're about to give tonight the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Newcomb: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Newcomb: My name is Paul Newcomb. I reside at 3837 West Harbor Point Drive here
in Meridian. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan was actually quite visionary in its approach
to dealing with the area surrounding the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Forrey, I must
commend you on your work on that plan. Wastewater treatment plants are notoriously
difficult neighbors. The Meridian Public Works Department is to be commended for the
quality of the work they do in mitigating the impact of their presence. Several thousand
of us Meridianites are next-door neighbors to the plant, yet we do not complain about it
as it is very well managed. To put a large industrial district next to it would only leave
the door open to creating a very large problem where one is currently not existing.
Industrial zoning in this area would not only add fuel to the fire, but would introduce the
spark. Leaving the text amendment out of the '93 Comp Plan and keeping the door
open for development of a community park is the best possible choice this Council
could make. Putting a park at the intersection of the two -- at the intersection of two of
the three major walking paths diagonally traversing the city makes tremendous sense.
As well, we are environmentally aware landscape architecture applied to this site, it
would help mitigate not only the visual impact of the wastewater treatment plant, but
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 49
also odor generation. On the topic of need, I personally note three different youth
athletic leagues looking for space to put playing fields, as well as a single individual
looking to buy 30 acres of ground in which to place a youth soccer field. Currently we
have over 2,500 kids whose parents are going to have to navigate their mini vans full of
mini soccer players onto the sod farm at Eagle Road and Fairview, navigating the
busiest intersection in Idaho while trying to keep a van load of miniature soccer players
under control. Does that seem like the best idea to you? We have a thousand -- we
have over 1,000 baseball players who will struggle to find needed baseball diamonds to
play their games. The shortage of park space in Meridian is about to become life
threatening. Unfortunately, it's going to take a semi truck running over a mini van full of
soccer players to drive the point home. Odor or accident? Which is worse? Mention
has been made in the past that the city is against locating a park at this site. I can tell
you just last week numerous park and recreation commissioners stated in open forum
that they would be amenable to considering relocating the red asterisk marked C-1 in
the comprehensive parks and recreation system plan. C-1 is currently shown to be
located at McMillan Road just west of Black Cat. C-1 could be moved back to the
location shown back on the land use map of the '93 City of Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. The only ingredient lacking to make this prime opportunity a reality is the ability
for the parks and rec department to have a reasonable purchase price. Mr. McNelis,
Mr. Blazer, and Mr. Forrey, the ball is in your court. It's time to come play as a member
of team Meridian. Here we have a tremendous opportunity for developers to show the
residents of the City of Meridian that they are concerned about giving something
valuable back to the community, rather than just selling the land for personal profit.
Working with an organization such as Friends of Meridian Parks could benefit the
developer with tremendous tax benefits, as well as favorable public impressions such
partnership would produce. Pardon me for sounding like a public relations major, but
the publicity value of this partnership alone could provide returns well in excess of the
monetary differential. Mr. Forrey, you told the Idaho Statesman you wanted to work with
the neighbors. Well, here is your chance. 305 residents signed a petition stating they
would be willing to work with all the involved parties to come up with an acceptable
solution to the problem of what to put around the wastewater treatment plant. This
same group of people could become your greatest advocates if you will just take
advantage of the current level of interest in turning it into a publicity coup of gigantic
proportions. Ladies and gentlemen the time has come for those of us who live here to
once again become active in our city, rather than just using it as a place to eat, sleep,
and do our laundry. I'm a volunteer commissioner for two hours per month with the
parks and recreation department, but I'm a property tax paying homeowner 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. In case any of you are wondering, I have no aspirations for
running for public office, so take this as an observation from your stay-at-home-dad
neighbor. We all stand around in our cul-de-sacs and complain that Meridian has too
many traffic or doesn't have enough parks for our kids to play in or doesn't have enough
police officers to keep the drugs out of our schools. We complain about our tax dollars
are being frivolously frittered away, ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to tell you Meridian
has one of the biggest bangs for the buck that you will find in city government. Since
being on the parks commission I have come to the realization that Mayor Corrie and
your City Council have been running a city of over 36,000 residents on a tax revenue
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 50
base designed for about 20,000. Now has come the time for us to put up or shut up. If
we want something other than an industrial park on this corner, we need get involved in
helping either raise private funds or provide lobbying services to pass a bond levy to let
our city's governors get the job done. One way or the other it's time for each of us to
decide if we are going to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Mr. Mayor and
Members of the Council, thank you for your stewardship and the opportunity to testify.
Corrie: Thank you, Paul.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Newcomb, I just had a question -- and I don't disagree with a lot of the things
you said and I certainly -- but I'm curious as to my recollection of the park
comprehensive plan, this isn't site for a park. Now ---
Newcomb: That is correct.
Nary: Why is that --
Newcomb: Like has been brought up in so many past meetings, the dots for park sites
are mobile. They are a general area. If you look -- and I don't know if you all have your
parks plan available, but if you will look at the parks plan there is a red dot currently
residing about halfway between Black Cat and McDermott on the south side of McMillan
Road. The topic was brought up at the Parks Commission meeting last week would the
commission even be interested. Were the opportunity to place that dot at the
intersection of the two major traversing trails through the city, which follows the Nine
Mile Drain and the Five Mile Creek, would the commission be interested were a
partnership able to be developed to make a park at the intersection of those two points
and the commissioners said absolutely, it made a tremendous amount of sense.
Nary: Thank you.
Corrie: I believe someone else had their hand up out here. Yes, ma'am. Is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Wilder: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Thank you.
Wilder: Janet Wilder, 3340 North Ten Mile Road. Okay. I want to address City Code
11-15-11, the general standards applicable to zone amendments, and more particularly
I wanted to address the transportation issues. Item D of the 11-15-11 code asks, has
there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 51
should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, road access being
developed, or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to
proposed rezone area. The only change around the property is residential -- or the
biggest change around is residential. That's the storage unit has been approved and
the Idaho Power substation. But the biggest area around it is residential. To the south
and to the east is all residential or planned residential. There is one piece of property
that is Huskey property that isn't planned yet. Let's see. This means that more cars on
existing roadways. According to the ACHD five-year plan neither Ten Mile nor Ustick
are in the '02 to '06 plan. Ten Mile from Cherry Lane to Ustick widening was delayed at
the request of the City of Meridian to allow Locust Grove overpass to proceed. It would
be at least 2005 before it will be completed. Ten Mile Road to Franklin and -- let's see.
Ten Mile Road, Franklin to Pine Avenue, is at least '07 and Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry, '06.
Number F on that same zoning: Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing
to existing or future neighborhood uses. Number one, it will be a hazard to all existing
residential neighbors. A, there will be 200 to 300 -- and it sounds like more than that,
diesel buses added to existing roadways. There will be that same number of bus driver
vehicles added to the existing roadways. There will be 12 or more trash trucks added
to the existing roadways. Traffic created by the recycling plant added to existing
roadways. There is no traffic signal at Ustick and Ten Mile and none is planned for five
to seven years and the ACHD report estimates over 3,006 trips per day from this
property. G on that same zoning will the area be served adequately? That's it.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify? Okay. Hearing none, Wayne,
you have the last crack at it.
Forrey: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Let me try and clarify and add some
information to address the neighbor concerns. To Mr. David Booth, we will look at
specifics and it's very difficult -- we could have come to this without showing any site
plan, but then the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission both say they want to
see what's on the ground before we even talk about this project. Staff said the same
thing, that the Council and the city leadership wants to see specifics. So that's why we
presented the drawings of the lots and the drawings of Sanitary Services and the
layouts of Western Recycling and yet when we do that everyone starts, you know,
poking holes at it, understanding that they want to see more specifics. So, hopefully,
the Council will see that by taking two-thirds of this site and putting it into a Conditional
Use Permit category and mixed use approach, that allows Mr. Booth, plus everyone
ample opportunity through the Conditional Use Permit process to really get down to the
fine pencil on how to design these uses in this business park. To Mrs. Henning’s
comments, I think basically your concerns can be addressed again through the
Conditional Use Permit process and we are here supporting that. The Planning and
Zoning Commission asked us to consider that. The neighbors very forcefully said that
that’s what we want and we are agreeing with that. As to that process that I think we
can find the correct buffer here, what is near the treatment plant is an industrial use and
as we get farther from the treatment plant and closer to the neighborhood, it's all subject
to Conditional Use Permits and, of course, the Development Agreement approach as
well through a mixed use principle. But this policy that we are talking about could and
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 52
should apply to the west side of the treatment plant property and the north side. We are
just on the south side. The east side is defined already with Industrial Storage that the
city has already approved. So this doesn't just apply to Falcon Creek, but it helps the
city in terms of setting public policy for this area that you own and control. To Mr.
Blumenschien's comments, 400 new homes, that's 800 new trashcans. You know, what
do you expect Sanitary Services to do? Where physically should they locate in this
community? They have to provide the service. Every plat that is approved by the city
means X number of waste containers and they don't have land to park an extra truck,
but they are contractually mandated to provide that service and so they sought this site
out thinking, well, this ought to be a logical place. When we first started this process,
everyone said that makes sense. Let's put Sanitary Services next to the waste
treatment plant. I think it's when we introduced the bus component that everyone
realized -- and staff used the comment our eyes were opened. Well, we are taking that
component away and hopefully we can still see the need to put Sanitary Services right
next to the waste treatment plant as an appropriate near and adjacent to use. To Mr.
Crane, we can achieve the same landscape design in the photos that he showed. I
helped Roger Anderson with the Sundance Company on Black Eagle Business Center,
helped design that, and that's the kind of a business park we could have here. We can
have the same landscape detail that he showed in the photographs in this nice
business park and that would come through the conditional use process and the
Development Agreement, just like those projects did that he showed. So it's very
possible to make this very compatible with the neighborhoods. Mr. Beckwith, when we
talked, he asked us to make changes, we made changes, and he was one of the folks
that we definitely consulted with. To Mr. -- I think it was McMerra, Paul McMerra’s
comments -- you know, we are really caught here -- the neighbors are caught and we
are got, too. Not me and I'm -- my compensation doesn't -- it's not predicated on a win
or lose. I have worked with this company before, we have an ongoing relationship, but
we are caught here without a public policy. If you take a balloon and you put your hand
on it and you mash it down, some other part of that balloon pops up and then you have
to have another hand to push that down and then another part of that balloon squishes
up and that's what we have got here. We don't have definition. We are all trying to
mash down a balloon that keeps popping up in another direction here with other
questions and comments. We a need public policy that says what are we going to do
with that waste treatment plant. Is it a park? The Comp Plan that we have now says
park, but Meridian passed over that when you were acquiring land for a regional park.
The park master plan doesn't show it as a park. We tried residential, the city said no.
We tried a major technology employment center, the city said no. We tried parking lots
for buses. The city -- I guess you haven't officially said, but the neighbors don't want
that. Now there is some reservation on 12 to 15 sanitation trucks that are in our
neighborhood everyday. It's just a parking facility. We need a public policy here to
define how to approach this property, both from a neighborhood perspective and the
landowner’s perspective, like Falcon Creek, what to do with this land. ACHD has
approved this. We had major traffic studies. We were one of the first projects to
participate and agree to a policy with ACHD on extraordinary impact fees and then the
policy that the Council is talking about tonight and the North Meridian Planning effort
and giving ACHD extraordinary fees to build the arterials, we are subject to that as well.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 53
So we've tried to jump through all of the hoops that were put before us, we tried to
follow the city guidelines on how to develop this property, we have turned our attention
to things that we thought were going to be positive for the neighborhood and we need a
public policy that points us in the right direction again. Hopefully you can approve this
text amendment and we can work with the neighbors through a Conditional Use Permit
process. Be happy to answer any other questions.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Wayne.
Forrey: Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to thank the neighbors, too, for working with us. I
appreciate their help, too.
Voice: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Forrey misunderstood my comment. I feel like --
Corrie: You can tell him afterwards. I don't want to get --
Voice: I don't care about him I want you guys to understand --
Corrie: I think we do. Council, do you have any other questions for the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. With that I will recommend a motion to close the Public Hearing.
McCandless: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 01-
001. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion, Council?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I will start the discussion. I think everybody's made some very excellent
points on both sides of this particular issue. I think there are some very real legitimate
concerns that have been raised by the neighbors by this proposal. I think what Mr.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 54
Forrey’s proposed after talking to the neighbors is what the conditional use process is
all about. It's supposed to allow that discussion, it's supposed to allow that give and
take in discussion on all of these projects. What I have heard -- and I think I'm safe to
say I've heard this discussion more than anybody else up here, never has any of the
discussion from whether it's the Planning and Zoning Commission or this Council has
been to approve what's being requested by Sanitary Services or Western Recycling.
Never has that been anybody's discussion that I have been a part of. All the discussion
has centered around is talking about it, allowing the people to have a conversation
about it. You know, Mr. Forrey raises a very legitimate point as a property owner, as a
representative of a property owner. If you own a piece of property, every one of you
that owns a piece of property, has the ability and wants to use it in a certain way. They
have a right to be able to look at our land use map and the text in the Comprehensive
Plan, come to the city, and ask to use it in the way that the city proposes that it should
be used. Well, Mr. Forrey I think raises a legitimate concern is that as the property
owner they are entitled to do that and the city had indicated at some point back in 1993
that a park is something the city would have considered for that site. What the
testimony has been is when that was proposed the city said no and I don't think that
was a good idea. I wasn't a part of that decision, I don't think anybody else here was
either, I don't think that was a good idea. I don't think there is anything wrong with
having a park there. I don't think that's a bad idea. I think it's a good idea to have a
park there. But the property owner has the right to rely on what the city tells them and
they told them no. So he went back and they looked at something else and the city told
them no. So they went back and looked at something else again and the city said no.
Well, that's not very fair. That's not very fair to anybody. And Mr. Forrey's right in the
regard that somebody needs to say what can you do with this to the property owner, so
they have some way to do that. My perspective has always been that what we need to
do is have a dialogue about it. I was in favor of this to a degree at the Planning and
Zoning Commission, because all this does is say just talk about it. It doesn't say you
get to do anything. It just says you can talk about optional uses and I guess depending
on what the Council -- my view is it should say limited light industrial development may
be considered immediately adjacent to the city's waste treatment plant. That's makes
sense. And if you were asking us in 1995 or in 1998 or 2000, the city would still decide
what’s immediately adjacent, they'd decide what industrial use is appropriate and they
would decide through the conditional use process on whether or not that was a good
idea. I don't live very far from this either, but it is a long way away from a lot of people.
I mean, you know, the concern I have -- and I told some of you when asked that -- is we
do ask people when they want to develop their property to bring in everything. Tell us
everything that's going to be there, even though they are legally not obligated to do it,
so when they do it and we tell them, okay, thank you now for telling us, now you don’t
get to do it anymore, the message to the developer is don't tell us anymore, because
they don't really have to. So that's a very difficult concern that I have in telling people
thanks for sharing, now go away, you don't get to do it anymore, because that's what’s
going to happen and you're going to have a map that looks like this that you don't know
what that's going to be. There is a lot of uses there. There is public testimony, there is
input for it, but the concern is that we are telling people the wrong message when they
come forward and give us everything they'd like to do. By doing that in this case, what
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 55
Falcon Creek has done is saying -- and what the Planning and Zoning Commission did
and what this Council has said is you go back and talk to those neighbors and make it
something they can live with. If they can't, then you may not get it and I think that's
where they are at. They are still at the point that they may not get this just by this
amendment, but this amendment doesn't put this treatment facility in your
neighborhood. This amendment just says let's talk about it, let's come to the table,
because at least for me personally -- I don't know what the rest of this Council thinks,
we need to be open to people coming and talking to us about what they want to do with
their property, rather than just putting that big road signs and say don't come here. That
doesn’t help anybody. And that ends up with people outside in our area of impact
asking the county to make that decision instead, instead of the city and we don't want
that. So that's why we try to create a dialogue, that's all this does to me is create a
dialogue. It doesn't do anything more than that. It doesn't put it in your neighborhood, it
just say let's talks about it. I may not be compatible, I think Mr. Forrey would agree at
the Planning and Zoning Commission that's what I told him, you don't convince these
people you will never get this approved ever, it just isn't going to happen, unless you
can get these people to agree to some degree that this makes some sense to them. I
don’t know what the rest of the Council thinks, but I do think that you have raised some
legitimate concerns about the project, but what this text does is simply open the door to
talk. I hate to see this Council get in a position of saying we don't want to talk to
anybody. We are going to create rules that what happened is in 1993 we created those
rules and now seven years later we are trying to change some of those rules. Because
it’s recognized those were problems that we created trying to manage growth, because
reality sets in that we can't always do those things that way. We can't be so rigid that
we cannot be flexible and the flexibility is why you all are here and why at least this is
suggest that looks a whole lot better than it did before. It may not be what you want
and it may not be approved, but at least it's something better. You wouldn't have got
this if all we had was hard and fast rules trying to decide this all you get, because we
can’t foresee in the future what's a good idea and what makes sense in the market for
homes or anything else. You know, I think Mr. Crane was right. The city did a good job
in approving those projects in that area. Why don't you think they could do the same
thing here? It's still possible to do. If it's not, every one of you -- I don't think I have a
problem with telling us, and then we will make a decision and go on. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other comments from Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess to a certain degree I still can't get over the point of why we are
changing text without looking at the map. Many times in front of us, I hear five different
interpretations of what the texts say. It leaves it too wide open and in an instance
encouraging, a certain use in a specific area. I just strongly feel that it needs to reflect
on a land map and that if you're going to change the text for a specific area that you’re
going to change the land map. I don't know about the rest of you, I look at a map first
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 56
and then read and quite often many people don't get beyond the map and not into the
text. I don't think that we are leaving this piece of property without public policy. We
have been through a two-year update of the Comprehensive Plan that is in the last legs
of the process. I believe that public policy, text, and the map can be done during that
process, because right now we can't change the land use map, even if we wanted to,
until June. So I really don't see someone saying that the city said no to a park there,
that the staff might have said it may not be a good idea, we haven't really figured out
what should go around there, but until it gets to this body it's not no, anyway, from the
processes that I'm familiar with. So I just don't feel comfortable in making a text change
that should be supported with a land use map and in consideration where our land use
map is, it seems inappropriate to take action on this.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess just a follow up comment, though. Where is our public policy on this? I
mean from June of 2000 to December of 2001, from the committee that helped draft the
draft Comprehensive Plan, this is a light industrial site. The entire corner. The entire
piece was a light industrial site. In January of 2001, the Planning staff decided we don’t
want that anymore. We don't have a public policy here. It was a park, then it was a
light industrial site, and now it's a mixed-use site. We don't have any clear direction for
these people -- anyone, any of these people as to what we think is appropriate. So, you
know, if we are not doing this properly, if our planning department isn't doing this
properly, or the Planning and Zoning Commission, then we need to set whatever the
standard is. You know, the bottom dollar -- the bottom line here is we have to set
whatever the standard we want it to be and stick with it. What's happened is we haven’t
had one -- we had one in '93 and at some point somebody decided they didn’t want that
anymore, no one changed the plan, no one changed the text, no one changed anything,
except each time a project came along they just denied it. So, we haven't sent a
straight forward message to anybody, because for a year and a half this was a light
industrial site and in December most of you that were in this room, I think that's the first
time you knew it, that it was a light industrial site. Mr. Crane was right he was here in
December of 2001 saying I don't think that's a great idea. But nobody else did. No
one. And then in January the Planning staff changed their mind and said, oh, we
changed it, we are going to do it different. I mean, you know, we have to be
responsible. The buck has to stop here. You know, it doesn't -- it has no interest to me
one way or the other what we chose to do, but we need to set a policy and stick with it,
no matter what it is. But to give these conflicting plans and conflicting messages and
conflicting zones for this is nuts. I mean it isn't fair to anybody.
Bird: I agree with you, Bill. I do. I don't -- I think that that is part of the problem we
have had all along is we change minds -- like you said, up until January a month ago
this was -- it was light industrial and all of a sudden staff says, no, that isn't acceptable.
So I don't know. I feel sorry for the people that invest their money in it. Park property is
usually purchased because of price and size, that's why it was moved to a mile down
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 57
the east, not only was we allowed to get quite a bit larger regional park, and you're not
-- you know, we are not -- we are not changing, like Councilman Nary said, everything is
to come back in. I mean what we got on the map here isn't what is being voted on
tonight. It's a text change. It doesn’t say that this is going to be the plan that's coming
before us. Everything has to come back through us. I also understand people. You
know, I feel real sorry for some of these people that get hounded in by the -- by their
realtors. We had a message from a person that in 1999 they understood the city still
had plans to buy that for a park. 1993 we bought 56 acres and there were no plans in
'99 that I know of that that would be. Never even mentioned as a park. The only thing
that was on a park was a green dot on a comprehensive plan. I can certainly see both
sides of this story on this.
De Weerd: Mrs. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The buck does stop here, but I didn't see anyone come in and change it, so
right now it's still RUT, there is still a green dot in there and until it's changed, the very
process -- and this process is exactly that, you take testimony, you look at proposals
and that's the beauty of it. You have to look at every angle of a situation and then make
a good decision. Right now, I totally believe that you can't make a text change such as
this site specific without a map change and right now, we cannot make a map change.
We are addressing that through the Comprehensive Plan. Yes, some things have
changed through the proposal of the Comprehensive Plan, but, again, that's the beauty
of the process of the taking public testimony and evaluating it and maybe changing an
opinion because you see worst-case scenario -- oops, we didn't really think this
through. Maybe we need to take a step back and look at it via this process. That is
where we are at with this new Comp Plan, to get some clarification to clarify public
policy and it just doesn't make sense when we are that far into this process to consider
just a text change for a site specific area that's not accompanied by a land use map
change, so –
Corrie: Any other comments?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Nichols, is what we are required for the Council to either approve or deny that
proposed text change by the Planning and Zoning Commission or can we modify it?
Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, my understanding of the
specific state statute simply limits when Planning and Zoning Commission can
recommend a map change to the Council and I don't believe that there is any
prohibition against a modification to the text change. I would also suggest that I'm not
aware on a Comprehensive Plan text change or map change that there is a specific
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 58
requirement in the state statutes as to when that has to be voted up or down. It can be
within a reasonable period of time. So I'm not aware and I'd have to go back and look
at it again, but I don't believe that there is a specific deadline, like there is for the
Planning and Zoning Commission to pass on within 45 days of this hearing, a
recommendation on a proposed land use. So to answer your question, I think it’s
possible to amend it. Also I don't think there is any actual requirement that you have to
vote specifically now, which might address Councilwoman de Weerd's concern about
not changing the text unless you're also addressing the map issue. Since we are -- I
think the next meeting on the Comprehensive Plan is at the end of the month. I believe
it’s the 27th
, to review the specific items in the plan. I mean we are contemplating at
some point we are going to get into this process where this Council is going vote up or
down on a specific Comprehensive Plan map and text. Even though this is a specific
text amendment, I'm not aware that there is a deadline, unless Mrs. Stiles has a
recollection of -- do we have a specific -- in your recollection a specific time period
within which to vote -- for the Council to vote on the proposed text amendment?
Stiles: I don't believe so, no. Are you asking if it's a requirement for --
Nichols: No. I don't recall one. I'm just asking you if you recall that there is any specific
statutory deadline.
Stiles: I don't recall anything.
Nichols: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess then if is the suggested text change for the 1993 Comprehensive
Plan, I would make a motion to deny the text change as proposed.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to deny the request for text change. Is there a
second? Okay.
McCandless: I'll second that, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. There is a second. Further discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I guess the only discussion I would have -- and I appreciate Mr.
Nichols’ comment and maybe we can't reach a resolution tonight. I think these people
have come to this meeting enough -- I mean I guess just whatever we do, there should
be a resolution to this issue and let's get passed the '93 plan. Let's focus on the new
plan and let's go forward with whatever we want to do, so these folks know where we
are at and we can have closure on one issue and let's deal with the new plan whatever
it's going to be.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 59
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Mr. Berg, roll-call vote, please.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, nay; de Weerd, aye; Bird, nay.
Corrie: I knew it was coming down to me. I think that Mr. Nary's absolutely right we
need to address the bigger picture here. I understand that this is not the point that we
are going to come to any decision here, but under the circumstances, I really feel that
we need to address the main picture. Under the circumstances and from what I have
heard tonight, I do want to thank everybody for their testimony, but I think we should put
an end to this one and do it correctly and, therefore, I'm going to vote naye. So the
request for text change denial is denied.
Bird: No. No. Approved.
Corrie: Motion was denied. Oh. Okay. It's still a nay.
Bird: You need another one.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm going to move -- and I guess I don't know whether or not we need to move to
amend separately, Mr. Nichols, from the motion to approve. Would you think that would
be better?
Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, if you're going to propose
some alternative language, then I don't think it's a motion to amend. I think you would
simply have to state what it is you wanted it to say and move to approve that, because
this is not really the Council's amendment, it's not something proposed by the Council.
You just have to state what you would like to do.
Nary: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, what I would move is that we amend the text in the 1993
Comprehensive Plan, text only, to read, limited light industrial development may be
considered immediately adjacent to the City's Waste Treatment Plant.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. All right. Motion has been made and seconded to amend the text as
stated in the motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 60
De Weerd: I will just restate before I vote against this. My whole issue about this is
right now we are going through a process of the Comprehensive Plan. It's through the
public process where a lot of this can be resolved in the new plan and leaving the old
plan with a new text change without a land use change is inappropriate, in my opinion,
so --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I get one, too, then. All I'm going to say is, just in case for the people
here, is this is just the ability to discuss it. That is all it is. It allows this developer to talk
to you people about a proposal that they want to do. It doesn't approve anything.
There is no approval of this plan or a proposed change or anything by this text change.
It is merely a means of a process to allow a dialogue. Do I think a park should be
there? Yes, I think a park would be a great use of that property. I think that would be
great. But that language won't -- does not allow a park to be there, it doesn't do
anything.
Corrie: We are not taking public testimony now, we are --
Voice: We are being lectured to and --
Corrie: If you don't shut up I'm going to have you put out. We are doing this -- trying to
do this the best way we can. Okay? All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other
comments? Okay. Okay. Mr. Berg, roll-call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, nay; Bird, aye.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I changed my vote, because of the language in there, the fact that it was
light industrial and the word may and I think it goes along with Mr. Nary's contention that
it gives a voice to everyone, not just -- not just telling them what it's going to be, but we
can all talk about it.
Corrie: Okay. With the vote, there was three ayes, one nay, and then the amended
verbiage stands. At this time, let's have about a 10-minute break.
RECONVENED AT 9:50 P.M.
Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 01-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.83
acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 61
Phase II by Sundance Investments - southeast corner of East Overland
Road and South Eagle Road:
Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 01-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31
building lots on 7.83 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed
Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments -
southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road:
Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 01-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
High-Tech Fabrication, office, retail and Health Club in a proposed C-G
zone for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance
Investments - southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle
Road:
Corrie: Okay. I'll reconvene the City Council at 10 minutes until 10:00. Items Number
13, 14, and 15 is all requested by the Silverstone Corporate Center. The first request is
for annexation and zoning, the second is a Preliminary Plat approval, and the third is a
request for Conditional Use Permit for High-Tech Fabrication, office, retail, and Health
Club. At this time, with the Council's approval, I will open the Public Hearing on Item
13, 14, and 15, and we will have the staff report first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a request for annexation and zoning, a
Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit for a proposed extension of the
Silverstone Corporate Center. The annexation area is basically in this portion right
here. The reason the rest of it is highlighted is it's actually part of a larger parcel at this
time. However, the purchase is just being made for the property immediately adjacent
to Silverstone Corporate Park No. 1 and immediately north of the Ridenbaugh Canal.
So it's a natural separation between the development that's currently in the process of
going through Planning and Zoning and will be to you in the future. They are requesting
a zone of C-G. With that request for annexation and zoning, they are also requesting
that the Development Agreement be amended to incorporate this property. That
Development Agreement incorporated several uses, some of which are not approved in
a C-G zone, but they were approved as part of the Development Agreement. The
Preliminary Plat shows an extension -- actually, it's a modification of the previously
approved plat that went only to -- I believe approximately this area here. This is the
7.83 acres that's being proposed for annexation tonight. One of the recommendations
from the Planning and Zoning Commission that they be allowed to modify or remove
this cul-de-sac that is shown on the plat and that it not be considered a significant
change because of some of the tenants that they are courting at this time and they
would like to be able to modify that to meet the needs of potential tenants. In the
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on page three of the
Preliminary Plat recommendation there was submitted a position statement from David
McKinnon of our staff that clarified what the motion of the Planning and Zoning
Commission was. On page three, the first paragraph five on that page, should be
changed to read: The 35 foot landscape buffer shall be recorded as an easement and
not as a common lot. As we told you before, our landscape ordinance does require the
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 62
common lots to be separate common lots within the subdivision. However, that is taking
that property off the tax rolls and is also causing some problems with the commercial
development as far as ownership. On paragraph six immediately below that it should
read, a note shall be added to the base of the plat indicating that all the required
landscape easements be owned and maintained by the business owners association.
There has also been a reference -- I don't know if you have seen all the comments on
this project. I wish Mr. Kuntz were here to clarify his comments that he has made. He's
referring to a micropath between Lots 5 and 6 and 11 and 12, which would be roughly in
this location here and also here. I don't know if anyone else has any background on
what that means, but it appears to maybe mean he expects some kind of a connection
over the canal to extend to the pathway -- a future path -- the road for the Ridenbaugh I
believe is on the north side of the Ridenbaugh in this location. This road that they are
proposing here would extend through -- maybe you can see it better. Would eventually
extend through this property and connect at approximately this location, also perhaps
be extended through this property, but staff did not -- the Planning and Zoning staff did
not recommend that micropath be provided to this development and just would like to
make note of that. There is a proposed pathway for an application that you have not
yet seen that is a planned development, predominately residential, on the south side of
the Ridenbaugh. The Conditional Use Permit would be for the same uses that were
proposed in the original annexation. In the near future you will be -- have another
application come before you to revise that Development Agreement to incorporate
some other uses that weren't permitted as part of the Development Agreement, to
request some modification of those uses. We believe this project to be a natural
extension of the already approved project in the area and, again, this is a cul-de-sac
that is being proposed to be modified at some time in the future, either modified or
removed. Staff would recommend approval of these applications with all staff and
agency conditions as amended and we ask that you give us some clarification on the
parks' comments, so we know how to proceed on that issue, and that’s all I have.
Thanks.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess it's hard to try and figure out what the Parks' comment was, but did I
understand you to say on the other side of that ditch is a recommendation for a
pathway?
Stiles: In our current Comprehensive Plan it does designate the Ridenbaugh Canal as
a multiple use pathway, which we are trying to get through some obstacles there with it
-- even proposing that, but the pathway that's proposed by the adjacent proper owner to
the south would be immediately adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal on the south side. I
will read what the comment was from the parks department. It says there needs to be a
ten foot wide hard surface pathway located at the bottom of the bank of the Ridenbaugh
Canal. Also a 20-foot landscape buffer between edge of the path and nearest building
lot. It needs to run from Eagle Road east to the farthest point east and I don't know if
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 63
there was any discussion with the applicant on that proposal and, unfortunately, he's not
here to maybe tell us what his thinking was in making that comment.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: The proposed elevations of the buildings to be expected to be built out there.
This is a concept of the general feeling of the development and unless you have
questions, that's all I have. Thank you.
De Weerd: I have nothing more.
Corrie: Okay. Shari, tell me about this Development Agreement. Roger was talking
about it. Is it still that Oregon Company wanting to put in the building there with the
solvent?
Stiles: That is what the future request for a Development Agreement amendment would
be. The Development Agreement that's currently in place as specific uses that are
approved as part of this project. They don't include the uses they are proposing for this
one building and because the Development Agreement requires that any modification to
those uses come back before you with the -- as a Public Hearing --
Corrie: Specifically.
Stiles: That's why they will be requesting that.
Corrie: All right. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Is the representative
of the developer here this evening? Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony
you’re about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Larsen: Yes, sir.
Corrie: State your name and address, please.
Larsen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. My address is
210 Murray Street in Garden City. I'm here this evening representing Sundance
Investments Limited Partnerships. It has been about a year since I think we were
before you on the project and it's finally underway. We are seeing some activity out
there, so we need to thank you and staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission for
your efforts on it. Two of the buildings are underway, the entry gate, the landscaping is
around the perimeter of the project, and tonight we were asking to add this portion of
property down here and the annexation of that into Silverstone. Initially under the
application, there was some discussion about having a connection road that would
travel between Eagle Road and the adjacent property, basically a half-mile road. That
was pretty much impossible to do, because it rendered this parcel here unusable by
Sutherland Farms and so, consequently, there was some suggestions made that Mr.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 64
Anderson consider purchasing that parcel and working on getting this particular road in
place. He's done that and he's willing to go forward with this annexation request and
zoning and he's also -- at the same time has negotiated with the Highway District for
these access points. This road was moved a little bit farther to the north to facilitate
better clearance with the bridge that crosses the Ridenbaugh Canal, better sight
distances, better views, et cetera. So, consequently, it's not right on the property line
now and it's allowed him to expand this property. We had reviewed the staff report and
had a few comments on that that we would like to see if you would give some
consideration to clarifying for us and/or potentially modifying and one of the items was
the one that Shari had mentioned. We had asked that this area be somewhat flexible
and that we might be able to delete that cul-de-sac in order to put a user in that location
that might be a larger user. Since that request at City Council we have also had
another user -- or, excuse me, Planning and Zoning, had another user come in that
would like to take this area here and so we might ask for your consideration to give us a
little flexibility on as many of the cul-de-sacs as you can. There is a condition in the
staff report that says we can build over -- we can build a building over multiple lots. The
problem with doing that is if we actually do dedicate the right-of-way, then we have to go
back and vacate the right-of-way. So if we had a little flexibility between now and the
time we put the final plat before you and between now and the time we get some more
marketing done on it, it would give us a better chance to land some employment based
people in the City of Meridian. The other item that -- so we were actually in
concurrence with staff and Planning and Zoning to allow us some flexibility here if we
would like to ask for a little more flexibility on the south side of what is called Copper
Point Way. The next item I wanted to talk about is there was a comment in here that
they -- the project could be considered a separate project or could be incorporated into
the existing Development Agreement. I believe when we did the Development
Agreement we had some flexibility for taking in what was defined as the Sutherland
parcel and including that in the Development Agreement. That parcel makes up about
80 percent of the total site, so we would propose to extend the existing Silverstone
Development Agreement to the new eight acre parcel that we are request for
annexation, so that the entire project would be consistent and would be under one
Development Agreement. Shari's already indicated that we would like to note that the
one change be a -- for the common lots and instead of common lots along here we
could use easements for landscape and those would be shown as permanent
easements on the plat. It allows us some flexibility in how we sell the property. The
other item I wanted to talk about, which Shari had briefly mentioned, was the pathway
system. When we -- before we -- just before we were supposed to go to the Planning
and Zoning Commission I called Dave McKinnon and asked him if it was his intent to
have a pathway system along here, since there was already one being proposed for the
south side of the canal. He had subsequently called Mr. Kuntz and said, no, they only
needed it on one side or the other and if it was already planned on the south side, then
it wouldn't need to be on the north side at this point in time. That's how we kind of got
to that confusion and I asked Shari before the hearing if we could somehow reach
clarification on that, because it wasn't really clear in the parks department comment and
would like to make sure that we have an understanding on that, I guess. Then the only
thing under the -- under the Conditional Use application that we had also talked to the
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 65
Planning and Zoning Commission about was -- I believe it's Item Number 2. It says the
City of Meridian may impose restrictions and conditions in addition to the current city
ordinances and we were requesting that that be changed to: As defined by the
Development Agreement. Didn't want to impose restrictions or changes that were
different than might be agreed to in the Development Agreement. Then you had some
question about the large user that was still looking at the site. Mr. Mayor, they are
definitely interested in the site. Timing is an important thing to them, obviously, at this
point. They need to make a decision on the site very shortly. We had sent some
preliminary information to Shari requesting -- or asking information on how we might
modify the Development Agreement to include some of the uses that they do within
their facility and she indicated to us that that needed to go back through the Public
Hearing process. I believe that Mr. Anderson's attorney has tried to reach Mr. Nichols
and I’m not sure they have made contact yet or not, but it's probably been a phone tag
issue to clarify how that procedure might work. But, obviously, in the interest of trying to
get a large user there, timing is everything and speed is important in their case. So we
wish you might consider that in anything you see coming up.
Corrie: Yes. I know Roger is very aggressive.
Larsen: Yes. We really like him to be aggressive, because it gives us more projects to
draw.
Corrie: I understand.
Larsen: I think that was basically all the comments I had this evening. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any questions? All right. Very good. Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony on this
application? Okay. Council, anything else you'd like to hear in the Public Hearing part
of it? If you don't, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on 13, 14, and 15,
Silverstone Corporate Center, annexation and zoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use
Permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 01-025, and PP 01-025, and CUP
01-043.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 66
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to close the Public Hearing on
request for annexation 025, request for Preliminary Plat 025, and -- PP 025, and the
CUP 143, Conditional Use Permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of
the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Further discussion on the request? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion,
then, on the request for the annexation and zoning of AZ 01-025.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the annexation and zoning of 7.83 acres from R-1
to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance
Investments and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law and Decision of Order and staff comments included.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
annexation and zoning to a C-G zone and for the staff comments and the attorney to
draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: In this recommendation, the staff addressed the applicant request to include
this in their original Development Agreement.
Bird: Yes, it does. I believe that was in there. Wasn't that -- Shari, wasn't that your
comment that this was to be included in the original development?
Shari: Tammy's nodding her head yes.
Bird: The Development Agreement?
Shari: Tammy is nodding her head yes. I mean --
De Weerd: On Page 2, Number 4.
Bird: Yes, it is.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 67
Shari: And could we get some clarification on that park comment, too?
Bird: Would that be under that now or would that in the Preliminary Plat?
Shari: I guess it would be in the plat and the Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: And also the cul-de-sacs will be in the plat. Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Request for annexation and zoning for a C-G zone is approved, with
the staff comments.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Item Number 14 is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots on
7.83 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'll take an attempt at this. If I miss something, let me know, guys. I move we
approve the Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots on 7.83 acres in a proposed C-
G zone for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments,
southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road and to include the
option of the cul-de-sacs on the south of Copper Point Way as needed. We have
already in our development if I remember already, let it go from lot to lot if the building is
big enough. Also the recommendation by the parks department to delete that now that
the other plan is on for the south side of the Ridenbaugh and, yes, the 35 foot
landscape buffer will be an easement, instead of a common lot. With that said, the
attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of
Order. I believe I got everything.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
Preliminary Plat, which includes the options, to delete the pathway, and the 35 foot
landscape buffer be an easement, for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law in the motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 68
De Weerd: Page 2, Item Number 4, is a special note to Council and it's regarding that
curb, gutter, and sidewalk for the half mile sketch along both sides of Eagle Road and
Overland. The developers and staff are recommending development of those.
However, ACHD is not very supportive or has not been supportive. I think it would be
important to note that in our recommendation, underline it, and maybe instruct staff to --
or the Mayor to write a letter to the Commission and make Council's preference known
and see if we can emphasize it. If they don't agree with it, maybe it can be a topic at
our joint meeting.
Corrie: Along with 14 others.
De Weerd: I do think we need to make special note to that and ask the Mayor to write a
letter emphasizing that recommendation.
Corrie: Okay. We will do.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: If Council so agrees. Okay. All right. Any other comments? Hearing none,
roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Item Number 15, request for Conditional Use Permit, 043, for High-Tech
Fabrication, office, retail and Health Club in a proposed C-G zone.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for High-Tech
Fabrication, office, retail, and Health Club in a proposed C-G zone for the proposed
Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments, southeast corner of
East Overland Road and South Eagle Road. On the recommendations change Number
2, instead of impose restrictions and conditions. It's as per Development Agreement,
and other staff comments and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the request for the
Conditional Use Permit with the changes in number two and the staff comments
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 69
included and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers for the Conditional Use
Permit, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28
building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC - 2435
South Meridian Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes
in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak
Development, LLC - 2435 South Meridian Road:
Item 18: Public Hearing: VAR 01-019 Request for a Variance to Exceed 1,000
feet maximum length requirement and to allow the public road being
proposed to exceed 450 feet maximum length requirement in an R-8 zone
for Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC - 2435 South
Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item Number 16, 17, 18 is, again, request for Preliminary Plat for Kodiak
Subdivision, request for Conditional Use Permit and a Planned Unit Development for a
private RV storage and reduced lots sizes. Also request for a variance to exceed
1,000-foot maximum length requirement and to allow a public road being proposed to
extend 450 feet maximum length requirement in an R-8 zone by Kodiak Subdivision. At
this time, I will open the Public Hearing on Items 16, 17, 18 and invite staff comments
first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is project was re-noticed for a Public Hearing to
show the different versions of the plat that have been proposed on this project to
incorporate recommendations from various agencies. I believe this is the first plan that
you saw that showed the extension of the public street from Meridian Road to the end
of the residential area and then to just have a private driveway connection extending
into the RV storage area. I'm going to have to have Jim explain the different versions
here, but this one must show the gate at the end. I'm not quite sure. They both look
the same to me, but I can't see it it's so small. Then this was the latest version that
would allow direct access to the Meridian-Kuna Highway with the commercial portion of
the development and allowing some access to the commercial area or the office area
internally from the residential -- residentially zoned area and the public road connection
to the existing Bear Creek Subdivision. Kodiak Subdivision -- this is just showing how
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 70
Bear Creek is currently, how it's been approved. This shows the proposed development
in relation to the Bear Creek Subdivision. This was intended to show the differences in
the size of the lots in the adjacent development and this is a larger version of that that
shows the square footages of the adjacent approved lots within the Bear Creek
Subdivision. Showing the existing residences adjacent to the site and the north
boundary from State Highway 69. This is the Kennedy lateral that is currently piped
through Elk Run Subdivision and this is also where the sewer line would need to be
extended to serve the property. More pictures of the area. Then the request for the
variance was due to exceeding the block length requirement. There is no opportunity
for extension into the adjacent Bear Creek Subdivision, because of the way that was
approved, and then to the south is the Nazarene church property. Staff did recommend
denial of this project due to the fact that it did not meet either past or current ordinances
for the planned development and that's all the comment I had. Thank you.
Corrie: Staff, thank you. Any comments or questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Specifically, Shari, what does not -- what doesn't it meet in those
ordinances?
Stiles: The variance -- the lot frontages, the size of the lots, the -- well, Mr. Jewett was
using the old ordinance in some areas and the new ordinance in some areas. He
submitted it under the old ordinance it did not meet the terms of that ordinance. There
was allowed a 25 percent reduction in size and it does not meet that. Part of the new
planned development ordinance also has a restriction on the perimeter setback. There
is no allowance for reduced setbacks on the perimeter of the planned development in
the new ordinance. I don't know if you have a list of all those in the original comments
or if you even have access to those. If you will give me a chance I can look back at
that, but that was -- those were the primary issues with the discrepancy in what the
zone is and what was being proposed and the setbacks for that development.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, staff. We have opened the Public Hearing on 16, 17, and
18. Is this developer -- come forward, please. Please raise your right hand. Is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Jewett: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 71
Jewett: Mayor and Council, Jim Jewett, 3090 East Gentry, suite 150, in Meridian. At
our last meeting we discussed showing the different concepts of the different agencies
that you wanted to look at as far as access to the property, so we set out to show those
three concepts. I'll go over them real quickly. Shari, could you help me? Go to that --
one of the first concepts --
Stiles: I'm not sure.
Jewett: All right. I'll go through them. This is the original concept showing original
public road coming in, cul-de-sacking here. It originally had another cul-de-sac coming
here, which Council asked me to remove, but the bollards and gates there and that --
you can't read it, but that's what that indicates, the bollards and the gate, and this
turnaround has been removed. This would be a pedestrian -- emergency, pedestrian,
and access to the RV storage from the residents. That's the original plan. This is the
same layout, but with a private road versus a public road. That's the only difference
between -- you can see it looks like a lot right there, that's now become a lot and it
becomes a private road, not a public. That's the only difference. This one is the new
layout that has been endorsed by ACHD. This layout, because of this particular -- it
actually increased these lots just a little bit per lot, so these lots are slightly wider than
the lots in the other two layouts. We took all three concepts to ACHD and ACHD said
they would only approve this concept. They understood the fact that if City Council
wanted to go with that off of Meridian Road, that that's why the private road concept is
in there, because it's an ITD access and a private, which is only approved by the city, so
Ada County Highway District does not have jurisdiction if you want to use a private
road. It only comes down to ITD and the City Council. The other public road access
they would not accept. I hope you have all the read their letter. I was asked at the
meeting -- they made some very legitimate arguments about access into the neighbors
within Bear Creek -- Shari, go to the Bear Creek map, please. Thank you. There are
comments in there that any resident that will live in here would have to go out here,
down, and through here or around here or around here to get to any other neighbor and
that’s just not general policy of either this city or the Highway District likes to go against.
They like that cross-access, they like to see that and it's hard for me to argue that one
with them. There was a couple comments that ACHD of why don't they just push the
road all the way through to Meridian Road? That opened up a whole other can of
worms that staff told them that you can't now, because there is no signal there. It would
cause too much traffic on that road, couldn't have front-on housing, and they said that
for awhile and then they finally decided on their course, which was approving access to
Bear Creek only, understanding that if you want to go private road without access off of
Meridian Road it's outside of their jurisdiction. Then the next path was ITD and we
worked with ITD since early in January. They wait until the last moment and in the last
couple of days I received two letters from them. I don't know which ones you have, but
the latest letter dated the 12th
indicates that they strongly -- strongly recommend coming
off of Bear Creek, but indicated to me that it's the City Council's choice and that I have
proven to them that I do have accessible rights. The church has accessible rights to
Meridian Road, they cannot be denied, and the fact of the matter is it's been discovered
through the course of discussions with ITD that they granted the church two access
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 72
points. So by doing our plan it actually lost an access point the church originally had
within the agreements when they -- when ITD bought that right of way in 1981 they
granted that property owner two access points and my property one access point. So,
actually, if you look at both parcels together, they are reducing it down to one access
point. So they are gaining from this agreement, regardless if it goes commercial or
residential access, they are still gaining, because their agreement -- when they got this
property in 1981 they indicated that they did have -- the church had two and we had
one. So I know that the representative of West Park, which is the developer of Bear
Creek is here and I know he has lots of questions for you on both issues, so I want to
get this evening over with, I'm sure you folks do, too. I think I'll defer to him, unless you
have any questions, because I will be coming back up after him and --
Corrie: Okay. Council have any questions?
Bird: Not right now.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone from the public like to issue testimony? I have Matt
Schwartz. Well, I can't --
Schultz: No problem. Poor handwriting.
Corrie: Sorry. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Schultz: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you. Give your name and address.
Schultz: No problem. It's Matt Schultz, 200 East Carlton, Suite 104, here in Meridian.
As Mr. Jewett said I do work for the West Park Company, who is a partner in Bear
Creek,LLC, and a developer of the Bear Creek Subdivision. I had a few comments on
this subdivision. I just wanted to start and say that it's usually not our practice to go
around and follow other developers around and oppose them in general. In fact, I have
been in the business for eight years now as an engineer, planner, developer now, and
this is the first I have ever been in this position. However, we thought that this case did
warrant some opposition. We feel strongly about the opposition we have for this project
and if I may probably read through some of the notes I wrote down here, because it’s
getting late and if I say what's on my mind it might get ugly, but I came on board with
West Park last summer. At that time, the annexation had already been submitted and
approved. Mr. Jewett did obtain an R-8 zone. He did agree to R-4 density. I did review
the -- all the minutes. Actually, just today, albeit it was a little bit late, but I did review all
the minutes and the Preliminary Plat was submitted this last fall. At that time we had
already had our phase one approved, which didn't go all the way out to the dark
boundary that you see, that's phase one, two and three, everything to the west of that
line is now constructed. At that time only phase one, but that did provide the stub street
around the backside and the stub street was shown to be the connection point. Our
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 73
final plat was approved and it was way under construction, so this -- our development
was definitely in and approved before this thing was even submitted for annexation
even. Somehow initially I think in the initial noticing process of the annexation -- at least
Craig claims this, I wasn't around personally through this, but it kind of came into the
radar on us. Jewett did talk to Craig, my boss, about this -- you know, until we see an
application we don't really believe everything a developer says they are going to do,
yes, yes, yes. When an application comes in -- the first time we were became aware of
this actually being a real true application was September 5th
, I think the day before the
Planning Commission hearing, I believe, and we did write a letter in opposition that day
when we found out. We weren't able to attend that night. To be honest with you, we
thought based on the staff comments it was going to get shot down. It did not.
Basically, I did go through the minutes and I've got a few comments. I'd like to make
this subjective -- or not -- what's the proper word? As an engineer, a planner, and a
developer I kind of reviewed this, tried to stand back a little bit just of kind of look at
everything, absorb it all, and make a few comments I noticed. This -- it seems to me
that there was initially in the initial representation that this was coordinated with Bear
Creek, somewhat approved by Bear Creek. It seemed to me that’s what I interpreted
from the minutes. I don't think that was true. He might have talked to one of our
partners, he might -- he said, yes, yes, whatever, but he never really coordinated with
us as a major primary developer of this project. We never gave any of our blessings on
this, really, at any point. Like I said before, we were approved with our phase one final
plat before he even submitted. It seems to me that the -- to pursue R-8 zoning with an
R-4 density to be compatible with our R-4 subdivision, that was kind of the intent. Well,
our R-4 subdivision is like 2.2 to the acre. His R-4 subdivision -- he took the R-4. He
went for the 25 percent bonus density, took it all the way to five plus to the acre and
said this is what I deserve, you know, this is what I got zoned for, so I should be able to
have this and he has a point, he did get annexed, he did get zoned. You can't undo
that. One other point that I found was that one of the previous Council members up
here claimed that based on the three alternatives he saw that, hey, that's all he could
do. I dispute that claim. I think there is more than just those three ways to do that
project, there is other alternatives, and just to squeeze that many lots, that density,
adjacent to an approved subdivision is just I think poor planning, not appropriate for this
area. And if I could read Section 16.3 of the annexation Findings of Fact that I found, I'll
just say -- and I quote: The proposed -- this is from the recommendation of staff. It
says the proposed R-8 and mixed-use development concept shall be compatible with
and provide a good transition between the church slash planned development to the
south and the single family residential to the north. I can say that we strongly disagree
that this site as it is laid out and as it's proposed provides a good transition to Bear
Creek Subdivision. Shari did have up on the board the diagram that kind of zoomed in
on that area that is shown there that shows the lot square footages, right there, that I
helped kind of put together. I noticed in the application it was never really shown by the
developer -- I don't really blame them for not showing the direct comparison between
Bear Creek and the subdivision, because it brings up a lot of questions. I know the
questions were talked about in the previous hearings, but it seems to me that supports,
I guess, just how different the lot size is. I know this does happen in some areas, I
know. Cities come up against counties and the county lots are one acre, two acres, and
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 74
you gets some 7,000 to 8,000 that you have the lots up against the bigger lots. You
know, we are in a city -- a city zoning and for city zoning to approve it this way I think is
a real tragedy for just proper planning and proper development. I guess, you know,
having said those things for the record I guess I made it pretty clear that, you know, with
-- depending on which direction you make it it doesn't really matter to us. I just think
that this lot size, the 3,500 square foot minimum, the reduced setback in the 12 feet in
the rear yard, I think they are 70 foot, around there, lot depths, it's just too tight, it's just
too tight in this area. I mean I know in a different area this might work. I don't disagree
with small lots in certain areas, I just disagree with small lots in this area and I guess
with that I will stand for any questions and ask for you to deny this project. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Make sure I get your last name right.
Schultz: No problem.
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Matt, as a developer were you aware that they wanted the road to go through
Bear Creek? Go back to the -- on the footprint of -- did Bear Creek agents that are
selling those lots and stuff let people know that this was going to happen?
Schultz: That's a good question. Mayor and Council, Councilman Bird, to be honest
with you, when I first saw the stub street I knew that something was going to go on
there. I didn't really know what was going to go on there until I saw the application of
what was proposed. When I saw staff's comments, I wasn't worried that it was going to
get approved, but we should have been out here a little earlier in the process to voice
our strong opposition and until we get something approved, I'll really believe it. But, no,
I don’t think we are representing that to the potential home buyers, because that would
be, in fact, a detriment to those lots sales, somebody thinking that they would have
somewhat similar lots size -- I could see a little bit smaller lot up against there, but this
is a lot smaller. We are talking up to ten times smaller in most cases, probably six times
smaller. I mean this isn't even close.
Bird: Do you realize what traffic you're dumping onto this -- onto your inside streets
there? Are your homeowners going to like that? I mean what I'm afraid of is the realtor
is out selling -- the famous old thing that happens, you know, just like earlier the gal that
in 1999 her realtor told her they were going to build a park there, you know.
Schultz: I understand reading the minutes, Council and Mayor and Councilman Bird, he
was represented -- Mr. Jewett says let's hurry up and approved this thing, let's hurry up
and build this thing, so we can build and that way those lot owners will know what they
are buying. I don't know agree with that logic. I'm sorry. That's not a good enough
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 75
reason to hurry this project up to get in there. I mean I'm not -- it's just going to -- I
appreciate private property rights, I appreciate the unique size and length, but there is
more than those three ways to develop this property and still make an okay profit. You
know, you may not make millions, but you'll make a good profit and, you know, move on
to the next property, just what we do, but it's just a little over the top for us. We just
could not stand back and let this one go buy without saying something.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I'm glad you showed up at the 11th
hour. You know, I do know what your
real estate agents are telling about this, because I happened to be at one of the homes.
They were telling me that these roads would be connected to Meridian-Kuna Road and
that that would be another access out onto it, so --
Schultz: Dangerous. Now I know. I don't know everything our real estate guys say,
they operate on their own sometimes, but now I know and until -- I don't think it's right to
push it through, but --
Bird: But the problem is, it's just like Tammy said, we -- they come in and jump on us,
swear up and down that the Mayor and Council was going to -- and said this, you know.
That's the thing, you know. We go through this all the time with -- you know, the sign
says out there before they develop it, everybody in that subdivision was told there was
never going to be any commercial around them.
Schultz: As you know, you're in the middle quite often. Quite often you are. If I owned
this property, which I don't, but if I did I wouldn't mind putting it through to Bear Creek,
but it wouldn't have as many lots as this does, you know. I wouldn't mind owning it. I
don’t. You know, he has offered it to us. The price is very very -- I mean it's just crazy,
it’s just not something that we -- we just don't have the deepest pocket just to go around
buying for whatever price somebody offers it to us for. That's the bottom line. So, you
know, that's just where we are at and where ever you approve something the price goes
up and when you deny it the price goes down. That's just how you play the game, so --
I mean we have plenty of lots here to develop, we've got a nice subdivision, the park will
be green this summer, and it's turning out well. We'd like to keep it that way.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Any other testimony? Okay. Jim,
you’re back up.
Jewett: Okay. Where to start. I'll start at the bottom and go up here. First of all, this is
the original conceptual drawing that came through you folks when the annexation and
zoning came through. That's the first Preliminary Plat that came back to you when we
came back with our plat and I'm just showing this for the purpose of showing that there
is -- nothing has really changed from -- when we came to annexation and zoning until
now. Now I'll just kind of go over some of Matt's issues. First of all, before this thing
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 76
went to you folks the first time in December, the Bear Creek Development came to us
that night and made an offer to purchase it, because they did not want to see this go
through. They made us an offer, we turned it down, and that's where it stood. As far as
notice to the property owners, as far as I know we have followed all the procedures. I
have talked to Craig numerous times during the course of Bear Creek -- I was here
when Bear Creek went through and I voiced some concerns of what we were leaving
there and so they have known all along. A couple partners that own -- a couple
partners in Bear Creek Development, LLC, are partners of mine in other projects, so
there is a lot of communication that's gone back and forth. To say they didn't know
something until September 5th
I would argue that, that's just not true. The other thing,
Matt and I talked out in the hallway a little bit before and he said -- I said, Matt, what do
you want me to do? He gave me an option. I brought three options to staff, P&Z, and
City Council, which was the option that was settled on and as Mr. Nary said earlier. We
should have the option of having a dialogue and that's what I did. I came here and
asked for a dialogue, what would be acceptable and this is what the consensus was
and we entered into a Development Agreement that basically spells this out. It didn’t
specifically identify it, but it spelled it out, because truly it was a difficult piece. I didn’t
know which way to go with it. Coming in at the 11th
hour, I guess it's a Public Hearing
and everybody has the right to speak and comment on it. I have -- after we had the
ACHD hearing on -- I think it was February 6th
, I contacted Matt and said, Matt, just to
let you know, ACHD said that if they want to come from Bear Creek -- so I don't know
what City Council is going to do but I want to talk to you about it. I offered several
mitigating items that I could offer him to try to mitigate their feeling of how this might
impact them, joining their association for architectural review, taking down the wire
fence and putting up a solid fence, looking at landscaping to make sure we address
their concerns. He said that sounds fair, we will talk about it. A day later, I got a fax
saying we are simply going to oppose you. So, I went to them trying to say if it has to
go through Bear Creek how can we mitigate. Next, I'm going to -- I'm a realtor and as
an owner of a real estate company, I'm going to apologize for realtors. A lot of times we
say things about a house and we don't think about the consequences down the road. I
don’t personally sell houses, but I do belong to the industry, so I going to apologize to
that industry tonight. I did have many conversations with Mike Pennington, who is the
manager of all sales at Bear Creek and he indicated to me it was his desire to see that
stub go out. That's what he has been saying is going to happen, is that stub street is
going to go all the way out. I talked to Mike and I said, Mike, ACHD -- I went back to
ACHD one more time after February and said if there is some way we could take it out,
we could signal it over here and bring it over here. They went to Terry Little and they
talked and they came back and it sounded good, Jim, but we just can't support that, it’s
just too late. We have invested money in there and it just is too late to change. You
just need to go with what you got and so I have looked at every option. I think I have
gone above and beyond trying to appease the government agencies and now I have a
neighbor -- a fellow developer that is developing adjacent to me that wants to come in
and oppose it as well. At the Public Hearings I have commented and the reason I think
I need to go forward is the property owners that do buy in Bear Creek to know what’s
going in there. So I think it's fair to them to know that it's going forward, whether it’s
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 77
access either way, I didn't know, but they should know this type of development is
coming. Matt -- if I can get the right papers here.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question while he's handing it out and you can
answer it when you get back to the microphone, but how many lots -- I remember this
original one, but how many lots -- Jim, how many lots are in there? First how many are
in your most recent submittal?
Jewett: Was that question for me? I'm sorry.
De Weerd: How many lots -- the same number in each one?
Jewett: As I explained -- no. There is two more and as I have explained when I went
the first time through, we did this call we calculated the density, we went and got
approval and went for a pre-ap with the City. We did our density calculations and we
redid the acreage a little bit, it was a little bit greater than what we figured. Staff actually
pointed out that I wasn't maximizing my density and indicated I had two more. That was
Steve. He's not here. We actually pulled that five back and added two lots based on
that pre-application. One of the best pre-applications I have had. So there are two
additional lots from there to there but still fits the Development Agreement density
calculation that was put in there, which was we were allowed R-4 density, plus the
density bonus. That's the way we have the Development Agreement written. What I
have handed you is just a couple of subdivisions that have recently been approved by
the City Council. Woodbridge is the -- and I want you to see the lots that are adjacent
to us --
De Weerd: Well, this is a stretch.
Jewett: And also Westbury Subdivision, which is over off Locust Grove by Fred Meyer
and how many -- how many -- again, the number of lots adjacent to that. It happens to
be -- Gem Park just happens to be the subdivision that West Park is next to. See that
those -- neither one of those are that much different than what you see there and we do
have to understand that -- and I tried to explain to Matt that these are two very odd-
shaped lots. It's not a fair comparison to use those, they are odd-shaped lots, and
calculate a density comparison. Also just tonight -- I believe it was Sundance that you
folks approved, had some large lots on each side up against smaller lots. You have
looked at parcels next to each other and found that they are compatible. The other map
I gave you was one showing Bear Creek and the access points I tried to highlight that
people could utilize to get in here if you choose to go through Bear Creek. They don't
necessarily all have to come this way, some of them can go back this way and out
Calderwood, which is going to be a residential collector and it's going to be signaled in
the near future. So there isn't -- I'm just trying to show there is much more
transportational routes than just going out right here if this one comes out -- they will be
-- a fair number of people will go out this way and if you -- this, unfortunately, doesn't
have -- but if you go straight down here and into here -- well, if you come straight down
here and jog over, it's a few more turns. In length, it's not going to be that much greater
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 78
and that was mainly for fire and police. I just wanted to point that out. But the distance
is just not going to be that great. We are still going to provide emergency access here
anyway. So, yes, the last issue I want to address and I thought it was very important
was whether or not I met the PUD ordinance. As you are aware we have a new PUD or
PD ordinance, I just don't remember. Quite frankly, I have not even reviewed the new
Ordinance yet. This subdivision has only been reviewed by myself and my engineers
based on the old PD Ordinance. When staff originally recommended a denial they were
mixing comments in the Comprehensive Plan and the PD and there is nowhere in the
PD does it restrict any greater reduction than 25 percent, even though I don't feel that
we have reduced it over 25 percent any required setback or dimensional standards. At
P&Z they recommended approval and you guys have approved this once with one
access issue -- got to have another access issue. I spent time on the whole plan again
to try to address the questions the people have addressed, but my understanding of the
purpose of coming back this evening was, one, to make the plat reflect exactly what it
was supposed to look like and, two, show alternative that the other public agencies
were asking to modify this plat.
Corrie: I'm going to ask you to wrap it up.
Jewett: I'm done.
Corrie: Okay. Good. Thank you. I appreciate it for this part of the rebuttal of the
Public Hearing, so -- okay. Staff -- I mean does Council have any questions that you’re
not too clear on or --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I really hesitate to ask a question. When did this particular design aspect -- was
that February 6th
from the ACHD, this change from what you pointed out as your
previous conceptual plan to that?
Jewett: On January 15th
when this thing was renoticed back up, I asked to bring three
concepts -- any concept that was acceptable back and City Council said that would be
acceptable. So, these were generated right after that and it required me to transmit
them to the city prior January 31st
.
Nary: After the Planning and Zoning Commission had heard it?
Jewett: Yes. At the direction of this body.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 79
De Weerd: Was that a disclaimer?
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Well, in a minute it will be.
Corrie: Okay. All right. Thank you, Jim. Okay. Council have any discussion,
questions, for the Public Hearing? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the
Public Hearing on 16, 17, and 18 on Kodiak Subdivision.
Nary: I would move to close the Public Hearing on Items 16, 17 and 18.
Bird: I would second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the
Preliminary Plat, request for Conditional Use Permit, and Variance of Kodiak
Subdivision. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say. Opposed no. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess this is the disclaimer part, I guess. The reason I asked that question is
because I was part of the Commission in reviewing those conceptual plans and what
was proposed by Mr. Jewett and was in agreement with the transition. I guess I
disagree with Mr. Schultz, but I don't -- providing alternative-housing choices for the
citizens here is not the worst thing. I recognize the public has a different opinion on
what’s an appropriate alternative. But that aside, I'm very troubled by the single access
through Bear Creek as the only access into this property and I guess I personally try not
to be too inconsistent too often. When we looked at the single access issue before,
generally the access has been -- at least the ones I can think of offhand, have been
onto an arterial, onto a main road, rather than onto a neighborhood street, which is
essentially what this is. That really troubles me, first, to have a single access, but,
secondarily, where that access is going to be. So I guess I have a real concern about
this project, not from the perspective that Mr. Schultz raised, but from the perspective of
that single access. Just because that's all the Highway District would approve doesn’t
mean we have to approve it. I understand where they are coming from, I understand
that maybe they are concerned about access onto State Highway 69, but if they are not
willing to live with that, I don't know that we have to approve an alternative just because
they want it.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 80
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: My opinion all long on these things -- and I think I'm like Mr. Nary, I think you have
some alternative housing developments here over that, but my real concern is, you
know, yes, you have got two -- you can go out to Meridian Road through Elk Run or you
can go to Stoddard through Bear Creek. You know, you're dumping at least 29, if not
more, cars through that subdivision where you're going to have youth -- you’re bringing
them right by a park and I know Mr. Jewett said, you know, it's not any farther to go
through Elk Creek to get down there. It is a lot farther, because you're going through a
neighborhood where there is kids and stuff going and on the other route you’re coming
down -- I don't know how we get in and out of South Meridian Road, but that’s the only
way I can see this doing. I'll be truthful, I'm not in favor of letting that road come from --
if we can get him out onto Meridian Road, I'm not in favor of letting Bear Creek come
out through there. I'm for stopping that right where it's at, because -- I don’t know. This
is -- I think that we got our cart before the horse on some of these things on this deal
and ACHD and ITD sure aren't helping us.
Corrie: Any other comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess these access points have been a bone of contention for this Council
from the time it's been proposed and that's why we wanted to remand it back to P&Z,
because we did not like what we were seeing. There were too many things that were
left up in the air and, you know, I don't think we've clarified anything, at least to the
satisfaction of the concerns of the access. I did like the original thing, but then the
access changed and that's what kind of created a lot of this and, yes, we were under
the impression that Bear Creek didn't have a problem with this, so --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now can -- as I understand it -- now this is for the attorney. We can make this
road private and we can dump it out onto Meridian Road -- of course, the only way I
would dump it out is right in and right out. You're asking for trouble if you try to come
across. Is that the case, Mr. Attorney?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Bird, Members of the Council, you can approve
this as a public road or as a private road. I think what -- Mr. Jewett's testimony, though,
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 81
and the letter from ACHD is that they will not approve and accept for maintenance a
public street that empties out onto Meridian Road and so they are essentially saying we
don’t want your street if that's how it goes. The issue about a private street, of course,
is who is going to maintain it, who is going to take the snow off from it, who is going to
patch the potholes and who is going to repave it, who is going to chip seal it. It’s a
legitimate concern of Council in terms of the proposed housing type there, whether
that’s the type of homeowner's association that would adequately fund maintenance of
a private street. I just throw that into the mix but you can approve it either way.
Bird: Thank you. That's the problem with that is who is going to maintain it, which I
thought that was what -- I was understanding is what ACHD said, because you’re not
talking about a cheap item, especially in this area, maintaining a road.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the
request for Preliminary Plat for 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would recommend denial of Item 16, PP 01-016, request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the
proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC. Basically I'll state my
reasons for that is I don't think the single access is feasible at all for this particular
property and the private road access onto the state highway, even with a right in and
right out. I don't think is enough of a reasonable alternative either and I think the
maintenance would be an issue that's going to be a problem. I think that the uses in
this particular area are going to be a problem and I couldn't support the access on a
private road out to the highway either, so I would move to deny.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to -- motion for denial.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: I'm sorry. Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, since this property has already annexed
and zoned, to deny the Preliminary Plat we are required by state code to specify what
the applicant could do to obtain approval of the application. So if you do, in fact, vote in
favor of the denial of this Preliminary Plat, Mr. Jewett is entitled to hear from the Council
what it would take to get approval of a Preliminary Plat. Given the fact that we already
have a Development Agreement, which specifies what the zoning is -- well, the zoning
ordinance does that, but the development is outlined in the Development Agreement.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 82
Nary: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. I guess what my motion is -- the reason for my motion is
that there is only a single -- the alternative only is either a single access onto a
neighborhood street for no access onto the state highway or a private road access onto
the state highway. I guess my reasons for the motion is that they need to have a public
access, a public road access on the state highway or at least a main road, or at least
two access points into this subdivision approved by the highway district. If someone
else wants to add to that, they certainly can.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a little discussion. I think that he's been told this once before to go back and
get -- I think the last time around. ACHD isn't going to have nothing to do with it and
neither is ITD. I, for one, am not going to have anything to do with a single access out
of -- into Bear Creek, but yet we annexed him, zoned him, and told him to go do this. I
really am having a hard time with this. I just feel very sorry for the developer. But I just
-- I have to agree with Mr. Nary, I just -- until we get two access points -- and I really
don’t -- one access point out onto Meridian Road would be great for this. I don't want
Bear Creek coming through and using that either. I just -- I'm really -- I don't like
dumping 29, 58 cars, whatever it's going to be, out into a subdivision, especially you’re
dumping right out into -- within a block -- or within a half block of a nice park that kids
are going to be coming, we hope, all throughout that area. I just have a real problem.
By the same token, he went back and tried to do everything we asked him to do. I
mean I don't know what we do.
Corrie: Well, Council, there is an old saying, you play the hand that's dealt you and he’s
got a rock and a hard place here, but Mr. Nary's motion did -- the denial did specify
what we would look at, which is the two accesses and -- or a public access.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess one thing to note is when this was annexed neither the applicant or
us knew what kind of restrictions would be put on later down the road by ITD and
ACHD. So certainly wasn't anything that we could have foreseen. You know, I guess a
suggestion that could be made is to make it more compatible with Bear Creek. You
know, I like your idea that you bring some of their same design standards and CC&R
type of issues into it, but if you can work with your neighbors to make it certainly more
high density than Bear Creek is going to be and certainly it will never match the density
of the lots that you back up against. I think there is a -- probably more of a common
ground that could be reached on how you do, in particular, that northern piece and
maybe there is some play in this that you can achieve and then it will make more sense
going into Bear Creek and being a part of that subdivision. That's the only thing that I
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 83
can think of that might be helpful to the applicant. I don't know. I know you have done
everything you possibly can on these roads. We realize that. You have gone above
and beyond and, unfortunately, they are not living up to their end of things, because this
was not raised when you came through with annexation and zoning. But we will still
have the same issue when the church comes in to develop and so there needs to be a
solution to this, but it's not going to help at this point.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg, on the
motion to deny.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion to deny is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item Number 17, request for Conditional Use Permit. Any further discussion?
I’ll entertain a motion on that.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move to deny CUP 01-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the
Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8
zone for the proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been and seconded to deny the Conditional Use Permit CUP
01-029, Kodiak Subdivision. Further discussion? Roll call vote, please, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion to deny approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Request for variance on maximum length, Kodiak Subdivision.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd now recommend denial of VAR 01-019, request for a variance to exceed the
1,000 foot maximum length requirement and to allow the public road being proposed to
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 84
exceed the 450 foot maximum length requirement of an R-8 zone by Kodiak
Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to -- motion to deny the variance on VAR
01-019. Further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion to deny.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 01-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.83
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Berkeley Square
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 1025 North Ten Mile Road:
Item 20: Public Hearing: PP 01-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34
building lots and 7 other lots on 4.83 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 1025
North Ten Mile Road:
Item 21: Public Hearing: CUP 01-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for 34 townhouses in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 1025
North Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item Numbers 19, 20, and 21 is a request for annexation for Berkeley Square
Subdivision from RUT to an R-8 zone at 1025 North Ten Mile Road by Wardle and
Associates. Item Number 20 is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 building
lots and 7 other lots on 4.83 acres by Berkeley Square Subdivision, and also a request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 34 townhouses in a
proposed R-8 for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision. At this time, I will open the
Public Hearing on 19, 20, and 21, staff comments first, please.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'd like to say this is an easy one, but it has issues
similar to the preceding Public Hearing. The property is located off of Ten Mile Road.
It's adjacent to Chaparral Elementary School. They are requesting a zone of R-8. The
property here was what was approved as Valley Heights Subdivision. Sun Creek
Subdivision is in this location here. We have Park Side Creek Subdivision to the north
and this is annexed, but I believe it's just still a single family residential home. Showing
some aerial views -- or the photographs of the existing property. This was the original
plat that was submitted for -- there were several reasons this was recommended for
denial. It couldn't meet the existing Planned Development Ordinance in regard to -- the
private road access was a big issue in this case, because it couldn't meet the standards
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 85
for a private road or for a public road. They were proposing access to come in one way
and to go out the other way. Staff didn't feel that it would really function that way that
people would continue to use it as a two way and also due to the density that it would
be very difficult, particularly with a private street, to enforce no parking on the street.
The applicant took all this into consideration and came back with another proposal.
This is the most recent proposal that has come in, getting rid of the islands in the middle
of the street. They are proposing a stub street to the north and that was a
recommendation of staff to break up the block length and also a recommendation of
Ada County Highway District primarily due to the fact that Ten Mile Road will be an
arterial street in the future. They didn't want to have to approve all of these
developments with their own private access with no interconnection between the
properties. They had initially proposed some private driveways. However, those private
driveways also did not meet the ordinance requirements. They were calling these
private roads, actually, and they are 20 feet wide, which would -- did not comply with the
Planned Development Ordinance. In this proposal they were coming in with frontages
-- five foot wide frontages off of the street for these plots -- all of these lots here and
these lots here. They are proposing -- this would be their drainage and part of their
open space with the pedestrian access to the school site. Showing some of the
proposed housing unit elevations and I believe why they did try to meet the conditions
that were placed on them, I believe Council -- or Planning and Zoning Commission
even stated during their deliberations that they preferred the original proposal to what
they ended up with on the second proposal. Without involving either the property to the
north or south as part of this development, it is difficult to come up with a plan to meet
this density that complies with the Planned Development Ordinance. It did provide
some alternative housing stock. It's adjacent to the school, which would encourage
higher densities to be placed next to it. I'm not aware of any opposition that has come
out on this project. I think staff kind of -- we are kind of at a loss as to where we should
-- what we should recommend at this point and I have no further recommendations on
this project. Mr. Nary, I believe, was at the Planning and Zoning meeting on this project
and perhaps can shed more light on the deliberations that took place there.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Shari. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Wardle. Raise your right hand. Is the testimony you're about to give
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Wardle: Yes.
Corrie: State your name and address, please.
Wardle: My name is John Wardle and my address 50 Broadway Avenue. I had to look
at the clock to see if we were still evening or morning, but I don't intend to take us up
into the wee hours. Thank you for the opportunity for letting me be in front of you this
evening. We did have a project that did propose private streets and the real issue there
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 86
was ACHD has an unwritten policy of wanting to limit access onto Ten Mile Road. In
order to do that they wanted our street to provide connections north and south. We
were able to compromise with them by proposing a public street and providing one
connection to the north and they agreed that that was acceptable to them. The project
that’s in front of you right now is for 35 single family detached units as shown on the
next slide or a couple slides. We came up with a new product type. Originally, we
proposed attached townhouses and now they are detached single-family residences.
There was extensive discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission as to what
constituted a private -- what we call -- we never refer to them as private streets, but we
refer to them as private driveways, common driveways for the accesses to the -- could
you go to the next slide, Shari? You can see a faint line there that -- Shari is pointing to
one there as a common driveway. Staff saw those as streets, we saw them as common
driveways, and the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with our determination
that they were a common driveway. In some cases, we have six units that access one
of those common driveways. They are proposed to be 20 feet wide, to be concrete.
Originally they were shown as a common lot. We eliminated the common lot, showed
the easement there, and provided frontage to all those units, all those lots, and those
home sites, to the public street. I had an opportunity to review the transcript in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which are before you this evening. If I can
just make a couple of brief comments on that. In Case Number AZ 01-021, which is
Item Number 19 of the annexation, we provide no comments at this point. We concur
with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as are written on that. Case Number
PP 01-022, which is Item Number 20, which is a Preliminary Plat, just a couple of
things that -- just to clarify. Page one, Number two, states the owner of record of the
property is Jerry Centers, which is not correct. The owner of the property is Jay
Centers. Mr. Centers, who is on the Planning and Zoning Commission, has no
relationship to Jay Center, who is the actual owner. I just wanted to clarify that, so there
was no perceived conflict. Also Page one, Number 7, just to keep it consistent, the
applicant proposed to develop the subject property in the following manner -- you can
strike 34 residential building lots and 7 other lots and replace that with 35 building lots
and 15 other lots. That makes it consistent with the other applications. In the matter of
case number CUP 01-040, which is your Item Number 21, which is the Conditional Use
Permit for the Planned Development, we don't have any comments to make. We had
requested and have requested a minimum size, as well as a couple setback issues. I
don't see those addressed in the Planned Development Ordinance. They are identified
-- at least the minimum lot size are identified on the plat that's been submitted to you, as
well as the text that was provided in the staff report on January 14th
by David McKinnon
to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The setbacks were also there and I just want
to note for the record those will be included or if they are understood as they were
proposed and identified in the January 14, 2002, staff report. I guess that's a question
for Legal Counsel. We did have -- like I said at the beginning, we did have an
alternative design for this project. The only opposition to this project came from staff
and that's regrettable. We really thought we had a project that was -- that would
provide high-level amenities. It was perceived as perhaps creating a nuisance in terms
of individuals crossing the street to get to the open space, as well as the parking
problem. We didn't feel that those were issues -- or that those issues could not be
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 87
surmounted, as also was referenced the Planning and Zoning Commission did state
that they preferred the previous design. It was emphasized on a number of occasions,
both on the record and off the record, but we were not able to resolve issues in terms of
public streets versus a private street to accomplish the design we had proposed
originally. I'll stand for any questions that you might have for me also. If there is any
testimony or an opportunity to provide additional testimony during rebuttal, I'll stand for
your questions.
Corrie: Okay. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony on this? Is
the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so
help you God?
Atkinson: Yes.
Corrie: Your name and address, please.
Atkinson: I'm Irma Atkinson. I had to write down my address a couple hours ago,
because I wasn't sure I would remember it. It's 1124 North Lightning. We are across
Ten Mile in Thunder Creek from the proposed development. I had a clever comment. I
hope I can remember what that was. Oh, I remember now. I wanted to thank the City
Council for their involvement in the community. However, it will take me years of
therapy to get over the image of all of you in your elf outfits on that float. Okay. There
are -- I'm feeling like a pro after earlier in the evening having been through this and that
and this and that and this -- okay. There are three things that I look for in a
development going in near me or even across town. One is traffic safety, the second is
pedestrian safety, and the third is the impact on the existing neighborhood and actually,
I’m here to say nice things about this time. I know it's a shock, but it's okay. I was
excited with the original plan. I think like everyone else, because it provided for some
diversity in housing, it was in a good location where there wasn't a lot to impact on
existing neighborhoods, so I was one that was disappointed with the changes. I
understand why they had to be made. I am thrilled as a parent of a Chaparral student
that there is going to be a micropath onto the school property. I stand -- I'm kind of a
neurotic mother as well, but I stand on Forecast every morning putting my child -- it will
be two children next year -- putting my child on the bus, because he's safety bused.
You know, we live across Ten Mile, since there are no sidewalks, there are no crossing
guards, and the entrance to Chaparral went through Park Creek. So I tend to diligently
put my child on the bus and I watch about a dozen children walk, skateboard, scooter
and bicycle through Thunder Creek on their way -- on their way to Ten Mile to cross
over to go down to go through Park Creek to get to Chaparral and I hear brakes. You
know, I worry about those children who don't have as neurotic parents as my kids do, so
I'm thrilled to see another entry point for Chaparral, because that will give me leverage
to bother ACHD -- and did you know that ACHD is a four letter word? That occurred to
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 88
me a couple hours ago in discussion, but, anyway, it will give me some leverage to
bother the ACHD people to put on a crosswalk, put up some signs for those crosswalks
and then I can go out to the school district to get a crossing guard there. Because with
all the development out our way there will be more people, there will be more kids, and
they aren't always going to want to ride the bus, so -- anyway, so I support this. I'm
happy about the micropath and you looked pretty darn cute in the elf costumes.
Questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Well, I don't think I'll never recover from you standing up here approving of
something.
Atkinson: Just like at Planning and Zoning when the Fullers were here approving of the
project and I was agreeing with them, but –
De Weerd: Well, you know, I just had to say that in response to your comment.
Atkinson: Okay. Tights next year or something a little bit more conservative. Oh, cows
in the dairy parade. Cool. Thank you.
Corrie: I'm getting tired, but what was the reason that -- the original plan that you guys
like that ACHD didn't like? Just the one way around coming into it?
Nary: The information that we received at Planning and Zoning was that it didn't comply
with our ordinance -- with our City Ordinance and ACHD had a concern about the
private street access, but the real problem it just didn't comply with our ordinance and
maybe Mr. Wardle can expound a little bit more, but that was my recollection. All of the
Commissioners, including myself, liked this, because it was an alternative that was a
park, there was two small parks in the middle of the -- the fact that the street frontage
was a concern, that there was trees or a park, but that's not a problem. There is --
again, I was concerned about parking and travel and all that, but maybe Mr. Wardle can
expound, but I think that was the problem is that it was not compliant with our
ordinance.
Corrie: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, for the record my name is John Wardle. If I can address Mr. Nary’s
comment. I think your assessment is correct. There were two issues. One was it did
not comply with the Planned Development Ordinance as written and the second issue is
the private street. There were concerns by I think both staff -- it was written in terms of
enforcement of parking, as well as ACHD -- they said they would modify their policy for
a public street, but they recommended denial for a private street. So we were kind of
put in a situation where we had a project that we found favorable, was designed to meet
a product or a project type or a need in this neighborhood. It's pretty typical of what you
find in the Ten Mile area, there wasn't much diversity there, but we went forward with it.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 89
We weren't able to get passed staff -- the concerns were pretty thick in terms of the staff
report that's prepared, as well as ACHD. If I can just make one comment as it relates to
your Planned Development Ordinance. You know, we talked about thinking outside the
box and doing things that are a little more creative -- just to explain a little more, this is
Chapter 6. The second paragraph says the purpose of the Planned Development
process is to provide opportunity for land development that preserves and utilizes the
natural topographic, geologic, and scenic features. There are not many scenic features
or geological features here on the property, but it says to foster innovative design
concepts and promote flexibility in plan design. We thought we had a very innovative
design here, but when it got right down to it, the Planned Development Ordinance was
so rigid in the interpretation of the ordinance that we were unable to move forward on
this project like we originally proposed. That's why we are in front of you with the
project that is currently -- not that one, the other one that includes a public street.
Thank you for letting me take a little bit of your time this evening. I know the hour is late
and if we could just get clarification on the setbacks, as I asked earlier. If those -- if the
staff report -- the January 14 staff report is an appendix to the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for the PD and the Preliminary Plat, or if I need to make a request
that those setbacks be specifically included, because they are important. We have
asked for a setback of five foot with no additional setback requirement per additional
story. We can maintain the peripheral setback as required by the Planned Development
Ordinance, we can maintain the rear setbacks as needed with the R-8 zone and we can
also do the 20 foot front setback and it can be measured either as a sidewalk, edge of
private drive, or edge of property line as it applies. So those were all addressed in the
staff report. They were laid out very specifically and we just want to make sure that
those setbacks with the minimum lot size are understood that that's what we are getting
approved for.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, go to the -- there. The new one. The one that's coming through. The
private driveways, you said they are 20 feet wide?
Wardle: Yes, they are.
Bird: And they are going to take care of six places -- six houses right?
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I may -- or Councilman Bird, yes, they are.
Bird: Okay. Boy, I see a lot of problems with that. Who is going to -- is the association
going to own it and maintain it or is each individual lot going to own part of that?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 90
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, in my experience -- and we have done a number
of these private driveways, it is the responsibility of those homeowners that access in
terms of ingress and egress to maintain those common driveways. We have done a
number of these in the City of Boise. In terms of a parking issue and a maintenance
issue, you would be surprised, the neighbors are very vigilant in keeping those private
driveways clear. I know you have had some experience with private driveways in the
City of Meridian currently and I know that --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: If I may inquire of Mr. Wardle. Mr. Wardle, is there anything in your proposal
about a -- some sort of cross-easement accessing -- you have got the five foot wide
fingers that go to the public street -- I mean what are you doing for the -- so it's a
common driveway, but is it still like in the form of a cross-access easement or --
Wardle: It is. In the plat that was in your packet and the one that I picked up today
when I got my packet also dated February 11, the notes in Number seven -- and I can
read it for you if you'd like. It says the vehicular access to Lot 327, Block 1, Lot 69,
Block 2, and Lots 13 through 16, Block 2, lots 19 through 24 of Block 2, and lots 24
through 30 of Block 2, shall provide for a permanent driveway that's shown. Then it
talks about setbacks. All these are common driveways for those owners seeking
access to the common driveway with a special right to ingress and egress and said
easement shall run with the land. That's very similar to what we have done in the City
of Boise, as well as include in the CC&R's that specific language that addresses
maintenance of the common driveway, as well as the access for those.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Kenny, what are your comments on these common driveways? I just can’t
imagine how the fire trucks are going to maneuver in there.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie -- is it on? City Council Members and Tammy de Weerd, this is
the first time I have seen this and I was asking Shari if Joe had any comments and I
don’t know if Joe's seen this either at this time. The answer to your question is, yes, we
do have problems with the driveways with congestion of cars getting in there and
getting them out of the way. If we are going to go clear to the end, sometimes we have
got to pull quite a bit of hose to get to a fire or a medical call, then we would not be able
to have any parking in the horseshoe -- or I mean in the hammerhead there also. There
can't be any parking in that. That would have to be posted somehow. Yes, we do have
and have had trouble with like flagship lots also, the flagship lots of cars blocking those
roads getting back to the homes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 91
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess what keeps mulling over in my mind, Mr. Wardle, is -- and I think you
were mulling over in December is what I heard you say tonight in December was this is
the alternative based upon all of the requirements of both ACHD and city staff has
recommended. Well, what I have also been -- I guess I'm getting the feeling that this
isn’t really what you wanted, you really want to do the other thing. You really want to do
it the other way, because at least, in your opinion, it fits somewhat more to the PUD
Ordinance. What do you want us to do? Do you want us to just approve that or do you
want us to remand it and take another look at our PUD Ordinance and whether or not
there is an alternative way to do what you originally proposed. You have heard the
Commission say they liked it and I guess I don't know what the rest of the Council feels,
but I still prefer that if we can make that work and I agree with what you're saying on the
PUD Ordinance. The whole idea is to create an atmosphere of some creativity and
provide some alternatives and the alternative is that originally proposed. I think it
provides a better alternative for housing than this particular one does, although there is
nothing wrong with this and there is some positives. I just think the other one is still
better, but what is it you want us to do?
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Councilman Nary, to be very clear, we would ask that you
approve this project as proposed in finding today. The discussion, albeit very
interesting of the original proposal, it's behind us now. We are -- we submitted this
application in September. We are here in February now, and based on the comments
received by both your staff and by the Ada County Highway District we came up with a
project that we could develop and that we feel will still meet a need, although we would
like in the future to try to do a project like was proposed originally. The project that's in
front of you now is this project and we ask approval for this project.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Wardle, this drawing here, has it been in front of the Planning and Zoning
Commission?
Wardle: It has.
Nichols: And so do you have Deputy Chief Silva's comments on this plat? Have you
seen anything from the Fire Department on this plat?
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, City Attorney, if I can just clarify. The project -- the only change --
there was a -- this was when it was provided to the staff back in December. It has the
common driveways, but the only thing that's different between what was given to them
in December and what is in front of you today is that the common lots -- or the common
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 92
driveways have been removed and all the lots have been given frontage out to the
public street. So the common driveway remains the same, it's just how those lots front
onto the public right of way. There was some question that it created a common lot for
the common driveway, that those lots would not have a legal frontage to the public
street or the public right of way. We have eliminated the common lot and just created
an easement area. So the common driveway remains the concept, it's just the way that
those things were laid out and this that's in front of you addresses those concerns that
were raised at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I don't -- I still feel that -- and I don't know and I don't think Kenny
can clarify that, but it doesn't look like our Fire Department made comment on this
particular plan and I can't find it, so --
Wardle: I have not seen a comment myself.
De Weerd: And because of those private driveways or common lots, whatever you
would like to term them, I think it's imperative that our Fire Department have an
opportunity to comment on it, because in the long run we are liable for it and so I would
like the Fire Department to comment on that.
Wardle: If I may provide one last comment. You will note that it is 20 feet wide. I
believe that the Fire Department likes 20 feet unimpeded free span, free clear on a
roadway. We can sign these as no parking to meet that. I guess the other question is
how close or what distance does the Fire Department need to the structure. The
reason I ask that is in some jurisdictions they like to be within 150 feet of any structure.
I believe they can get down this common driveway if they need to, but none of the
common driveways are more than 125 feet. Our entire frontage along Ten Mile is 300
feet long. If you take out the 50 feet of right of way, that gives you 250 feet, 125 either
side, but they don't extend that far back. I mean they don't go all the way to the
property line and, in fact, it's probably more like 80 feet to the structure on the end. So I
believe that the Fire Department can get down those common driveways without a
problem, I don't think. Parking will be off in the driveways, there won't be -- we are not
proposing any parking on the common driveways and it's never been our experience to
allow common parking on the common driveways in the past.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That can be in the rules and regulations, but it can't be enforced, nor is it
enforced. I mean how are you going to enforce if somebody comes in there and
wanted to park their car there for -- you know, to run in and see their friend or
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 93
something. You know, we can put all the rules you want up, but I have a -- I have real
problem with -- we are getting ourselves back into a corner. John, I like the
development the same as I like Kodiak, but here we go, we got one street in and one
street out and I realize we are not on North Meridian Road, but we are on Ten Mile and
that isn't going to go nowhere until you develop something.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I can, we have put in the stub street to the north, at some point in
the future that property will develop, it's zoned, and I believe that they -- at this point in
time, no, it doesn't connect, but it was made very clear that connectivity to other
development -- and it's a phasing issue. This is a really small project. It will be just a
matter of time before the property to the north develops. They are public streets and so
in terms of them accessing it it shouldn't be an issue.
Bird: But there is no guarantee they are going to meet up with you. I mean we just had
this one behind the Cloverdale Church that they come in and said they were going to
match up here in Walnut and they couldn't match up. I mean, you know, the economy
is going to demand whether they are going to sell -- whether that's going to develop and
how long it goes. I think it's a nice drawn out thing, but I think with one in, one out, I
definitely don't like the driveways.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments, questions? Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I just had a couple of questions in the same statement. We do have
a position statement signed by Dave McKinnon that's dated February 7th
regarding the
number of lots. These are referring to the findings in the Preliminary Plat. Do you
have copies of those?
De Weerd: I didn't figure out the order of my stuff.
Corrie: What number, Shari?
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I might, if you look in the Preliminary Plat after -- behind the -- at
least in my copy behind the City Attorney's recommendation on the Preliminary Plat and
there is five pages -- I believe Mr. McKinnon's position statement follows those. At least
that’s how my copy is.
Stiles: We would want to make sure that they got entered into the record and also I had
a question on whether revised elevations were submitted to show the different type of
project that was being proposed as to what was originally -- what was originally
proposed. Obviously, he's not going to be able to fit the same units on there. I don’t
have anything in my packet that would show new elevations for those units and I guess
to try to address what Mr. Wardle has asked before, I'm not sure what he’s referring to
as far as the setbacks. I don't see any footprints on this plan to indicate how -- what
would need to be changed in regard to setbacks.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 94
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I might address first Mrs. Stiles' questions in terms of elevation.
This is part of the original application, two units attached. That was the original
elevation and also the building plan itself was submitted. What Mrs Stiles has shown is
I believe the last slide was the revised elevations and that's what was given to staff with
this application.
Stiles: Since the new application -- since the new plat was submitted?
Wardle: When the plat was submitted -- when we came to the -- I believe it was the
December 20th
hearing and we proposed a revised layout. At that point, we came up
with new layouts and when the -- or the new site plans. When the new site plan was
submitted I believe at the beginning of January the new elevations were also submitted
to staff. That's what you have right there and as to the setbacks, these knew -- this new
plan for a two story building, the Meridian City Ordinance requires that five feet be given
for each additional story, meaning between structures you have you're required to have
20 feet. We are asking that five feet -- just a five-foot setback, so 10 feet between
structures and they be two story structures. So that's what we are referring to in terms
of setbacks. Instead of having to have a 10-foot setback, we want a five-foot setback.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That comes into your fire code. If you're within five feet of the property line,
you’ve got to build on a wall that's quite a deal. If you got any windows in it, they got to
be fire-rated windows, you're asking for some problems there if you stay within the five
-- if you go six or seven you will be all right, but it can't be a five.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I might, generally detached structures -- detached structures in
terms of UBC can be within six feet, plus a three-foot setback on the other side. I don’t
believe that there is any additional requirement -- fire requirement for a five-foot setback
with two story structures. It's been my experience in the City of Boise and as well as
out here in other projects that I have seen -- and I may preface that maybe to my
experience in the City of Boise, but we have done two story structures with 10 feet of
separation between the two with no additional fire requirement.
Bird: You might be right on residential. I do know that commercial -- that if you're within
five feet, regardless if you're 50 feet high, you're going to have fire ratings.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, it's late and, you know, I'm starting to have a hard time following
everything. We still don't have comments from the Fire Department. They seem to be
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 95
fire-related issues that I just think we need to table this to March 5th
and have our Fire
Department give comment on it and then we can revisit it at that time.
Bird: Is that to continue it?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: In the form of a motion?
De Weerd: Oh, sure.
Bird: I'll second it.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Bird: I said I'd second it.
Corrie: I'm sorry. I'm getting -- motion has been made that we continue this Public
Hearing until the 5th
of March on 19, 20, and 21 on the Berkeley Square Subdivision.
Any further comments? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed
no?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Wardle, we will be back on that day and get some answers, but we
do need to get the comments from the Fire Department, Kenny. I think that's a wise
decision. Okay.
Bird: And the five foot setback, Mayor.
Corrie: Yes and the five-foot setback, Kenny. Just like Keith, I'm a little concerned
about that. I have seen fires happen with that five-foot setback.
Item 22: FP 02-001 Request for Final Plat approval of 56 building lots and 3 other
lots on 16.97 acres in an R-4 zone for Tricia's Subdivision No. 3 by
Autumn Faire, LLC - east of North Black Cat Road and south of West
Ustick Road:
Corrie: And Number 22 has been requested to be tabled to March 5, 2002. I will
entertain a motion to table Item 22 until the March 5th
meeting.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 96
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been and seconded to table the request for Final Plat for
Tricia’s Subdivision No. 2 until March the 5th
. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23: FP 02-002 Request for Final Plat approval of 115 building lots and 3 other
lots on 29.93 acres in an R-4 zone for Woodbridge No.2 by Woodbridge
Community, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East
Franklin Road.
Corrie: Item 23 is a request for Final Plat approval of 115 building lots and 10 other lots
on 29.93 acres in Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge Community, LLC, Locust Grove
Road and East Franklin Road. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, this is for the second phase of Woodbridge Subdivision, also
known as Snorting Bull No. 2. This phase would make the connection to Magic View
Subdivision as required in the original annexation and Development Agreement. This
connection is required before a specified number of units are built. It also involves the
connection to the Greenhill Estates Subdivision. They show that there is a public street
and it will be dedicated as a public street. However, it will not be constructed as a
public street until Ada County Highway District determines that it is appropriate to do so.
The original conditions of the Preliminary Plat and the Development Agreement have
been met. We ask that you -- we would recommend approval of this with all staff and
agency conditions.
Corrie: Is the representative of Woodbridge here this evening? Do you have any
comments on the staff's comments?
Lee: I don't. I'm happy with it and let's go home.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Final Plat approval of 115 building
lots and 10 other lots on 29.93 acres in an R-4 zone for Woodbridge No. 2 and to have
the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision of
Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Final Plat of Woodbridge
No. 2 with the motion. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 97
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 24: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: The next item on the Agenda is water, sewer, and trash delinquencies. This is
to inform you in writing if you so choose, that you have a right to a hearing at 7:30,
Tuesday, February 19, 2002, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person
and be judged on the facts on the claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and
trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service may be discontinued on
February 20, 2002, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone here that wishes
to be heard on the water, sewer, and trash delinquency? I hereby inform you that you
may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed in the Fourth Judicial Court
pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though you do appeal, your water will be shut off.
The total amount of $30,370.27.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do we need two days this month, Gary? Do we need the 20th
and the 27th
or the
20th
or 21st
or what do you want?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, Council, I'm not sure how many turnoffs are on the
list. I didn't count them.
Corrie: All of them here are not going to be turned off, however.
Smith: Right. I think that would probably be the safe thing to do, Mr. Mayor,
Councilman Bird, is just go ahead and have two days set up for turnoff, but they may
not need them by the time the payments have all come in.
Bird: The 20th
and the 27th
, is that close enough, or --
Smith: 20th
and 27th
.
Bird: 27th
. Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the water, sewer turnoff list to be done on February 20,
2002, or February 27, 2002, in the amount of $30,317.27.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 98
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded with a yawn for the turnoff on February 20th
and 27th
. All in favor of the motion say aye.
Nary: Could I ask a question before you do that?
Corrie: Yes.
Nary: I hesitate to bring this up, but I'm looking on page 17 on the 6th
person down, is
that -- if you look at Page 17 on the 6th
name on the list. I know it's a very common
name, but --
Smith: Councilman Nary, I think his wife has the check in her purse.
De Weerd: Let's make sure that we give him a hard time.
Smith: I will. I will bring it to his attention the first thing in the morning.
Nary: It's a very common name and I just happened to see that.
Corrie: I was looking for my name and I saw Corrie there and I -- my son forgot to pay
14 cents, so they assured me his water wouldn't be turned off for 14 cents. Okay. All
those in favor of the motion say aye. Okay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 25: Executive Session per State Statute 67-2345(1)(c).
Corrie: All right. Executive Session per State Statute 67. Do I hear a motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we go into Executive Session per State Statute 67-2345(1)(c).
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Roll call vote, please.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 99
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
(Council members come out of Executive Session)
De Weerd: We are coming out of the Executive Session. There were no decisions
made.
Bird: Madam President, I move that we come out of Executive Session.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It’s been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. All those
in favor say aye. No decision was made. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:23 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 19, 2002
Page 100