Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 02-04Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:07 P.M., on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie. Members Present: Robert Corrie, William Nary, Tammy de Weerd, and Cherie McCandless. Member Absent: Keith Bird. Others Present: William Nichols, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Ken Bowers, Mike Worley, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Dean Willis, and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll call Attendance: __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless ___ Keith Bird ___X__ Mayor Robert Corrie Corrie: All right I'm going to open the Meridian City Council Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 7:07 P.M. At this time, I'd like to have the City Clerk give us the roll call attendance, please. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Before we go any further, I would like to welcome the Boy Scouts here tonight, Troop 5 and Troop 198, and hope that we will give you some good civic lessons tonight, how the City Council is run. I promise you we will not fight, bite, or hit one another. We haven't done it yet. I do want to welcome you here and we wish you great success in your scouting career. Thank you. Item Number 2 on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Any corrections or additions that the Council -- De Weerd: I have none. Corrie: Okay hearing none at this point, I will entertain a motion for the adoption of the agenda as written. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the agenda as presented. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 2 of 30 Corrie: Okay motion has been made and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of December 10, 2002 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02- 024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – 4450 North Linder Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 02- 022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – 4450 North Linder Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 02-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, 8 single-family attached homes and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – 4450 North Linder Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 02- 008 Request for a Rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R-40 zones for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell – 1425 Northeast 5th Street: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 02-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell – 1425 Northeast 5th Street: I. Approve Beer and Liquor License Applications (Pro-rated one- half year) for Johnny Carino’s Country Italian Restaurant by Carino’s Italian Kitchen, Inc. – 3551 East Fairview Avenue: J. Approve Beer License Application (Pro-rated one-half year) for Baja Fresh Mexican Grill by Gotta Be Fresh, Inc. – 1440 North Eagle Road: Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 3 of 30 K. Approve Bills: Corrie: Next is the Consent Agenda and is there any additions or corrections or changes in the Consent Agenda? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: If I could ask to have Items G, H moved to 5-G, and H. I just had a couple of questions about them if we could do that, but, other than that, I would move that we accept the Consent Agenda. Hawkins-Clark: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Sorry, I did not get a chance to put that in, but we do have some concerns with 3-B, C, and D and I'd like that moved to next week's meeting. Corrie: B, C, and D? Hawkins-Clark: Yes B, C, and D. Corrie: So you want those moved until the February the 11th meeting? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Corrie: Any other corrections, staff? Council? Okay with those changes for B, C, and D to be moved to the -- to February 11, 2003 Meeting, G, and H will be moved to Item Number 5. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move that we approve the Consent Agenda as Items 3-A, E, F, I, J, and K as presented and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest where necessary on any of the proper papers. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded any further discussion? Hearing none roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: Vote in the affirmative. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 4 of 30 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Department Reports Corrie: Department Reports. Any Department Reports tonight? Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) G. Summary of Action: MI 01-001 Request for a Street Name Change from East First Street to Main Street from Cherry Lane / Fairview Avenue south to East Central Drive or Overland Road: H. Resolution No. 03-398: MI 01-001 Request for a Street Name Change from East First Street to Main Street from Cherry Lane / Fairview Avenue south to East Central Drive or Overland Road: Corrie: Okay hearing none, Item Number 5, items moved from the Consent Agenda Items G and H. We will take G first Mr. Nary, questions? Nary: Mr. Mayor, I guess my only question was, since I knew we had done this quite awhile back, I didn't see a memo. Maybe I just missed something, as to why we are doing this now, and, secondarily, because the resolution indicates that we would maintain dual signage for a year. I just wanted to be clear in this resolution is it a year from now or a year from when we did it, which we did it about a year ago and I didn't know if Mr. Nichols had an answer to that or someone else. Corrie: Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's my recollection that we prepared these documents quite some time ago and for whatever reason we didn't shepherd them well enough to get them on the agenda for your approval. Then, the Clerk's Office began getting calls from either the assessor or somebody at the county wanting something that could be recorded to reflect what had been done and so that's why they are on there now correct, Mr. Clerk? I think that's -- Corrie: The record shows he's shaking his head yes. Okay. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I guess, then, the only other question I have -- and, again, I don't know who is the right person to ask, on the issue of about a year -- my recollection from Planning and Zoning was that the postmaster had indicated that they would continue to deliver mail for a year from when we did it, from when we changed the name, and it's been changed for quite awhile. It has the double street signs that have been up for eight or nine, 10 months, I don't know -- quite awhile, as well. I guess I just wanted, for clarity's sake, if we are going to pass this, do we need to -- should we put in a date as to when this ends at the end of 2003, so that they don't have to make -- it would be up forever or -- I don't know who is going to take them down anyway. Does anybody have Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 5 of 30 any -- is ACHD going to take those signs down at some point? Does anybody know that? Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, I believe that Mr. Nichols was correct in that it mainly was an error in just getting the resolution passed. We just never got the documentation in front of you to formally approve and so I don't believe that the Highway District, who put the signs up, is even aware that we are moving on this action tonight. For them it's still based on the original date of approval by the City Council. I guess my -- I did not speak with anyone at the Highway District regarding the timing of the signs, but I would think that the original one-year would -- would be safe. I would not see a need to add from today's date one-year. Nary: Right. It probably doesn't make any difference. I guess what I would propose, if the Council is of a mind, is that on the resolution we simply delete Section 5 -- I mean the signs are already there. I don't think we are going to take them down. If someone else takes them, I don't want someone to say they are violating something. They don't - - they can be up for as much -- for as long as somebody leaves them there. If we delete Section 5, probably nobody is going to have a concern about it and the postmaster will continue to deliver mail until he doesn't want to anymore and I think that would probably be adequate. If that's all right with everybody, I guess I would move the approval of Item G, MI-01-001, a request for a street name change summary from East First Street to Main Street from Cherry Lane, Fairview Avenue, south to East Central or Overland, to -- and with the amendment to include the deletion -- this is the summary -- to delete Section 5 requiring the double street signs. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: Okay. Affirmative vote. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Item Number 6, then. Nary: Oh. I still have -- Corrie: Oh, you have got G. I'm sorry. H. Nary: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I'd move the approval of Item H, Resolution Number 03- 398, looks like it's MI 01-001, resolution request for street name change from East First Street to Main Street from Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue south to East Central Drive or Overland Road, with the amendment to include deletion of Section 5 of the resolution regarding the double street signs. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 6 of 30 McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: Okay. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 6. Ordinance No. : Amending Ordinance No. 01- 928 Pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention Amending Section 10-6- 3B General Provisions, Establishing Areas of Special Flood Hazard and Amending the Designated Reference Document: Corrie: That does get us down now to Item Number 6, which is Ordinance Number 03- 1004. This is amending Ordinance Number 01-928, pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention Amending Section 10-6-3B, General Provisions, and Establishing Areas of Special Flood Hazard and Amending the Designated Reference Document. At this time I would like to have, the City Clerk read Ordinance Number 03-1004 by title only at this time. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1004, an Ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending Ordinance Number 01-928 Pertaining to the Flood Damage Prevention Amending Section 10-6-3B, General Provisions, Basis for Estimating Areas of the Special Flood Hazard and Amending the Designated Reference Documents and providing an effective date. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1004 by title only. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion for Ordinance Number 03-1004. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1004, Amending Ordinance Number 01-928, Pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention and Amending Section 10-6-3B, General Provisions, Establishing Areas of Special Flood Hazard and Amending the Designated Reference Documents, with suspension of rules. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 7 of 30 Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Okay roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: Okay. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Ordinance No. : Wireless Communications Tower: Corrie: Item Number 7 is Ordinance Number 03-1005. This is a Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance. At this time, I would like to have the City Clerk read the Ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1005, an Ordinance of the City of Meridian enacting a new Chapter 22, Title 11, zoning regulation to be known as Wireless Communication Tower, WCT, providing for wireless communication facilities, poles, antennas, towers, and other such structures and notice to property owners and providing for appeals, severability, conflict, validity, date and clause and providing for an effective date. Corrie: Thank, Mr. Berg. You do that very well. You have heard the reading of the ordinance on towers by title only. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Thank you and the City Clerk thanks you. We would split that up into four different sections. All right. Council, I will entertain a motion on 03- 1005 ordinance. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve Ordinance Number 03-1005, the Wireless Communication Tower and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk attest, with suspension of rules. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03- 1005, with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: Okay. Both approved. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 8 of 30 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8. Ordinance No. : Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-2-2, Definitions of the Zoning Regulations: Corrie: Ordinance Number 8 -- Item Number 8 has been asked that we would table that to the February 11, 2003 Meeting. With that request, I will ask Council to approve that. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I'd move to table Item 8, the ordinance for amending the City Code Definitions of the Zoning Regulations to our February 11th Meeting. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to move until February 11, 2003, Meeting Item Number 8 Amendment to the Meridian City Code 11-2-2. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 9. Tabled from January 28, 2003: FP 03-001 Request for Final Plat approval of 5 building lots on 6.85 acres in L-O and C-G zones for Mallane Subdivision by The Land Group, Inc. – north of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle Road: Corrie: Item Number 9. This is tabled from the January 28, 2002 Meeting. This is a request for Final Plat approval of five building lots on 6.85 acres in L-O and C-G zones for Mallane Subdivision by the Land Group, Inc., north of East Fairview Avenue and west of the North Eagle Road. At this time, I will invite staff comments first. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This application is for Final Plat on the Mallane Subdivision. The property is in the bold outline there. Fairview Avenue borders on the south and Hickory Way on the east and north. The office zoning is currently on the whole property. Louie's Restaurant is in the middle of the property there. Here is a reduced copy of the Final Plat that was submitted as part of the application. The request does comply with the Preliminary Plat that was approved by Council. They did get a Time Extension. They moved this onto March of this year, so they have submitted it in time. They are proposing a shared access easement here in the cross-hatched area. They are also proposing a cross-parking agreement that would share amongst all five lots of the subdivision. The Preliminary Plat did require a 35-foot landscape easement that will be constructed across the full Fairview frontage. Louie's currently has their landscaping in, so this plat would require the balance of these two lots with Fairview frontage to have a 35-foot landscape easement and there will be landscaping along Hickory, as well as Dove Meadows. This Dove Meadows boundary, the Preliminary Plat required both a CMU block wall to be constructed across this diagonal area, as well as a 25-foot landscape buffer. I believe Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 9 of 30 the applicant is here tonight and would like to address that. They did talk with staff. The reason that that wall was added in there at the Preliminary Plat time was the concept showed a fairly large retail building that might have some drive access back here next to Dove Meadows. They are, at this point, proposing to keep this lot limited office and that would change the use here from a retail to an office, so they are arguing, I guess, that the intensity is going to be less and they do not need to construct that block wall now. That -- that is something that today's landscape ordinance would allow, as long as you still provide a 25-foot wide landscape buffer that is planted with dense plantings that are going to provide that sound barrier. That -- I will let the applicant address that further but other than that, I think the only thing to point out is that you -- there is a pending application for a rezone to a commercial zone on these other four lots, leaving this north lot next to Dove Meadows as a limited office. That should not affect the Final Plat, however. I would ask that our staff's recommended conditions in on January 31st memo be included in any motion that the City Council makes. Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Is the representative here this evening? If you would give us your name and address, please, for the record. Hepworth: Russ Hepworth with The Land Group, 128 South Eagle Road in Eagle, Idaho. Corrie: Thank you, Russ. Hepworth: Mayor, Councilmen, as stated by the staff, I just wanted to discuss the retaining wall, the block retaining wall along -- or not retaining wall, a sound barrier wall along the boundary of Dove Meadows. In the original CUP and the original Preliminary Plat that was submitted, it stated that it was required to build a masonry block wall with a 10-foot wide planting strip adjacent to this residential strip in lieu of a 20-foot landscape buffer, assuming that -- I guess, that they were trying to get closer to that -- that setback. It has been through different policies and it's now going to the 25-foot landscape and we are just revisiting if it is required to place both a 25-foot landscape buffer and a masonry block wall behind what is potentially going to be the back side of an office building, which could be a block wall itself. No other comments on that Item. One other item that we want to bring to your attention is that Lot 4 of the Final Plat was reduced from the original Preliminary Plat, approved Preliminary Plat, in size due to a land swap that was done between different parties of the owners. Now Lot 4 only encompasses the existing Louie's Restaurant and most of the parking is located in Lot 5 as shown on there and the condition of the Preliminary Plat was that each lot shall have it's own parking. As it is right now, Lot 4 or Louie's Restaurant, the parking is not included in their lot, so we are requesting that perhaps that -- that item be changed. That Lots 3, 5, 6 and 7, shall have -- or shall be -- or shall have to have required parking for those individual parcels or a note placed on the plat that the entire subdivision has a Cross-Parking Agreement. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 10 of 30 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I just have a couple questions. The first one of Brad in order to address the issue with the retaining wall, they would have to come in and amend the CUP, wouldn't they? If that was a requirement, it didn't say either/or, I would imagine it said they have to do the wall. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member de Weerd, that's correct. As a stated condition in the adopted plat findings, I think the only way to amend that is to have another hearing. The Dove Meadows property owners, if they attended, would be under the assumption that a masonry wall is going to be constructed and they were not noticed as a part of this meeting tonight. De Weerd: Okay. Brad, were you able to go back and look at why that condition was put on? Were there neighbors that attended that meeting and this was one of the -- we normally don't put block walls up there, unless there is a very good reason so was there testimony about -- Hepworth: I don't know that there was testimony, other than the original Concept Plan showed a retail building, instead of an office building there, and it showed an access lane behind it. I think staff, then, recommended that the landscape buffer and the wall be placed there, because there was potential for traffic, dumpsters, so on, so forth there. De Weerd: Well, keeping in mind that it would need to come back and be a Public Hearing to change that condition, I don't see why that would be a problem at this point, unless that block wall had to be built before they could start any -- get any additional Building Permits, other than the one they did with Louie's. Hawkins-Clark: Typically, if the city places a condition on a plat, we will require that that condition be fulfilled. One, either constructed before we would allow any construction to happen, or that they bond with the city for the cost of the improvement, like any other standard plat condition. We -- as it's written now, we couldn't, I don't believe, just move the wall from the plat to a Conditional Use Permit for that lot, because it's a plat condition, not a conditional use condition. It's a condition that's associated with the improvements of the plat, not Lot 5 -- or 6. I'm sorry. Corrie: Russ, is that Lot 6, is that going to be just one building or a group of buildings for L-O? Hepworth: Proposed right now it's just one. Corrie: Just one building? Hepworth: Yes shown conceptual a pretty large building. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 11 of 30 Corrie: Yes. I would think so. That's acreages there. Hepworth: Right. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Just one last question. You mentioned that you would need to have cross- parking. You have Cross-Easement Agreements for traffic flows. Hepworth: Correct. De Weerd: Where are you going to take the traffic out on? Hepworth: There are two entrances onto Hickory straight up from the entrance off of Fairview along that property line right there. De Weerd: Okay. Hepworth: It's an approach onto Hickory and an existing approach and one also at the end of -- well, I guess it's an actual easement through Lot 2 of the Angel Park Development right there, it extends out and that approach is located there with a -- with an easement on Lot 2 of the Angel Park Subdivision. De Weerd: Okay. I imagine those are going to be very important if the traffic continues to increase. It's already difficult getting in and out of Louie's, so -- Hepworth: Yes and I know the applicant -- or the owner of the site has pushed several times with ACHD to get a stoplight placed at the intersection of Hickory. However, I think they are running into road blocks there, because it's not in the five-year plan and -- De Weerd: We had that conversation with ACHD, so -- Hepworth: Yes. De Weerd: -- we know the problem you're encountering. Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Any other discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes. On that building there on Lot 6, I mean you said on the original concept it was a retail building, now it's an office building, but we still don't know that the purpose Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 12 of 30 -- that although the wall was there probably because of a drive lane. We don't know that that office building -- there is going to be a drive lane behind it as well. Hepworth: Right. Nary: And the trash dumpster is going to be behind the building as well. Hepworth: Correct. Nary: Okay. All right. Hepworth: Yes and I guess in defense of that, each lot does have to have a Conditional Use Permit before they construct on anything. However, as Brad stated, that condition couldn't be switched from the plat to a CUP on an individual lot, so -- Nary: And on this development, that's the only parcel that's immediately adjacent to homes correct? Hepworth: Correct. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you any further discussion on this request? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Brad, on the site-specific requirement -- I guess I'm looking for the parking issue or is that a different -- am I just not seeing it? Is there something on here about the requirement for a -- Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Nary, no, you're not missing it, it's just not there. Nary: Okay so we would need to add that about having the -- I guess specific parking on that plat -- they have a notation on the plat of having joint parking among all of these lots? Okay. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct and it -- I was also just informed by Gary Smith and the Clerk that I understand that there are three street light structures that are currently on Hickory Way abutting Lot 6 and 7. Mr. Leader, the developer of Dove Meadows, did construct those, but they have never been hooked up to power, so, apparently, the clerk's office is getting calls dealing with why aren't these streets lights operational and that it was tied to the development of this subdivision. I was not aware of that in writing the staff report, but, certainly, if a condition needs to be added that these street lights become operational, then, we would need to do that. I'd point that out, being somewhat Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 13 of 30 naive as to the history of the project, but understand that's where it is, so the developer would need to bring power and make these streetlights operational as a part of this development. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, do we need to approve these tonight, or do we need to find that condition out before we do that? Hawkins-Clark: I would refer to Mr. Berg, if he can shed any light on it. Nary: No pun intended. Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my understanding, remembering back, that when the developer who developed Dove Meadows and the church, apparently, there was no power run on that side of the street. It was always told that when power got there they would put the lights up, but before our bonding ran out, Mr. Leader installed the street lights and you can see them standing upright on the west side of the street. There is no power to them, but the streetlights are installed. It was one of those situations when that got developed, which I think Mr. Leader had all the intentions of developing at one time, but he sold it off. There is no power to those streetlights and they were going to get power when the power got on that side of the street. That's the reason why there is no power and no light, but there are streetlights. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, I guess back, then, the thought was that this developer would pay the cost of bringing the power line to those poles? Is that what was contemplated? Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I would like to guess what was thought of, but I think the understanding was he was going to develop the whole parcel and to get his bonding back, he was going to have to install streetlights. There was no way to get power across the street and, if you remember what the design is, the church has a large parking lot with lights in the parking lot, so that side wasn't so dark, but whatever was going to be developed on the other side would require street lights along Hickory Drive. Also, just so you know, that the main street light at the entrance on Fairview, the power comes from the church and it is not a metered -- the power is directly from the church and so they pay for that street light intersection. It's kind of a strange setup. That's just the way it happened. I don't know if Mr. Smith has anymore to add to that, but he was here longer than I was. Corrie: Gone, but not forgotten. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 14 of 30 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: So, at this point I know the applicant has an issue with the wall, but it's part of the condition of the plat, so they would have to come back and ask to amend that. We need to add comments on the parking and notation on the plat with the cross -- it wouldn't be a cross-easement. What would it be just cross-parking -- Hawkins-Clark: Cross-parking easement. De Weerd: Oh. Okay and, then, that the streetlights would become operational and that's where we are at right now? Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor, could I just ask one question? Just so I'm clear, the streetlights are all on the -- I guess the sidewalk that's adjacent to this property is that right? They are providing light to the south side of that Hickory roadway; is that right? Is that where it's at? Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would move that we approve the Final Plat of five building lots on 6.85 acres in L-O and C-G zones for Mallane Subdivision, to include the comments regarding the cross-parking easement notation on the plat and also the streetlights on the property would become operational and ask the attorney to draw up the appropriate paperwork. Corrie: All right. Is there a second? Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for Final Plat approval with the staff comments and the addition in the motion any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 10. FP 03-002 Request for Final Plat approval of 6 building lots on 13.77 acres in a C-C zone for Silverstone Subdivision No. 3 by Sundance Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 15 of 30 Company -- southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Corrie: Item Number 10. This is a request for Final Plat approval of six building lots on 13.77 acres in a C-C zone for Silverstone Subdivision No. 3 by Sundance Company, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road. Staff comments first. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a re-subdivision of existing lots that are there at the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Overland. The existing four lots are shown in bold. The Silverstone Way collector spine road there is adjacent to the east side of where they are proposing to re-subdivide Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7. Here is a more detailed look at this requested -- or their proposed Final Plat. As you know, all subdivision improvements have already been constructed out on Eagle Road, the 35-foot landscape buffer is in. In terms of landscape improvements, that's the only required landscaping in this re-subdivision request, so they are showing the appropriate sewer easements and other city requirements on the plat. The Preliminary Plat -- this does conform with the Preliminary Plat, so I don't think there is anything else to point out on this application, so we will just -- well, I'm sorry, there is. Item number nine on page two states to submit copies of CC&R's and the applicant did contact our office, they pointed out that Silverstone has already approved CC&R's that were submitted with the previous Silverstone Subdivision No. 1. They are not proposing any changes, so there is no need for them to resubmit, so we would support omitting that Number 9. Other than that, recommend that our conditions in our January 28th memo be included in any motion. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Is the representative of Silverstone here this evening? Name and address, please, for the record. Tealey: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Pat Tealey. My office address is 2501 Bogus Basin Road, Boise, representing the applicant Silverstone. We have read the staff comments and really have no comment one-way or the other. I'm glad they did notice Item Number 9, which we submitted to them, and would request that all be amended. Are there any questions, we would be glad to answer them? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Tealey, wouldn't it -- for Item Number 9, I mean I know they don't have to submit new restrictive covenants, but -- and this isn't a residential subdivision. Shouldn't there be some notation that the covenants that are already existing for Silverstone 1 now also apply to this phase as well, so that any property owners or purchasers or lessees will know all of the same -- the same CC&R's apply to all of it? Tealey: Certainly that's the case. What we were requesting be eliminated is the review by the city attorney. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 16 of 30 Nary: Oh so, if we had -- if we had a document of some sort saying that all of the CC&R's are still the same and all the same as previously submitted, that would be all right? Tealey: That's correct. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Any other staff comments, Council? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the request for Final Plat approval. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move the approval of Item 10, FP 03-002, request for Final Plat approval of six building lots on 13.77 acres in a C-C zone for Silverstone Subdivision No. 3, to include all staff comments with Item 9 of site-specific requirements being that the applicant simply submit a letter indicating all previously submitted restrictive covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the prior phases of Silverstone Subdivision apply to this Final Plat request and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 11. Public Hearing: VAR 03-002 Request for a Variance to allow a one year Time Extension for filing the Final Plat for Baltic Place Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., for LC Development, Inc. – south of East Franklin Road, west of South Locust Grove Road: Corrie: Item Number 11 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for a Variance to allow a one-year Time Extension for filing a Final Plat for Baltic Place Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., or LC Development, Inc., south of East Franklin Road and west of South Locust Grove Road. At this time, I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff's comments first. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 17 of 30 Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The subject property is on the south side of Franklin Road, just east of the cemetery. The Fire Substation Number 1 is just to the west here on the north side of and - Meridian industrial park to the north. This is, I believe, Baltic. The request was originally for a one-year Time Extension. You'll have to excuse the plat here, it's kind of marked up, but, generally, they are proposing a commercial -- they have already received commercial zoning here on the north end of their project off of Franklin. Then, they have also been approved for an R- 40 zoning on the south end of the property for an apartment complex. This is multi- family residential and, then, office and commercial lots on the north. The Development Agreement was signed. The city did pass the Annexation Ordinance recently that approved the annexation and zoning. The original application did request a one-year extension for them to submit the Final Plat, but, then, they did submit a letter, dated January 29th, to Dave McKinnon in the planning department that requested a two-year extension, instead of a one-year, so they did amend their application with that letter. The reason stated by Mr. Boyle in his letter as a part of the application for the extension largely has to do with Ada County Highway District's widening project of Franklin Road. They are purchasing right of way for this stretch in 2003 on Franklin and construction is slated for 2004. Due to the negotiation process on the right-of-way purchase, as well as other utility issues and installations, they are stating that the Variance is needed for them to work with the Highway District and they cannot submit their Final Plat, in large part because of that Ada County Highway District project. Typically, a time extension staff does not have to make findings, we just make a recommendation to the Council. Since this is a Variance, because they did technically miss their deadline for a one-year, we did have to make findings on the Variance and we could not find that they really met the findings. They technically could proceed with at least submitting their Final Plat application to city and we also felt that a two-year time extension, really, was not in compliance with the ordinance, which just states one-year. Staff did recommend denial of this request. Corrie: Any questions of Brad? This is a Public Hearing. I will invite the applicant on the request first. Boyle: Mayor, City Council Members, good evening again. Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive. Corrie: Oh, I'm sorry. Boyle: In Boise, Idaho. Corrie: Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Boyle: It is. Corrie: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 18 of 30 Boyle: Want me to repeat my name again? Corrie: Do it just for the record. Boyle: Clint Boyle, Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. Corrie: Thank you, Clint. Boyle: This particular request that's in front of you is for a Time Extension for submitting a Final Plat to the City Council for review. This particular project, the developer on this project was unaware that the time had lapsed and part of that came from the fact that the actual annexation request was adopted -- I believe it was in August of 2002. He was under the impression that his time actually started once the property was annexed into the city, but, apparently, in discussions with the staff, it starts from when the Preliminary Plat is actually approved, even though the property wasn't within the city. That was part of his misunderstanding on this. To further complicate things, the Development Agreement that was originally signed, apparently, there was an error. The city informed us in some of their legal description -- or legal proceedings on the publication of it, and maybe Mr. Berg knows more about that, but the developer, again, was contacted recently. He had to resign that Development Agreement and that was just adopted within the last month. With that and with those issues behind him, that's part of the reason why he didn't hit the October submittal deadline for filing a Time Extension. The Preliminary Plat was approved in October 2001 and would have been up apparently in October of 2002. However, the annexation didn't occur until August of 2002. Now, with that said, the items that are coming into play here -- I believe Brad touched on this. As this City Council is aware, with the Time Extensions and with other projects that you have seen in the past, if you -- if you don't submit the request for the Time Extension prior to the one-year deadline, then, the way that these requests have been handled in the past is through a Variance request process. When the developer has contacted ACHD and worked with them with regards to the timing of their project, they have indicated that they will be purchasing right of way along Franklin Road this year and construction -- widening of Franklin Road adjacent to this site will begin early 2004 and be completed by the end of 2004. The reason that we are here in front of you tonight for this request -- and, originally, it was submitted as a one-year request. However, after further working with ACHD and trying to nail down their time lines, the developer felt that the widening on Franklin Road would be detrimental to his property if he were to proceed with an office/commercial development, which has its frontage on Franklin Road. Essentially, if he were to proceed based on the deadlines that our the original constraints, his project with the office lots would, essentially, be completed and opening for business right about the time that ACHD started tearing out the road for the improvements on Franklin. Again, realizing that this is not going to be very favorable to him and to the project, due to this disruption, that's the reason he's asking for the extension. I guess as far as the two-year -- if the Council doesn't see fit to the two-year, then, we certainly would like to have them consider a lesser time period, but he did feel that the two-year was appropriate, based on the constraints on the site. Again, given the fact that the property wasn't even annexed until August of the past year. Given that, Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 19 of 30 had the time actually started in August for this particular development, we would be out until August of this year before we needed to request a Time Extension and, then, he would have been out until August of 2004, which even would have better coincided with this particular development. Again, I believe that, just for the Council's clarification, the developer was unaware that his clock had started ticking, because the property -- the annexation and Development Agreement hadn't -- hadn't actually occurred for this property until August. Then, the Development Agreement subsequently had to be resigned, republished this past month. With that, that's kind of the facts behind it. When I -- you know, the staff, as far as their findings, some of their findings, if you look at their findings under such categories as Item B, it talks about strict compliance with the requirements of this title would cause -- would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, because of -- and it lists some features. Unusual topography, the nature, or condition of adjacent development -- well, I would certainly say that ACHD's project would be a certain condition that affected this particular property. Then, it says other physical conditions or other conditions that makes strict compliance unreasonable under the circumstances. Again, you know, we believe that ACHD, the project that’s going through, and the timing of that, with the other issues that I brought up, do make this a unique situation here. As far as it being detrimental to public health and welfare, we received the packet, there didn't seem to be any agencies that felt that this was detrimental to water, sewer, fire protection, et cetera. Again, we are requesting the Variance for the submittal of the Final Plat. The developer would like to have a two-year extension, if possible. If the Council doesn't see fit, then, he would accept a lessor time but, again, he wants to try to plan this project in accordance with the constraints that he's dealing with, with the ACHD project. Thank you for your time. Corrie: Thank you any comments or questions? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Boyle, you said, I think, that the -- that this property wasn't annexed until August of 2002? Boyle: Correct. Nary: Okay. Boyle: That's my understanding. Correct. Nary: All right. Boyle: Will may have the exact date, but I believe it was August of 2002 the ordinance was actually adopted. Nary: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 20 of 30 Boyle: Thank you. Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? Okay. Council, any other questions you have on the Public Hearing record? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess this is the first time I have seen a Time Extension as a Variance and I understand the reason why. I just -- this kind of request would never meet the objectives of the Variance, so -- we have been trying to stay very close in making sure that each Variance request meets the intent of granting a Variance. This is so unusual, I can't see how it can meet all of those intents. What is staff's opinion on -- this is an ordinance and it's hard to really make a decision on this kind of a unique situation -- or I guess I'm having a hard time finding the rational that meets all of these different criteria. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, I agree, it's -- these are kind of sticky situations. I mean the ordinance is very clear, it says if you don't submit your Final Plat within one-year of approval of the Preliminary Plat, it becomes null and void you got to start all over again. They did not submit the request within one-year, so, instead, of forcing the Preliminary Plat to expire, we have said, okay, well, let's work with the development community and do a Variance, instead of enforcing the null and void clause. Maybe legal has some other opinions on it, but that's how we have dealt with these -- you know, these projects where instead of forcing it to go back to the beginning of the Preliminary Plat, because, technically, it is null and void today. De Weerd: In some communities don't they just totally de-annex them and they revert back to their previous zone? Hawkins-Clark: I believe so. I think most -- you know, so our Development Agreements do have a de-annexation clause. De Weerd: I didn't want to bring that up, but -- Corrie: Well, certainly, they don't meet the Variance requirement here, so -- Boyle: Mayor, if I might just make one more comment while the hearing is still open. Clint Boyle again. Again, just so this Council is aware, in many of the municipalities around, they, actually, allow two years from Preliminary Plat approval before having to file the Final Plat and that is very common with many of the jurisdictions in the area. With that said, this Variance process, this process that we are proposing tonight, has been approved by the Council in the past. I can think of one -- not that I have done, but it was adjacent to a project that we did that -- I can't remember the name of it, but it was right near Blackstone and Coral Creek Subdivisions, the subdivision that's adjacent to it Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 21 of 30 to the east. The same situation, a Variance request that came through and was approved, so that this is not something new as far as this Council and that's at least how the Council has proceeded with these type of requests in the past. Corrie: Well, let me ask you in your recollection did they meet all the Variance requirements, the best you can recollect? Boyle: I don't even -- Corrie: They must have or they would have probably not gotten it. My second question is we give Variances for one year. I mean it's not usual for us to do two years. Boyle: And, again, I don't recall, because it wasn't a project that I ran through on that Variance. I know it was adjacent to one that I was at the hearing and I don't recall all the criteria, so I can't really answer that, Mayor. Again, as I stated, if a two-year is unacceptable to the Council, the developer would certainly like a one-year extension. Again, it seemed reasonable from the standpoint that the property actually didn't have the Annexation Ordinance adopted and approved until August and, then, the Development Agreement, actually, really, technically, went into effect just this past month. I think there have been some unique situations there as far as just the timing on those documents as well. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Brad, is that circumstance -- I mean, I guess, the hard part I'm having is that we generally don't allow people to create their own hardship. Part of what Mr. Boyle is saying, at least it sounds to me like, it's a hardship that's created by the fact that the extension wasn't requested by October of 2002, but is the delay in annexation or the delay in the Development Agreement, is that -- is that timing fairly common? I guess I'm just not getting a real sense one way or the other. Is that fairly common, so again, it's still a hardship that was created by the fact that the developer here just didn't -- just missed the timing on it? Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, the timing of the annexation and the Development Agreement I would say is unusual, you know, in terms of the delay that Clint's talking about. I -- you know, the reason why the after approval of the Preliminary Plat waiting several months before it's annexed, you know, certainly, they are typically approved on the same night by this body, so I -- that could be argued that that's unique. I don't know the reason, yes, why we did not receive -- typically -- we must not have received the signed Development Agreement from the applicant, because that's what triggers the city's process to put it on our agenda is when we receive the signed Development Agreement back from the applicant. I don't know the reason for the delay there. Nary: Now, the ball is to you so why did it take so long to -- Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 22 of 30 Boyle: I asked the developer the same thing and he put it in the city's court, said that he didn't receive the Development Agreement until down the road close to August from the city. I don't know. I wasn't involved in it -- in the project, actually, from the get go, it was through a different firm, so I'm kind of coming in here mid stream as well. I did ask him that question as to why the annexation lagged and he was under the impression that the Development Agreement hadn't actually gotten to him from the city. There had been some lag time. I don't know if that's the true sequence of events or not, but that's what I have been informed. Corrie: Any light there, Mr. Clerk? Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know if there is any light, but I'm just kind of analyzing the process. When somebody comes in and annexes, the Council has wanted to see a Preliminary Plat with it, so they can see what the design of the project is as a whole. Yes, there has been times when there has been negotiations back and forth getting a Development Agreement that people are willing to sign. I mean there are several projects that were pretty complex and I know that Mr. Nichols had -- I'm not saying redo, they just kind of fine tuned that Development Agreement. Sometimes, you know, annexation can be delayed by just that Development Agreement being prepared, because some things can't be prepared until after you see the project and approve the Preliminary Plat, approve the conditions that you want to put in there. I don't know what the reasoning was behind the delay on the Development Agreement I would have to look back in my records to see what is going on. We have a process now that we sign the Development Agreement before we approve the ordinance for annexation and I could see where there could be some delays between when you initially approve a Preliminary Plat, which is at that night that you ask to go ahead and prepare an ordinance for annexation. The Development Agreement must be signed before we put that on the agenda. I'd just have to look on the records to see where the delays were, but I can just see, in theory, that there could be some delays regarding just the system that we want to incorporate to see the whole project and approve the whole project, rather than just a piece of it. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I'm not really seeing it very good, Mr. Boyle that the Variance findings are here. It also -- because, again, like you said, you came in mid stream, some of those timing issues may be attributable to the city and if that's the case, I think that your client does deserve the benefit of that, but we don't know. I don't know what those delays are. I'm not totally sold that Mr. Centers doesn't recognize when the timing of these things happened and that he just missed it, because he didn't realize when this was approved or annexed. He's a pretty knowledgeable developer. I think he knows those things, so -- but I guess what I would be willing to do, if the rest of the Council is willing to do, is continue this matter to allow us some time to get some of that information as to Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 23 of 30 the sequence of the timing of this thing. Give us better information to make a decision as to whether or not there are enough facts here to be able to find for this Variance. That at least benefits your client a little bit, because right now, if I had to vote this minute, I don't think there is enough here for a Variance. Boyle: Well, we certainly don't want you to do that, then, until you go through it, so -- but I will -- if I could just speak to that issue, because I did have the discussion -- and, you're right, Mr. Centers is a very knowledgeable developer. He had mentioned on another project, which was Locust Grove Place -- I, actually, had a discussion with the planner that was involved in that project where they had been in a similar situation. My understanding is that they had worked with the city on that and it was determined that their clock started ticking at the time of annexation, rather than Preliminary Plat, and so I can certainly see why he may have some confusion as to the time. Again, I did as well and it was an issue that I had to talk to the staff, they had to get together and figure out when exactly that occurred. The city technically doesn't have jurisdiction over the project until it's annexed. I don't think it's something that Mr. Centers was trying to beat the system. Obviously, he would have submitted the Time Extension within the appropriate time frame had he known what it was. Certainly, he doesn't want to have to bore you with going back through the process, nor be out the time and expense to go back through with, essentially, the same project and bring it back in front of you again with the same ordinances and everything and here we go one more time on it. I certainly don't think he was trying to get around that. The Variance option, again, we talked about this extensively with the staff, how do we proceed now that it's expired, and this was the mechanism that was given to us to proceed with it and that's why we are here in front of you. Again, if you need more information, I'd rather get you that information, than have a negative vote on the project, certainly. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would agree that we need to continue this to get a little more detail. This was a pretty contentious development application, I think, to begin this, so it could have caused some further complications in tying up the loose ends. I would say that I agree with Mr. Nary that the developer is seasoned and he should know to ask our staff, instead of another developer, what the process is. With that said, I would move to continue this Public Hearing until February 11, 2003, and ask that staff look in and see a little bit more detail of the delays and see if there is other criteria that we can apply to this Variance request. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 24 of 30 Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Is February 11th enough time? Corrie: That's what I was going to ask. Nary: Should we go to the 18th , just to make sure there is enough -- De Weerd: Well, yes, they are late, so it doesn't really matter. Nary: Just a little tiny bit later. De Weerd: I would amend to the 18th Brad, does that give you enough time? Hawkins-Clark: That would be great. Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: I would concur. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been to continue the Public Hearing until the 18th of February. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Okay. The 18th will be in February. Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 12. Discussion of Administrative Lot Split Ordinance: Corrie: Item Number 12 has been moved to the Pre-Council Item Number 6. This is a discussion on the Administrative Lot Split Ordinance. At this time, we will hear staff comments on that. Hawkins-Clark: Thank, Mayor, Members of the Council. The city over the last several years has received -- well I guess I don't know how many requests, but many requests from developers to be able to split a single parcel or lot of record without going through the subdivision process. As you know, by the time you run through the city's process on a subdivision and, then, get the appropriate agency signatures and get it recorded, you know, the average eight to ten month period is there, as well as the typical requirements for all of our subdivision improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lights, et cetera. The City of Meridian is unique in the valley in that we don't have an administrative lot split ordinance, that if somebody comes in, they meet an established set of standards, they are able, just through a record of survey, to be able to split a parcel. This has come up numerous times and Gary Smith in the Public Works Department can speak to it, too, if you have any questions. Our new Planner, Wendy Kirkpatrick, has done quite a bit of research on this research and she's here tonight if you have any questions. Generally, the reason this was on the Pre-Council was to -- before we go into a lot of -- Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 25 of 30 a lot more research and actually development of the ordinance, if the Council is supportive of staff coming forward with an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance that would allow us to provide this option, this tool, if you will, to the development community. We did not include any details on the proposed draft ordinance at this point in your packets. A few highlights, maybe, would be worthwhile, so if you want to hit a few highlights of what we are looking at, Wendy. Kirkpatrick: Sure. Let's see. With the proposed one-time division lot split ordinance, basically, if you have a parcel of record or a subdivision lot that has not been changed in size since we updated our Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Ordinance, you would be allowed to do one split of that property. The two parcels or lots that would be created both have to meet dimensional standards from today's code. The applicant would be required to come in for a pre-application meeting and during that meeting we would go through, make sure that they met the dimensional requirements before they were out the expense of doing a record of survey. When they came in to apply, they would come in with complete application fees, record of survey. It would be an administrative application, we would notice all affected agencies in case there were any complications with ACHD, road access, public utilities, and if all those findings were positive, then, we would be able to recommend approval and they could do a one-time division administratively, rather than going through hearing. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: How does that compare, Wendy, to the other communities with their administrative lot splits? Do they also limit them to just the one time -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. The City of Eagle allows a one-time division. The City of Nampa, Canyon County, Ada County, all allow a one-time division. This is similar to -- and usually, the parcel of record is tied to the adoption of the ordinance. That's when you establish the original parcel size and when you're allowed to -- generally allowed to do one split from the time that parcel was created. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Just two more comments. One is when you have a draft, it would be helpful, -- I know you can probably name the people who have an interest in this. Please submit that to them for their comments. This is going to be a tremendous economic development tool. I think if we look at being a little bit more receptive and accommodating to some of these -- this job base we are hoping to create, this will certainly help these individuals who are out marketing our community to come back with something more viable, because they have a little bit more flexibility. I sure appreciate your work in doing this. What a nice way to start. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 26 of 30 Kirkpatrick: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: If you could I guess remind me. It seems like I recall language in the State code that requires a Public Hearing to do a subdivision. Kirkpatrick: If you are creating -- Councilman, if you are creating three or more lots -- Nary: Okay. Kirkpatrick: -- you are required to go through a Public Hearing for a subdivision. Nary: Okay so, it doesn't -- the parcels don't have to be of equal size, they just can't be smaller than whatever the minimum lot size has to be. That's what you meant by -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. They both have to meet minimum standards, both of the lots or parcels created. Nary: And I didn't hear you mention Boise and allowing -- does Boise have Public Hearings on all of them? Is that what they -- is that why -- Kirkpatrick: I believe the City of Boise also has administrative splits. Actually, I don't have a copy of their ordinance with me to verify that. Nary: And maybe in working through the process -- I think I -- I recall getting a phone call from the Moscow City Attorney on this very issue, because they were wrestling with the same idea and having that -- and I guess whether it's you contacting him or Mr. Nichols or his office contacting him. That they were having some issues as well and it wasn't just over it being three lots. I don't recall what it is, but you may talk with them, because I think they have just recently gone through this process and so that way they may be able to give you some guidance as to what worked for them as well. I would agree with Councilwoman de Weerd, I mean I think as long as we can do it legally, I can't see a real down side. I guess the part I would have the most discussion about is there are situations that I can envision neighbors being very concerned that suddenly they are building what they thought was a fairly large parcel next to them, now has two houses on it, that they didn't realize there was going to be a second house and no one notified them, to at least give them the opportunity to object before hearing. Kirkpatrick: And that, actually, would be part of the notification process of notifying adjoining neighbors. Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 27 of 30 Nary: Okay. I didn't hear you say adjoining neighbors. I heard you say agencies so that's why I was concerned that we weren't going to give some sort of radius notice to the neighbors. Yes, that would be the only other issue I could think of that would be of concern. Corrie: Any other comments? Well, I think that's our marching orders there. Okay very good. Item 7. Discussion of Open Vision Fencing: Corrie: Item Number 7, discussion on the Open Vision Fencing. Discussion? Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is largely just an interpretation issue, I guess, that staff is wanting to receive some feedback from City Council on, so that we can give consistent information. It has to do with public safety, really. These two ordinances that are on the screen right now are from our Landscape Ordinance. The top one requires that if you have a micropath, which is defined on the bottom there, a micropath is a pathway providing access by way of a short travel length between points of destination, it's not -- it's less than 250 feet or two lot depth. These are -- we are seeing more and more of these micropaths in our subdivision plats. What we require there, halfway through that top paragraph, is solid fencing is used and shall not exceed four feet in height. The developer is responsible for the construction of the fence adjacent to all micropaths and, then, they have to note it on the Final Plat. The issue that's coming up is as developers come in, they comply with our ordinance, they put in a micropath, they pave the middle of it, they landscape it, they put up the four-foot fence. A future lot owner comes in, buys the lot that is adjacent to this micropath and they want to put up a lattice work on top of this four-foot fence to keep their dogs in, to keep people from looking in their back yards. If they don't get approval for that, occasionally, they will construct a six-foot fence inside the four-foot fence and keep that -- so we do have people coming in, occasionally, to get the -- you know, the interpretation and it does say solid fencing and it shall not exceed four feet in height. I guess what we are coming up with is, is lattice work considered solid. We have taken a couple of photographs here to kind of -- kind of visualize this. These are taken at Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. You can see the micropath here. Here is a four-foot fence, two feet of lattice work on top. Their point is this lot that's on the end -- that's on the other side of the micropath is more marketable, because they have a little -- it's a semi-private fence, instead of giving most people great visual into it. You can see Dave McKinnon standing here on the backside. That is Dave, isn't it? Nary: There must be a berm there. Hawkins-Clark: So, the question is, is that visual enough if you're walking along there? We have had some complaints of these being in places where at night people can hide, kids can smoke, you have -- do whatever -- whatever the issue is. That's the whole reason for having four-foot to give, you know, more visual access into these micropaths. This is a photograph taken in Wilkins Ranch Subdivision. Peregrine Elementary, the Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 28 of 30 new elementary school, is here at the far end of the micropath, so it gives kids the opportunity to walk from Wilkins into the elementary school. As you can see, there was -- the developer complied, they put up a vinyl fence along the micropath. The homeowner on the right has constructed a six-foot solid fence inside their property line. The property owner on the left has still left it open. We, actually, have a request pending for this property to be able to construct a fence similar to their neighbor. Not that the City Council needs to really go in depth in this specific issue -- I mean on this specific case, but the question is should the interpretation be that lattice on top of a four-foot solid fence provides adequate safety for pedestrians on the micropath. Our interpretation has usually been, well, if you have a planned development, like Bridgetower did, they specifically asked for it, we said, okay, you can do that. There are other cases where, you know, this lattice work, if you go to Butte Fence, you know, there is different elements. I mean you can see two-foot squares -- or two inch squares, you can see one inch squares -- you know, the degree of visual open visionness is going to change depending on the lattice work. When we wrote the ordinance, our feeling was, well, it's just easier to enforce a four-foot solid fence and that's it. If you come in and you want to purchase a lot, you know the fence is already there. It's been built by the developer, if you have needs that a four-foot fence isn't going to work for you, you have a large dog or something like that, then, you just don't buy that lot, you look elsewhere in the subdivision. We have typically said four-foot is it, no lattice work, but we are receiving more of these requests and mainly just wanted to get some other feedback from Council. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Having served on that committee, I would stand by what the intent and what is written, that you can't do that. There is definitely a safety issue that is created with a micropath and that is one reason why we ask for the height limitation, as well as a visual -- to not be a solid, so you can see through it. I don't know what the rest of the Council feels, but I would say the intent of how we wrote that ordinance should still remain today. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't know if Chief Worley has any input as well from the police standpoint, but I guess I would agree from Council Member de Weerd's standpoint that the biggest concern with these micropaths is creating these tunnels and the safety risks of people being able to use them. You know, that's why they generally have to be straight you have to be able to see from both ends, you don't want bends in them and such, so that way people don't have hiding places. Certainly, like you're saying in Bridgetower with the lattice on the top, I think is a compromise in that type of application, that's pretty reasonable. Like where the -- you showed there in Wilkins Ranch and Ponderosa Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 29 of 30 Elementary, that double fencing is definitely not the intent of the ordinance at all and that is a -- that does -- it can create a risk and in that scenario, that may be -- that might be reasonable. I mean I'm not trying to decide that, but I'm saying in that scenario where at least, you know, there is a long path and you have only got a small portion of it that's going to be fenced, then, that's fine. If you go to, for example, a micropath that's on Sandalwood to Linder Elementary, it is fenced the entire way and there is no -- there is no way to see in that pathway at all from either side, that I think is where some risk occurs. I think there is other micropaths the same way they have got fencing along that. I mean I can see on a case-by-case basis at least trying to wrestle with this circumstance where you at least have some space. What I have seen is not only this risk factor be created, but the weed factor that's happened from this double fence is that you have a real nice strip there for weeds and nothing else. I guess I would agree with Council Member de Weerd and I think Council Member McCandless said the same thing, was that that was the intent, was to make sure that we had open vision. That's not open vision, unless there is some circumstances that we could articulate as to why a portion could be fenced off. I knew you wanted to have something to say, since you were here. Worley: Thank you, Councilman. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I would concur with what -- the Council's comments. I don't see a problem with the lattice work. I don't think that materially detracts from the intent of the ordinance. Certainly, this six-foot solid fence -- and Chief Bowers may have some comment about the fire hazards that may crop up with the weeds. Certainly this does create a vision blockage this way, whereas the lattice work I don't think materially affects what we are looking at there, so I guess I would say that this compromise I could support, but the other one, no. Corrie: Any other comments? Discussion? Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I can ask a question of Council. If you look at the fence on the photograph, the lower portion also is not solid, and perhaps that has some impact in terms of looking at how you define that in the ordinance. Certainly, somebody that's walking is going to be seen, even if they are only four-foot tall, whereas the bottom portion of the fence isn't solid, because you can see that shadow that passes through there. Perhaps you might give some consideration as to whether that needs to be part of the requirement, too, along these micropaths is perhaps some spacing is allowed between the staves, so that there is some vision where the folks that have got the four- foot yet. Corrie: Okay. All right. Any other comments? Good. Okay. That concludes the regular meeting of the Boise -- or Meridian City Council. I didn't say that. Is there any other thing that Council has? Meridian City Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 30 of 30 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: We received a memo from Mr. Beeler of Waddell & Reed and as well as Ms. Smith regarding this issue of deferred Compensation Plan and I wondered if you have an opportunity to have that discussion. He's asked us to reconsider a decision we made a few weeks ago. Ms. Smith gave a certain time line of some of these things and I guess I didn't know if we were going to have an opportunity to have a discussion about this at Pre-Council next week or the week after. Corrie: I would suggest we do it next week at Pre-Council. I will put it on the Pre- Council agenda. There is some things that we are still working out with that one, so -- Nary: That way we can run it by Mr. Beeler and -- great. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. I talked to him Monday. Nary: Great. Corrie: Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion, then, for the close of the Meridian City Council meeting. De Weerd: So moved. Nary: Second. Corrie: All in favor say aye. All ayes motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Thank you, Number 1, for staying with us. We got through at a decent hour tonight. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK