HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 07-22Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M., on
Tuesday, July 22, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, William Nary, Tammy de Weerd, and Cherie
McCandless.
Members absent: Keith Bird.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Doug
Strong, Mike Worley, Bill Musser, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __O Keith Bird
___X__ Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: Okay. I will open the Meridian City Council Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July
22, 2003, at 7:15 P.M., and I would like to have roll call attendance, please, Mr. Berg.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. The second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I believe
you want to pull --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. A request that we move Items 4F, G, and H to Item 6F, G, and H, other than
that, I would move to approve the agenda as presented.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: All right. Motion has been made and seconded with the addition of the changes
to approve the adoption of the agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Swearing-In Ceremony for six new Meridian Police Officers: Sara
Rutte, Eric Stoffle, Mark Zakarian, Greg Kortan, Berle Stokes, and
Geoff Rowe:
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 2 of 78
Corrie: At this time we were going to have a swearing in ceremony for six new Meridian
police officers. At this time Chief Worley.
Worley: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if we could have the officers
come in. We are swearing in six officers tonight, which will bring us up to full
complement. We also have seven officers, including myself, present in the room to
witness this ceremony and I was informed early by Lieutenant Overton that that's one
more police officer in this room than existed on the Meridian Police Department 15
years ago. We have grown a bit. If I could get you guys to step forward a little bit and
as we do this I will kind of move down behind you, so -- first we are going to give you a
little brief or a little biography of each officer. Kind of give you an idea of where they
came from, how they got here to Meridian, so Captain Bill Musser.
Musser: I'm going to start with Sara Rutte. Sara grew up in the military. Her father was
in the Marine Corps and as a result, she has lived in San Diego and El Cahon,
California. Also in Spokane, Bremerton, and Silverdale and Bellingham in Washington.
She has two sisters, one of which has joined her here tonight. She attended Western
Washington University, graduated with her BA in education, and found her husband
Matt also while she was there. She taught high school English prior to beginning her
law enforcement career and she just recently graduated from the POST Academy and
was elected vice-president of her class. Sara has her husband Matt tonight attending
with her, along with her sister Michelle. The next officer is Officer Eric Stoffle. Eric has
worked at Pacific Publishing for 15 years, did a number of things while he was there,
working his way into becoming the editorial assistant where did a lot of editorial and
design tasks for a number of magazines. One of his hobbies that he's had through the
years here has been writing as well and he's published three children's books and co-
authored a junior devotional and two Christian adult novels. Prior to coming to the
Meridian Police Department Eric also worked as a detention officer in both Canyon and
Ada Counties. He has a BA in English and he also graduated from the POST Academy
just recently with honors as the top student in that class. The third officer is Mark
Zakarian. Mark grew up in California, is married, and has a 10-year old son. Mark has
a master's of science in management information systems and a BS in computer
studies and is also Microsoft certified systems engineer. Why he wanted to leave
computers and get into law enforcement we haven't figured out, but we sure welcome
him here. Mark's prior experience also includes being an analyst for clinical research
dealing with cancer and HIV. His wife is a licensed physician here in town. Mark is also
a recent graduate from the Idaho Peace Officers Standards and Training Academy and
one of the very few to go through on that academy that was able to max the physical
agility requirements for the academy. He had hoped to have his wife Mary Ann and his
son Samuel attend tonight, but both were occupied with other things, so they were
unable to attend. The fourth officer, Greg Kortan. Greg grew up in the Nampa area and
served in Desert Storm with U.S. Marines. He was enlisted for four years. He married
a young lady by the name of Heather Cushing in June of 1995 and, apparently, is living
a wee bit apart from his wife right now as she's completing her bachelor's in business
administration in Pocatello right now. He's a certified officer with an intermediate
certificate. He graduated from the law enforcement program at the College of Southern
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 3 of 78
Idaho, went to work for Twin Falls Police Department, and, then, also attended the
police academy in 1996. In 2000, he went to work for the Pocatello Police Department
where he has come from to join Meridian and his experiences include school resource
officer duties, field-training officer, and he was also a member of the honor guard for
both Twin Falls and Pocatello. His family members attending tonight are his wife
Heather, his mom and dad Larry and Pat, and also his in-laws Cleve and Merville.
Berle Stokes. Berle is originally from Texas where he lived -- he's lived in several states
as a result of his father's military career as well. He's lived in the Treasure Valley since
1989 and he's a graduate of Borah High School and also Boise State University. He
has a BA in criminal justice. For the last five years, he has worked as a probation and
parole officer and as a narcotics K9 handler for the Idaho Department of Corrections.
Berle is married, been married so for 11 years, has a seven year old daughter and a
brand new three month old son. His wife Tracy is attending tonight, along with his
mother Carolyn and his daughter Ally and little Carson. Geoff Rowe. Geoff is our
newest member with the Meridian Police Department. He grew up in Pennsylvania and
Maryland when he was younger. He spent the last 20 years in the military, which
included service in the Air Force, the Marines, and Coast Guard. He recently retired out
of the Coast Guard as a lieutenant commander. He has a bachelor of science in
aviation management and he's also a licensed pilot. Prior to coming to the Meridian
Police Department Geoff lived in McCall and managed the airport there. Geoff is
divorced at this time. However, he has four daughters. He's very devoted to them.
Three of them are able to attend tonight, they will be helping dad put his badge on here
a little bit later, and those daughters are Brynn, Shannon, and Fallen.
Worley: Okay. Thank you, Bill. At this time, I'd invite Mayor Corrie to come and
administer the oath.
Corrie: Thank you, Chief. I'll stand up here. If you'll all, raise your right hand. Oh,
that's good. I get some people here that raise their left hand, so -- first off, let me
welcome you here. That's great. If you will say I, repeat your name and, then, repeat
after me. I, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution and laws of this state and will abide by the law enforcement
code of ethics, that I will faithfully discharge all duties of the position of police officer in
Meridian, Idaho, to the best of my ability, so help me God. Gentlemen, you're sworn in.
Congratulations.
Worley: Thank you, Mayor. Every organization, every culture has some special events
that are memorable moments and in law enforcement one of our memorable moments
is the first time that after the official swearing in that your badge is pinned on and we'd
like to invite friends and family members to do that. The folks that are designated to pin
on the badges, if you would come up and do that at this time. Ladies and gentlemen,
citizens of Meridian, I'd like to present your newest members of your Meridian Police
Department, Sara Rutte, Eric Stoffle, Mark Zakarian, Greg Kortan, Berle Stokes, and
Geoff Rower. Mr. Mayor, if I could have a moment?
Corrie: Certainly can.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 4 of 78
Worley: I'd like to take this opportunity, as many of you know, I'm leaving the end of
July.
Corrie: What?
Worley: I know I hadn't mentioned that to you guys. This is capping an almost 34 year
career in law enforcement in the Treasure Valley. Some of the best times have been
the last 22 months as the Chief of Meridian. This is an excellent community, you have
an excellent Police Department, and they are facing many challenges ahead as this city
grows, but you have some of the finest in the state here. Be very proud of them and
support them. I want to thank all of you for the support you have given me, especially
this Mayor and Council. Thank you.
Corrie: Chief, you have done a wonderful job for us. You did exactly what we asked
you to do and I think we will be talking to you again here in about next week. I can't tell
you why, but we'll be meeting again, believe me, before you leave. Anyone else from
the Council like to --
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would like to say I guess it's only fitting that on his last meeting he shows
up in uniform.
Corrie: You said you weren't going to say that.
De Weerd: I do think --
Worley: And it's been 30 minutes since you promised that.
De Weerd: It looks great Mike, and I would like to commend you for a job well done. I
know our department is -- has stepped top to a new level under your leadership. I think
we are in very good hands. You're leaving the department in good hands. I can't say
enough about what you have done with the department and through your leadership
and how much it's appreciated and just the caliper of the candidates of the new officers
that were sworn in today is a great example of the reputation that we have and how we
can attract such great qualified young men and women. Thank you very much.
Worley: Thank you, Councilwoman de Weerd.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 5 of 78
McCandless: Chief, we are going to miss you a lot. We do appreciate everything you
have done in the two years you have been here. Thank you so much for your service.
Worley: Thank you. It's been a great pleasure.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Hate to be the only one not to say anything, so -- I would echo the same, though,
Chief. The legacy you have left the department and what you have brought to this
department isn't going to be forgotten and the citizens of Meridian are better off that you
were here and we are sorry to see you go.
Worley: Thank you.
Item 4. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of July 1, 2003 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of July 8, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of July 8, 2003 Pre-Council Meeting:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP
03-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots
and 6 other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No.
7 by Bear Creek, LLC – north of West Victory Road and east of
South Stoddard Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-017 Request for a Variance to the cul-de-sac length
requirements in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 7 by Bear Creek,
LLC – north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard
Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for approval for
dance studio use in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th
Avenue for Sandy’s
Dancework’s by Sandy’s Dancework’s, LLC – 269 East 5th
Avenue:
J. Ten Mile Road Sewer Line Extension Latecomer Agreement,
Farwest, LLC – Lochsa Falls Subdivision:
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 6 of 78
K. Linder Road Water Line Extension Latecomer Agreement for
Farwest, LLC – Lochsa Falls Subdivision:
L. Finance Report:
Corrie: Okay. The next item is the Consent Agenda and we noted that we are pulling
Items A -- or, excuse me, Items 4F, G, and H, to be on the items moved from the
agenda. Is there any other discussion on the Consent Agenda?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of F, G, and
H and authorize the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest all appropriate papers.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda,
except for Items F, G, and H, which were removed to Item Number 6. Hearing none,
roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 5. Department Reports:
Corrie: The next item is the department reports. Do we have any department reports at
this time?
Item 6. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ
03-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 39.15 acres from
RUT to R-8(PD) zones for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by
Hillview Development Corporation – east of North Meridian Road
and south of East Blue Heron Lane:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP
03-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 161 building lots
and 25 other lots on 39.15 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone for
proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview Development
Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Blue
Heron Lane:
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 7 of 78
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for single-family residential use with reduced
setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, and house sizes in a proposed R-
8(PD) zone for proposed Trailway Park Subdivision by Hillview
Development Corporation – east of North Meridian Road and south
of East Blue Heron Lane:
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Then items removed from the Consent Agenda, Items 4F, G,
and H. Those were asked by the attorney to also -- so, Bill, if you would like to tell us
about that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in the package you have a position
statement from the applicant Hillview Development. The applicant's representative is
here. Just to go down through those, we need some clarification with regard to the
findings. If I can just address those from the position statement. The position
statement was directed in a draft. The first two items in the position statement have
already been corrected and you can see that from your packet. The third item we
would agree there is a spelling error that needs to be corrected. The fourth item, this is
a meeting I did not attend and so I'm not sure, you know, what the Council's direction
was on that. That's Section 12 on Page 15, which refers to a cul-de-sac and the
position statement indicates that there was an island removed from the cul-de-sac and,
therefore, that condition should be deleted. There is another typo correction on Section
6, Page 15. Then, the substantive item has to do with Section D-2, which has to do
with pathways. We have had this discussion before with regard to pathways along
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District facilities and along some of those facilities the
Irrigation District wants to have a License Agreement with the City of Meridian, even
though the pathway may not be a Meridian pathway. We had proposed some language
some months ago to take care of that situation and I believe that the condition says if
the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District requires a License agreement, then, we would
ask for an indemnity agreement from the homeowners association with regard to liability
and maintenance and I believe Ms. Bowcutt is prepared to address that issue. The
position statement indicates that they don't want to be put in the -- in between the city
and the irrigation district and do not want to give up the land holder liability exemption,
which I don't believe that an agreement throws that away, but, anyway, she's prepared
to address that issue.
Corrie: Is the representative here? Thank you.
McKay: Becky McKay. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's just a clarification. We
always struggle with Nampa-Meridian or any of the irrigation districts as far as the
pathways are concerned. John Anderson of Nampa-Meridian indicated to me verbally
that they would require that the city enter into that pathway agreement like you did on
Five Mile Creek, which indemnifies the district. I guess our concern is if, according to
Mr. Anderson, we cannot have a private pathway owned by the association -- because I
asked him that very question, I said could this be a private pathway that our association
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 8 of 78
owned and maintained and he said, no, it would have to be a city pathway. This is a
designated pathway on your Comprehensive Plan map, your pathway plan, and your
Parks Comp Plan. We feel that we just need the option of constructing this to park's
department standards as designated by Doug Strong I think in his earlier memo, so that
the city could, then, enter into the agreement that Nampa-Meridian requires to protect
them or indemnity them. My interpretation of the way this was worded was that we
didn't have that option, that this pathway would be private and that the burden would be
on the association. If Nampa-Meridian does not accept that, I need the option of
building this to park standards and making this public. Do you follow me? Because the
debate was between -- was concerning the gravel. I think we proposed 10-foot gravel
with two-foot shoulders on both sides to give Nampa-Meridian a 14-foot hard travel
surface. I believe Doug's comment was he wanted five feet gravel on each side and,
then, a ten foot path; is that correct, Doug? We were concerned that we would not
have the room to make those gravel shoulders that wide, but we may not have a choice
if I don't get Nampa-Meridian and their board to cooperate with us. I just want the
option -- either way the pathway will take place. I'm not asking for a waiver of that. I'm
only asking the opportunity to make it public or private.
Corrie: Questions?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And maybe I'm looking at the wrong one, but you cited D-2, Mrs. McKay, in your
position statement and when I look at that one, I guess I'm looking at the wrong page.
McKay: It's E-2.
Nary: It's E-2. Okay.
McKay: It's E-2. Yes.
Nary: Okay. I'm sorry.
McKay: It was -- that was a typo.
Nary: Oh. Okay.
McKay: Yes. That's correct. It is E-2.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it depends on which set of findings you're
looking at. Under 4-F it's D-2.
Nary: So, Mrs. McKay, are you wanting, basically, us to delete that entire condition or
just --
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 9 of 78
McKay: Just change the wording.
Nary: Just change the wording.
McKay: Just alter the wording so that we have that option of making this -- if we design
and build to park standards, that, then, the city would -- the Parks Department would
enter into the pathway agreement, indemnifying the district like they did with Five Mile
Creek. The License Agreement -- I think Mr. Nichols and I discussed, we'd still enter
into the license agreement, because we would be the entity installing the pathway, so I
guess there is a difference between the two documents, they are not one and the same.
I just don't want to be backed into a corner and be back here in three months time
saying that Nampa-Meridian will not cooperate with me and will not allow this to be
installed, because our association is going to be the owner and maintenance -- or have
the responsibility of ownership and maintenance. I think the first line, if you want some
rewording, the applicant shall be required to build the pathway, -- I don't know where the
12 feet came from. That would be minimum the 10 asphalt with at least two feet gravel
each side, that would be according to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District standards,
because the park's standard was 10, 5, and 5. If you change that and left everything
intact and, then, said or construct a pathway to 10-foot asphalt, five feet gravel both
sides, according to Parks Department standards, entering into a license agreement with
Nampa-Meridian for design and installation and, then, the city working with the
applicant Nampa-Meridian on the pathway agreement. I guess all Nampa-Meridian is
asking is that they use that same agreement that you guys have entered into in the
past. I don't believe they are deviating from their position, they are just telling me they
don't want a bunch of associations owning these pathways that are designated for
multi-use, because this is not like a micropath.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, is all of that language requested -- nice to see you, by the way. Haven't
seen you in awhile but are these changes as requested, is that adequate?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe so. If I could just suggest a change in wording is just to
eliminate the reference to the dimensions altogether and just refer to the Parks
Department standards.
Corrie: That would probably satisfy it better. Okay. Any other questions? Okay.
McKay: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Becky.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 10 of 78
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm going to move that we approve -- and I think we can do it this way. I guess
Mr. Nichols will stop me if I'm wrong. I'm going to move that we approve Items 6F, G
and H to include all staff members, findings as presented, including the amended
request -- or requested amendments proposed by the position statement of the
applicant dated the 18th
of July 2003. With the amended changes to items -- the item
regarding the pathway, since it does vary from each document, whether it's D-2 or E-2,
to amend that section to eliminate the dimensions of the pathway. Insert the comment
as stated on the record by Ms. McKay and confirmed by Mr. Hawkins-Clark that the
pathways can be built to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District standards. To use the
standard language in regards to a licensing agreement to require that if it isn't done to
those standards, it will be done to the Park's Department standards, as stated by Ms.
McKay. That we could probably eliminate the last line about the homeowners
association is responsible for maintenance, ownership, and upkeep of the pathway,
since it will be a public pathway. To include the remainder of staff comments and for I
guess approval.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: Three ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Ordinance No. : Park Regulations Ordinance:
Corrie: Now, we are down to Item Number 7, which is an Ordinance Number 03-1031,
Parks Regulation Ordinance. I'd like to have the City Clerk read the parks regulation
ordinance 03-1031 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1031, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian enacting a new Chapter 2 of Title 13 Parks, to be
known as Parks Regulations, providing for the following sections: Definitions. Motor
vehicles in parks. Alcoholic beverages. Preservation of facilities. Hours of park
operations. Closure by order of the director. Camping. Animals in city parks. Damage
to park property. Exclusions and trespass in city parks. Providing for repealing of
Sections 3-2-6A, 8-7-1, and 8-7-1E, providing for severability, conflict, validity, savings
clause, and providing for an effective date.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 11 of 78
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1031 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 to Ordinance Number 03-1031.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1031, the parks regulation
ordinance with suspension of rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary. Motion made and seconded. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you. Mr. Mayor could we -- would the maker of the motion consider
amending Section 7, date of effect of this ordinance, and changing the date to
September 1, 2003? I discussed prior to the meeting with both Mr. Strong and Captain
Musser of the Police Department moving the enforcement date of this ordinance back a
little bit from just approval and publication, to allow some opportunity for some
education of the public. This is a fairly comprehensive ordinance and some change to
what's been in the past. They felt, one, that would be an opportunity to get all the
enforcement mechanism and tools in place, as well as to get a lot of public education,
so that they understand what's coming and what the impact’s going to be on the users
of the facilities. They felt September 1st
was adequate time to be able to get all that
accomplished.
McCandless: Motion agrees.
De Weerd: Second agrees.
Corrie: Okay. The motion is made to have Ordinance Number 03-1031 be effective in
September. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, just a clarification. Then, we are changing Section 7 to this ordinance
shall be in force September 1, 2003?
Corrie: Right. Thank you.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 12 of 78
Item 8. Ordinance No. : Revised Ethics Code
Ordinance:
Corrie: Number 8 is Ordinance Number 03-1032. This is a revised ethics code
ordinance. At this time I'd like to have the City Clerk read Ordinance 03-1032, revised
ethics code ordinance by title only at this time.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1032, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Section 7, 8 and 11 A and B of Chapter 14
of Title 1, Ethics in Government and nepotism of the Meridian City Code to provide for
the Idaho Code language provisions after each statute and to provide for the deletion of
the words special interest and to replace it with the word personal interest, providing
validity, providing a savings clause, and providing for an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1032, revised
ethics code ordinance. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have it
read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the ordinance.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-1032, revised Ethics Code
Ordinance, and to suspend the rules pursuant to Idaho Code.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03-
1032 with suspension of rules. Further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Ordinance is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Tabled from July 15, 2003: FP 03-040 Request for Final Plat approval
of 77 building lots and 5 other lots on 26.84 acres in an R-4 (PD) zone for
Bridgetower Crossing No. 4 by Primeland Development, LLP and Young
Lands – northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile
Road:
Corrie: Now, Item Number 9 is tabled from July 15, 2003. It is FP 03-040, request for
Final Plat approval for 77 building lots, and five other lots on 26.84 acres in an R-4 PD
zone for Bridgetower Crossing Number 4 by Primeland Development, LLP, and Young
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 13 of 78
Lands, northeast corner of West McMillan Road and north of Ten Mile Road. At this
time, I would like to have Planning and Zoning director.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This Final Plat is a
part of the Bridgetower Crossing Preliminary Plat that was approved a couple of years
ago. This phase, which is Phase Number 4, is located down in this southeast corner of
the project. Ustick Road lies here on the south side of the subdivision. The platted lots
that you see here are part of Bridgetower Subdivision and Bridgetower Crossing phase
one, so this would be immediately north of that. Shown here on the screen is the Final
Plat as submitted by the applicant for approval. I will go to the next slide, just so you
can see there is a slight variation from the approved Preliminary Plat, which is this area
here. The Creason Lateral does course the -- this phase here to the south. It
separates them. It is piped, so they are proposing to use that as common open space
area. This cul-de-sac -- part of what instigated the change to the Final Plat, I believe,
was as their engineers looked at storm water and needing to sort of re-designate where
the storm water retention areas were going to be located and so they have created a
little bit more open space to accommodate that. Part of that was extending this block in
the middle, extending it a little bit more to the north and eliminating this cul-de-sac,
creating some open space. That's what you see here. Here is the open space lot. This
block in the middle is what has changed the most. They do -- they have widened the
access into this Creason Lateral open space lot. That will be opened to the residence
of the subdivision for use. That is a little bit wider. We think that's a better feature for
this phase, as well as the open space. We have reviewed it, think that the plat is in
substantial conformance, and we do recommend approval. There is one condition that I
would draw your attention to on Page 3, Item Number 9 deals with the revision of a plat
note. Plat note Number 14 addresses the setbacks for the houses in the subdivision
and the staff report says to revise it to a 10-foot setback for two story. However, that --
that was a -- this was a Planned Development and as a part of the planned
development they did get approval for seven foot setbacks. I would just change that.
We are making -- just basically making that complies with the Conditional Use Permit
that runs with this land. Other than that, I think all of the conditions have been agreed
to by the applicant.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions of staff? Okay. Is the applicant or representative here
this evening?
McKay: Becky McKay. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. As Brad indicated,
we have reviewed the staff report. We have responded in writing and I believe we are
in agreement. The only one that we had any issue with was site-specific requirement
Number 9 and that was the issue concerning the setbacks. The confusion has arisen --
we had three Preliminary Plats, three separate Preliminary Plats on the Bridgetower
project, we had, I believe, three planned developments, one under the old ordinance
and the Bridgetower Crossing and Bridgetower Crossing East were under the new
planned development ordinance. The staff has indicated that the ten foot two story
setback is applicable, but I guess my recollection of the original PUD is we had asked
for a deviation in setbacks. Nonetheless, I think that's irrelevant, because of the new
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 14 of 78
ordinance that -- Ordinance Number 03-1001, which allows now for a five yard interior
side setback, whether it be single story or two story. Usually, on our plats it specifies
building setbacks, dimensional standards in the subdivision shall be in compliance with
the applicable zoning regulation of the City of Meridian or specifically approved under
ACU and the applicable setbacks would be those setbacks on the underlying zone at
the time of the issuance of the Building Permit. At least that's my opinion. The setback
issue -- I know Mr. Nichols may correct me, but I don't think it's a -- we have an issue,
since the zoning designation or the setbacks for the R-4 zone have changed.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, question of Brad, if I may.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: Brad, I thought I heard you say that staff was agreeing that site-specific
comment Number 9 was in error. Is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Nichols, Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. I think the
difference is that I -- I had suggested that we have the setbacks apply that the planned
development was approved with, which was the seven foot --
McKay: For two story.
Hawkins-Clark: For two story. Right. Seven feet for a two story structure, whereas Ms.
McKay is suggesting that we go with the ordinance that was adopted after approval of
the Preliminary Plat, which says they can do five foot for a two story. I guess I -- you
know, I don't see any problem with that. I think that most of the time the plat note states
that when they come in for a Building Permit they will comply with the ordinances that
are in place at the time. We did amend our ordinance to say that five foot is allowed as
a setback for a two-story structure in the R-4 and the R-8 zones. I guess what I'm
saying is I think to just state that the note Number 14 really -- because I think we are in
agreement, could just state -- could go away or, really, the need to have a note that
says that buildings will comply with the ordinances that are in effect at the time.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it looks like I got out of having to answer a
question, but I think -- I think it still needs to be -- the setbacks still need to be indicated
on the plat. Since the ordinance may change after this Final Plat is approved, it would
be best to designate them as the five feet as contained in the ordinance, just because
you could have -- certainly, I don't think Ms. McKay is contending that if we passed a
new ordinance that said they were 20 foot side yard setbacks in the future. That she
would -- the builders would have to comply with that. I think I'd ask that you indicate in
your motion to approve that they are five-foot side yard setbacks.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 15 of 78
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess what I thought, though, I guess I thought I heard what the issue was, that
I'm unclear on, is that when it was approved as a PUD, it was approved with seven foot
setbacks.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Nary: Which was a reduction at the time.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Nary: And so I guess I'm a little confused as to -- if we are going to apply the standard
of the ordinance that's in place at the time, why wouldn't -- at this time when we
approve the Final Plat, why wouldn't we apply the standard of what this was approved
at, which was different than the ordinance -- it was less than the ordinance that was at
the time when the PUD was approved. Why would we -- why are we changing the
standard?
McKay: Well, I guess, typically, what we see, Councilman Nary is the base zone
setbacks are imposed at the time of issuance of the Building Permit. If those setbacks
happen to change, then, we -- you would see a change in that setback that's imposed,
say like with a side yard setback. If the base zone setback is less than the one that was
granted on the original PUD, would you not be able to go to what the base zone is? It
would be -- you're more restrictive, it's not going the other way.
Nary: Right.
McKay: So I guess we are just --
Nary: But you agreed to that. At the time the PUD was approved --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Nary: -- you agreed to the seven-foot setback.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Nary: And as Mr. Nichols said at the end, if we change the setback requirements and
increase them, you wouldn't feel bound to that, so --
McKay: We would have difficulty probably meeting them if they were 20 feet, yes, sir.
Nary: Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely. You would -- and you probably wouldn't feel you
were really bound to that, because you had agreed to seven feet. If we changed it back
to ten -- or never changed the ordinance to make it five, you would feel you were bound
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 16 of 78
to seven. I guess I'm a little unclear as to why we would change it from seven, even
though the ordinance has changed, because that's what you agreed to.
McKay: I guess that's probably a legal question. I've never had this arise. I've never
had anybody reduce our side yard setbacks that were less than what we had asked for
under a PUD.
Nary: Right.
McKay: So, the more I thought about it --
Nary: But since you wouldn't be bound by it if we hadn't changed it, why should we
change it --
McKay: Why should it deviate?
Nary: Right. I mean I agree now your next phase would probably be bound by the five,
right. If it's not -- I don't know if that was all inclusive, because I remember this was a
very confusing PUD and we did --
McKay: It was the first one.
Nary: Right. We did parts, we didn’t do parts, and so I don't know whether --
McKay: So, I guess if the Council would like to see this particular phase be seven foot
for two story, five foot for single story, we could live with that. We just don't want the
ten-foot, because that's not what --
Nary: Right. I'm not trying to create, you know, a double standard or anything.
McKay: Sure.
Nary: Or making it more complicated. I just -- I guess I'm thinking for the sake of
consistency that we do try to -- try on occasion to be consistent with how we do this and
I can't -- I just can't for the life of me figure out how we would simply just change that,
because the ordinance changed, without -- I don't know, I guess we could amend --
McKay: Amending the PUD or something like that.
Nary: I guess we would have to -- I don't know. Would we amend the PUD? I don't
know how -- we've never had that come up, so I don't know.
McKay: I mean that's -- you know, the base -- the base zone is what usually applies.
Nary: Sure.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 17 of 78
McKay: So, it draws to reason, I guess from my reasoning, that if the base zone
setback is less than the one imposed, because at the time the setback was greater than
what was requested, then, you would have the option to resort back. For example, if I
have a subdivision next door to this one and they did not do a PUD, they are just a
standard R-4 subdivision, they could have a five foot side yard setback whether they be
single story or two story, but, yet, because we did the PUD, we can't revert back to the
base zone setback.
Nary: And I guess my -- I guess my problem is is I also agree with Mr. Nichols that it's
very helpful on the plat to indicate what the building envelopes are.
McKay: I agree a hundred percent.
Nary: And so in this situation, I don't know how we would ever clarify if a person were
to look at the PUD and what was approved and the minutes that were -- all of it would
reflect seven feet, then, we would have a plat note that says five, with no explanation as
how we got there. To me --
McKay: Okay. Would you recommend, then, the seven-foot remain for all subsequent
phases on are we talking just this phase?
Nary: Well that I don't know. I don't know if the PUD was for all the phases or just this
one, because, like I said, I remember how confusing that was.
McKay: We had two PUDs.
Nary: And, you know, I guess to me I wouldn't have as big a concern if we were saying
comply with the zone and the ordinance that -- when the Building Permits are
requested.
McKay: Issued.
Nary: Or issued. I also understand the dilemma of not putting those -- those building
setbacks on the plat. I guess I don't really have an answer to that, I just am concerned
in simply just changing it without any way to explain how did we get there and whether
or not there was any --
McKay: I guess you could also state that the R-4 setbacks will apply and, then, you
would list the setbacks. I believe the Building Department appreciates that we do list
the setbacks, especially where we have the PUDs, because it was very confusing for
them at the time, because you had different setbacks for different subdivisions.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 18 of 78
De Weerd: I agree with Councilman Nary's point and I think you do need it on a
notation on the plat, because if it changes and you have one neighbor who had to have
one standard and, then, they are building next door with another standard, I think you
just need to set a standard for the whole phase. At least that. Otherwise, it can
become a nightmare if there is a difference that's too dramatic.
McKay: Okay. Is the Council requiring that we leave it at the originally approved PUD
setbacks, unless otherwise approved through an amendment of the PUD? Is that what
you're getting at?
Nary: What are getting at, Brad? I don't know.
Corrie: I don't think so, unless I'm following this road map wrong.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess my interpretation is that, yes, that's exactly what you're getting
at, is that you would prefer to see all of the houses in Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision
have a consistent side setback. Well, there is some difference between maybe this
phase or maybe the whole subdivision. Certainly, there is a desire, from what I'm
hearing, to have all the houses have seven-foot side setbacks. If you say that they can
construct to the base zone, some may have five foot setbacks, some could have seven
foot side setbacks, and what I'm hearing is you're saying to construct all of them to the
PUD required side setback, which is seven.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Brad, I'm confused more than when we started. Is the PUD setback a straight
seven, whether it's two or one story, or was it seven for two story and five for one?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. The latter.
Nichols: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: There certainly must be a process for us to amend that so future phases could
be in compliance with that or have an amendment to the PUD in some fashion, so that
we are clear going forward. Because I think Council Member de Weerd's point is well
taken that, you know if we have it different for this phase, you're going to have people in
one phase having a different standard than the people in the other phases. That's okay,
as long as they have some way to see why that was different and some way to do that.
I'd hate to have them point to this conversation to figure that out and I'm not sure how
else to make it clear to people why we changed it, so -- I mean we changed it because
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 19 of 78
the ordinance changed for everybody and that's fine, but we've never had that real
discussion. I'd hate to just change it without having some way to track that, because
there are people that do that, they'll go and make sure how -- why it was changed and
when it was changed, so -- but I don't know, we don't normally have people come and
amend PUDs either, so --
Hawkins-Clark: No. That's correct. I guess -- I think that, Councilman Nary, we could
address this at the Final Plats, as we are doing with this phase, although I think it would
be helpful for staff in writing future staff reports to know the direction of the Council for
these next future phases.
McKay: But this isn't the only subdivision with that seven foot two story side yard
setback. I think Lochsa Falls, Havasu Creek, are also the same. This issue will come
up again.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think you just have to live with the standards that were in place at the time
that the application went through and it needs to be noted on the plat, so everyone
knows the rules that they are dealing with.
McKay: Understood.
Corrie: Okay. Any other --
De Weerd: We'd have a nightmare if we didn't do it that way.
Nary: Yes. I agree. I guess my only concern is to make sure we continue to do it that
way.
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Because Mrs. McKay is going to be very bothered if we change it for somebody
else, so --
De Weerd: So, this note will -- or staff will take note on that one.
Nary: Well, yes, if we could at least figure out some way to make that process cleaner,
so that if we do want to change that, we have a way to change that fairly. You know, I
guess in the past we just thought we'd fix things at the Final Plat stage and I'm not sure
that's the best place to do that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 20 of 78
McKay: Yes. Probably the cleanest way would be to do an amendment to the PUD. If
a developer was insistent that these new standard R-4 setbacks needed to apply to his
development, he could come back through with a minor amendment before the Council.
Nary: Would you like us to set this over to give you that opportunity if that --
McKay: No. With this, one I think we will go ahead -- I mean it was designed to be able
to handle the seven-foot side yard setback if you had a two-story home, so I'd like to
proceed forward and, then, leave it up to the applicant. If they would like to change
their original planned development, I'll take your message back to them and they can
either live with it or proceed with some application.
Nary: Great.
McKay: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. That being said, I'll entertain a motion on the Final Plat.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move we approve FP 03-040, the request for Final Plat approval of 77 building
lots and five other lots on 26.84 acres in an R-4 PD zone for Bridgetower Crossing No.
4 by Primeland Development and Young Lands. Northeast corner of West McMillan
Road and North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments. To include the comments
of the applicant, as well as amendment of condition 9 -- appears to be the third bullet
that would reflect now the revised Number 14 to read five foot single story and seven
foot two story and for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10. FP 03-041 Request for Final Plat approval of 49 building lots and 3 other
lots on 17.08 acres in an R-4 zone for Messina Village No. 2 by Tuscany
Development, Inc. – west of South Eagle Road, south of East Victory
Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 21 of 78
Corrie: Item Number 10 is a request for Final Plat approval of 49 building lots and three
other lots on 17.08 acres in an R-4 zone by Messina Village Number 2 by Tuscany
Development, Inc., west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road. Invite
staff's comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the second phase for
Messina Village Subdivision. South Eagle Road is on the eastern boundary. The half-
mile between Victory and Amity is across the full south boundary of their project. Phase
one did have frontage on Eagle Road and this second phase is coming back towards
the west. Here is a copy of the Final Plat that was submitted. It is -- does substantially
comply with the Preliminary Plat. The density that they have in this phase is 2.8
dwelling units per acre. They do have a couple of large open space storm water lots.
One of them is here in the northwest corner. The future elementary school lot is
immediately north of this East Rome Drive. Then, the larger open space lot is centered
here. We are recommending that our -- since Ada County Highway District is requiring
a blanket easement for storm water maintenance on that and they may need to
potentially construct a vehicular access through the middle of this open space lot. We
are asking that if that happens it not be gravel, which I believe the Ada County Highway
District standards would allow for -- just as long as it supports their maintenance
vehicles, so we are asking if they require that, that it be paved and that's addressed in
our condition Number 4 in our staff report. I don't think there are any other changes or
modifications to our report, so I will stand for any questions.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Any questions of staff? Okay. Is the applicant here
this evening?
Brown: Mr. Mayor, Kent Brown representing the applicant, and we agree with the
conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Too easy.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions?
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion, then, on the request for Final Plat 03-041.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Final Plat of 49 building lots and
three other lots on 17.08 acres in an R-4 zone for Messina Village No. 2 by Tuscany
Development, Inc., and to include all staff comments and ask the attorney to draw up
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 22 of 78
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Final Plat 03-041.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, nay; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Under the circumstances, two ayes, one nay, one absent. The request
for Final Plat is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from July 1, 2003: PFP 03-002 Request for
Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O
zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon N. Anderson –
southeast corner of East Gala Street and South Millennium:
Corrie: Number 11 is a continued Public Hearing from July 1, 2003. This is a request
for a preliminary/Final Plat approval of three building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone
for Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon A. Anderson, southeast corner of East Gala
Street and South Millennium. At this time, I will open the continued Public Hearing and
invite staff's comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This subdivision
preliminary/Final Plat you did receive a staff report at your -- let's see, which -- that was
your July 1st meeting. However, the applicant was not here to give a presentation, so
you continued it to this date. I could go through and hit the highlights or, if you feel like
you have already got enough of the background, since staff has already put our staff
report onto the record, we could just allow the applicant to address it. You have
received, since that July 1 hearing, a memorandum -- a legal memorandum that I show
received by the city clerk today, submitted by David E. Wishney, attorney, and I point
that out. You also did receive a letter from G.L. Voigt Development Company, Eric
Wanal, I believe, is that last name, that addresses some of the CC&Rs. Essentially, I
think the point of discussion tonight, other than the preliminary/Final Plat basic
standards itself revolves around the Planning and Zoning Commission condition that
was forwarded onto you that the three lots of this subdivision provide vehicular cross-
access to adjacent lots and that's, I believe, the essence of the memorandum. Staff,
neither Public Works, nor Planning and Zoning, have had the opportunity to review the
memorandum submitted today, but I believe probably the central issue is with these
three lots that do all take access off of South Millennium Way and this is a reminder we
do have the Mountain View High School is -- takes access off Millennium Way. There is
one -- or there are two lots that actually abut the high school lot and, then, this lot that
we are talking about tonight is here on the corner of Millennium and Gala. When this
Resolution Subdivision came through the city in '99, there was a planned development
approved and that had the ice hockey arena, as you may recall, here at this -- this lot at
the southeast corner. There was also a detailed Conditional Use Permit for an
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 23 of 78
apartment complex on this 14 acre lot here and other than those two, the rest of the lots
were conceptual in nature and they were required to come through with a Conditional
Use Permit for all future uses. You have seen a couple of those Conditional Use
Permits. There is a -- I believe a Treasure Valley Pediatrics and a couple of the multi-
tenant shell buildings here on this lot. Again, I think the issue revolves around the
requirement the P&Z Commission placed to have cross-access not just between these
three lots, which are the Gaudry Seegmiller resubdivision, but also to this lot to the east,
as well as to the flag lot to the south. Planning and Zoning Commission revisited this
two weeks ago when a dental clinic was proposed as a Conditional Use Permit on Lot 1
of Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision, which is this north -- this rectangular shaped lot.
There was a lot of discussion at that hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission
about whether this Conditional Use, this dental use, should provide through their
parking lot access for this lot to the east, as well as this Lot 3 to the south. The
Commission continued that until they got some more direction from Council as a result
of this hearing tonight. The Planning and Zoning -- or, I'm sorry, the original plat for
Resolution did not require vehicular cross-access between all of these lots within the
subdivision. That is not a plat note or a graphic requirement of Resolution Subdivision,
which is recorded today. However, when this resubdivision of this lot came through,
that's when the Planning and Zoning Commission said, well, we, actually, think that
cross-access between all three lots is a good thing, we would like that to be a condition
on this project and that is, I think, what the applicant is opposed to. I hope I haven't
confused you too much. If you have any questions for clarification, I'm happy to try to
do that.
Corrie: Any questions of staff? At this point is the representative or applicant here this
evening?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor --
Corrie: Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Anderson: Absolutely.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Anderson: Gordon Anderson, Anderson, David & Associates, 1401 Shoreline Drive,
Boise, Idaho, representing Dr. Gaudry and Seegmiller. At Planning and Zoning they put
on note number four an extra line where they wanted to -- line item four for the approval
said applicant shall submit a copy of recorded cross-access and cross-parking
easement for the subdivision was the staff's recommendation and Planning and Zoning
recommended they add and adjoining lots prior to signature of the Final Plat. That was
based on testimony from Becky McKay on the neighboring owner's desire to have that
and I wanted to show an exhibit of the original -- the original plat of Resolution Sub and,
then, how the ownership lies right now. This is Gaudry Seegmiller's parcel here, this is
what Voigt currently owns, and this was sold to physician Dr. Gray, I believe. Right now
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 24 of 78
Voigt was asking for some cross-access between Gaudry and Seegmiller's property, but
what I wanted to highlight was Voigt still has control of these lots here and could create
his own cross-access to connect into an adjoining street or line up with the right of way.
Currently -- this is a copy of the Final Plat, larger version. Currently, there is a curb cut
that occurs about right in here and so there is a cross-access easement that allows
traffic from Millennium to go across the proposed subdivision, Gaudry Seegmiller, and,
then, also allows access for this lot here and for this lot here as well, these existing lots.
They do have cross-access and what we would like to do is see if we can modify Item
Number 4 to remove the language that states that we want to have other lots adjoin in
other places. If that's what it infers to, but basically remove any cross-parking language
between these lots and Seegmiller and see if we can remove the requirement for any
other cross-access and what is already in place by recorded document and Dr.
Seegmiller wanted to talk as well and David Wishney as well. Do you have any other --
any questions for me at all?
Corrie: Council, any questions? Thank you. We have five signed up for the testimony.
Let's start with David Seegmiller. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Seegmiller: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Name and address, please.
Seegmiller: David Seegmiller, 4080 East Bott Lane, Meridian. Could we put up that
graphic, please, from --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It will just take me a minute, but if you can continue on, I'll get
that --
Seegmiller: Okay. Great. Here is -- was mentioned they have the requirement for
cross parking, cross-access removed. First, on the cross-parking agreement, I plan to
design my building within the lot with available parking to insure that I have enough
parking for my staff and patients to come to the office. By a cross-parking agreement,
what that may allow is for a neighbor to put in the minimum number of parking spaces
that the city may allow, knowing that he can overflow onto my property and, then, I may
be in a, you know, position where I wouldn't have enough parking that I planned. As far
as the cross-vehicular access, I see this as a safety problem. Voigt Development, they
designed these lots, they designed that flag lot, and it has limited access to the lot. The
curb cut wound up on our property. We gave Voigt Development an easement through
our property so he could access the flag lot. There is access to the flag lot to
Millennium Way and to Gala Street without having to go out onto the street. You can
access either street through my property, as it exists. Now, if the front to the building --
if you can move the cursor to the front of the building. My concern is that as patients,
including children, as they leave the clinic and cross through the parking lot to the other
side, that they may not be seen by oncoming traffic, which is traveling between Lot 3
and Gala Street. The only reason to have access through my parking from Lot 3 to
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 25 of 78
Gala Street is to make Lot 3 more accessible. It creates a safety problem, increased
liability for me. I see that the city has a choice to either decide in favor of the developer
who is trying to sell a lot, which may not be as salable, or to make a decision in favor of
safety of our children and the neighbors who are going to be utilizing that -- that parking
lot. As far as going to have a straight shot through, they are going to be -- increase the
traffic and cause a problem. I respectfully request to remove the Planning and Zoning
Commission wording regarding the cross-access and cross parking.
Corrie: Any questions for David?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Attorney.
Nichols: Dr. Seegmiller, I need to make sure I understand. Are you asking that you not
have cross-access or cross parking with the other proposed lots in this subdivision on
this parcel or only on the adjoining lots --
Seegmiller: Only on the adjoining lots.
Nichols: -- to the south and east?
Seegmiller: Outside of this three lot subdivision.
Nichols: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Dr. Robert Gaudry.
Gaudry: I'm Robert Gaudry.
Corrie: Gaudry. I'll get it right here in a minute. Is the testimony you are about to give
the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Gaudry: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, again.
Gaudry: I'm Robert Gaudry, 2715 East Deer Flat, Kuna. I'm one of the owners of the
lot and I'd like to voice my objections to allowing the adjacent flag lot to have cross-
traffic access through our parking lot. I'm an orthodontist, the bulk of my practice will be
adolescents, and this will, again, represent a fairly significant hazard to my patients and
their families, since most of the parents bring small families. I'm already worried about
the high school being next to us, even though that's an attraction, with the traffic hazard
that it presents, but to have people running traffic through our parking lot I think is a
significant traffic hazard. I feel if the developer really needed that access to that flag lot,
he could have plotted that in before he sold the lot and made that a contingency or
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 26 of 78
abound that to the lot that has existed. What he's doing now is coming back after the
fact and trying to get a free road and improve the sale or the attraction of his lot at our
expense and we have already had to give up parking space and access to his road
because of the road cut they made. I would like to see the Council resist his request to
demand more from us, including parking. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. David Wishney.
Wishney: Mr. Mayor, if it would be appropriate, I would appreciate the opportunity to go
last.
Corrie: Okay. Stacy somebody. I can't -- are they here and wanted to talk? Okay.
David Zaremba. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Zaremba: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: David Zaremba, 2540 North Crooked Creek, Meridian. As many of you
know, I'm also a Planning and Zoning Commissioner. The condition that we have been
talking about that the Planning and Zoning Commission added to the others that the
staff had asked for was the result of quite a bit of discussion between the Chairman and
Commissioner Centers and Professional Planner Siddoway, who was there that
evening. It was not necessarily added as a condition, because an applicant for another
piece of property asked for it, that just alerted us to the fact that this had not already
been made a condition. Ada County Highway District has a policy that they are
beginning to push more and more of asking cities to make sure the traffic does not need
to go out onto the major streets in order to flow between parts of subdivisions. The
Commission is in agreement with this and finds that if we don't place that as a condition,
it's very difficult to get that traffic flow back again sometime later. I'm happy to say that
I'm seeing the Public Hearing process work the way that I think it should. Of course, we
had a Public Hearing before the Commission, discussion was had, some decisions
were made, a condition was, -- an additional condition was placed on, which we voted
unanimously for. I feel perfectly comfortable that the applicant can come and tell you
that the Commission was wrong in their opinion. I don't have a problem with that. That
puts the decision squarely on the City Council where it should be. I only came to
answer any questions about why we put that condition on, if you have any questions.
Corrie: Thank you, David. Any questions of David?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 27 of 78
Nary: Mr. Zaremba, you know, I'm looking at the minutes here, and it doesn't appear
like there was a whole lot of discussion at all.
Zaremba: It was short, but --
Nary: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: It was -- actually, the discussion was between Chairman Borup,
Commissioner Centers, and Planner Siddoway. Because everything that I would have
said was already being said, I did not add to it. I was in thorough agreement with what
was being said. Actually, my recollection was that I had participated, but in reading the
minutes myself, I realized that I was satisfied that everything was being said and I did
not add to it. Commissioner Centers is the one who made the motion and went to the
effort to add the adjoining properties, meaning to the east and to the south.
Commissioner Rohm is the one who seconded it. I can't say that for any of this this was
a do or die condition, but we all agreed with it and it was specifically added and not
necessarily because of any applicant of the adjoining lots, just because ACHD is
promoting interconnectivity and I feel the same way about traffic interconnectivity that I
would about sewer and water interconnectivity. I realize it isn't necessarily to the benefit
of this applicant to provide that interconnectivity. We also require them to put the sewer
beyond where they need it to connect to adjoining lots. Since ACHD has their request
that we not have traffic have to go out into the street to get from within the subdivision.
That's why we supported it and none of us will take it personally if you overturn that, but
that's why we put it in as a condition.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, one follow up. Mr. Zaremba, I mean if you could comment, just your
thoughts on what's been raised is that safety concern in basically creating that straight
shot through that parking lot to that southern lot there and I just wonder what your
thoughts were on that particular concern that's been raised.
Zaremba: The drawing that is up now is very similar to the Conditional Use Permit,
which we have seen, but you have not, and what alerted us to the fact that they were
not planning the CUP to have that condition on it. Our thinking was that the access
would be here where there is trash enclosure and here where it almost abuts the
property line and, I agree, this is kind of a straightaway. I wouldn't see any problem with
the access being a little farther over, so that this was not a straightaway. I think some of
it could be solved by just a painted cross stripe and maybe a sign that says slow
children crossing -- children slow crossing, rather. I can see the applicant's point, that
this -- if they are going to have small children coming across here, you certainly don't
want high speed traffic getting up to speed from the lot to the south and coming through
there. I think there may be other ways, traffic bumps, or crosswalk striping, to do that.
Nary: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. On the whole, I think it's a good project, so that's why we
recommended it.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 28 of 78
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Zaremba. Is there anyone else that would like to testify for the -
- for it? Let's get everybody here. David?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I think what Mr. Wishney anticipated was the rebuttal.
Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. I got a problem here, I mean -- Doctor. You got
just a new item --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I would recommend that you ask Dr. Seegmiller to wait and see if it
doesn't get cleared up with his lawyer. He can talk to his lawyer about the issue and,
then, go ahead and procedure with those that are neutral or opposed.
Corrie: Okay. Okay. Those who are against the proposal. I guess that -- is the
testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Okay.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, business address 150 East Aikens, Suite
B, Eagle. For the record, I represent G.L. Voigt Development. We are not opposed to
this development. I was asked to testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission
concerning some interconnectivity. It is not our intent to create any burden on this
property. From a planning perspective, I don't like to create any situations where we
promote cut-through traffic, but we do have to balance interconnectivity with the issue of
cut-through traffic. I think all of you have visited businesses, whether it be office or
commercial developments -- I think Dairy Queen is a good example on Main Street
where you can't go from one business to the other without going out onto the main
street. You may have to travel a very far distance to get to that other curb cut, but the
fact is that we can't -- we can't create those situations once they are lost. Once they
are lost and we have no interconnectivity, they are gone. I think it is very important that
any connection to this, one, it be dictated by them, they are the first Site Plan in. Place
it in the location that they see -- or that their architect recommends. Two, when the
conditional use permits come in for the adjoining undeveloped lots. I think it's very
important that these connections be a very circuitous route, so that they don't promote
these high school kids from finding some easy way to cut through. The advantage that
we do have is that Millennium Way will be signalized at Overland Road. That signal is
dedicated for those high school kids and that's going to be the easiest way for them to
get out onto the newly improved Overland Road. They will probably have to put some
speed bumps even with that existing design if they make any connection between
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 29 of 78
Millennium Way and East Gala, because kids will find an alternative route where they
can avoid some of that congestion. That may happen. Like I said, speed bumps are
the only way to discourage those kids from taking these cut through or shortcuts. Our
intent is like emergency vehicle access. I guess the Council could look at it from that
perspective, that you make some emergency connection only, or that we find a
nonconvenient connection. I don't know where the issue of the cross parking came
along. That was not suggested, nor recommended, on our part. I did have an
opportunity to breeze through the memorandum prepared by Mr. Wishney. I would like
an opportunity to get a copy of that, send that to my client, and have his legal counsel
review that. We have not had that opportunity. I just looked at it this evening. Thank
you.
Corrie: Questions of --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, if I understand part of what you're saying, Ms. McKay, is that that southern
opening that we are talking about, southern to this property, but northern to the one
you're talking about, Lot 3.
McKay: Yes.
Nary: So, you're saying that would even be adequate to you to have some sort of
bollard-off entrance that would only be usable for emergency vehicles, rather than a
cut-through roadway?
McKay: I believe that was their main intent was to have at least at a minimum some
type of emergency connection. Not knowing what that -- the design or the future user is
going to be on Lot 3, I think they are just looking at it from that perspective that they
may, in hindsight, have some problems with meeting Fire Department requirements. If
there were a way to have some interconnectivity that would -- I think that would be
preferable from a planning perspective, but if it causes a hazard, then, I wouldn't
recommend it.
Nary: And, maybe, one thing, too, if you could comment -- I think it was raised by the
applicant, is the fact that this was originally owned by your client.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Nary: And it was replatted to this configuration and, certainly, if there was connectivity
concerns, they could have platted it in a way to allow them connectivity to Gala Street
and they didn't.
McKay: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 30 of 78
Nary: Why didn't they do that?
McKay: I can't answer that question for you. I think it was something in hindsight they
started thinking about as they started looking at the Site Planning on this, then, it
started dawning on them that they could have some issues in the future. Yes, they did
not make that arrangement when they were negotiating for the site. That's correct.
Nary: So cross-access off of Millennium Way isn't really any issue?
McKay: No. That's been resolved.
Nary: That is fine?
McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That was resolved, because there is one curb cut that was
supposed to service multiple lots, because we were trying to limit the amount of curb
cuts on Millennium Way, because it is a collector and will carry high volumes with the
high school traffic.
Nary: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Becky, they already have an access to the south on Lot 1; correct?
McKay: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: So, they already have an access that connects to the south. I guess my
question follows a little bit on what Councilman Nary asked, but why would it be this
development's responsibility to connect Lot 1 and 3, when the developer was the one
that platted all this? Lot 3 would have access through Lot 1, which is their southern
access point to their lot. You're asking them to have two access points to the south.
McKay: No, I don't think we are asking for two access points, we were just asking for
one point of interconnection.
De Weerd: But they already have that from Lot 1 from that one parking area.
McKay: I think we were looking along the interior, within the interior of that lot. If you
put up the map and kind of look at the larger picture.
De Weerd: But that does get you to the interior. I mean not directly, but --
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 31 of 78
McKay I don't argue with you. They have primary access to the site, yes, through the
shared curb cut right there and, then, they are resubdividing that. I think what they
were looking at for was within the interior of that, creating some type of interconnection,
even if it be emergency vehicle access only.
De Weerd: Well, if it were our emergency services, I would imagine it would be easier
to go off Millennium than through that development.
McKay: I think they are just -- they are looking for a second point, a second point of
interconnection.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKay: You know, it's just a design call when, you know, you don't know what -- what
user or what development will go onto those lots. We are just trying to, you know, plan
for the future and I think that's what the Council typically asks us from a planning
perspective is look at -- look into the future and try to determine how we can best make
this interconnectivity and provide second means of access for emergency services, et
cetera. Like I said, it is not our intent to create any problems or any burden on their site
and we definitely don't want to create cut-through traffic.
De Weerd: Well, I guess my only thing is if you're talking about bollards and your whole
thing is emergency access, I would see that it would be easier for our fire trucks or
police to go off of Millennium, it's a straighter shot, than going through the middle of
what looks like a parking lot. That's my point. If that's the only reason for that southern
point in addition to what's already there, I just -- I can't see --
McKay: Well, I don't think, Councilwoman de Weerd, that that's the only reason. I
mean we were looking at interconnectivity, too. I think at a minimum that was -- you
know, that was -- that was my client's intent and --
De Weerd: But you're saying it could be blocked off with bollards, so it's just not --
McKay: If the Council views a full vehicle interconnection inappropriate, then, at a
minimum it would be blocked off with bollards, yes, for just a fire access. I think what
we are trying to create is with this development we were -- we wanted to create like a
campus atmosphere. A campus atmosphere has some interconnectivity and is
pedestrian friendly. I agree with the doctors, you don't want to create a situation where
they have high volumes of traffic cutting through their parking lot, but we just want to do
this right and so I think that's my client's concern, it is not to cause them problems or
make them redesign or, you know, any of those things. We just -- we just want to make
sure that this is done appropriately and the planning is done for the future of these other
undeveloped lots.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 32 of 78
McKay: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else here to testify against? Okay. Mr. Wishney. Is the testimony you
are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Wishney: Yes, I do. I'm David Wishney, I'm an attorney in Boise and I'm working with
Drs. Gaudry and Seegmiller and the applicant in this proceeding and, if I may, I'd like to
just very briefly kind of summarize why I think that the condition that was attached to the
approval by the zoning commission presents some serious legal issues. First off, if we
look at the Comprehensive Plan, the concept of connectivity is only referred to in the
neighborhood center mixed use, it's not in the L-O zone, and this particular project does
not lie within one of the designated neighborhood center areas. The project is zoned L-
O and even where connectivity is referred to in the Comprehensive Plan it is
connectivity of streets, not of adjacent parking areas. Even in the mixed-use area, just
stand-alone mixed-use area connectivity under the Comprehensive Plan is not one of
the stated guidelines or standards. Similarly, under the zoning, ordinance connectivity
is not a defined term, the application of it is limited to access to public areas, such as
adjacent parks or schools. Again, it's not a required either -- provision of either the
design standards or the improvement standards, you know, for this type of project.
Again, we can -- and Councilman Nary in an earlier proceeding you referred back to a
prospective applicant looking at a record of a proceeding and trying to determine what
the Council intended. I did take the time to go back and read through all of the minutes
and the findings and conclusions of both the Rezone application for Resolution Park
Subdivision, as well as the approval of the subdivision itself. There is nothing that I can
find within those minutes or within the findings and conclusions that speaks to
connectivity between the respective parcels, there is nothing that would have put Drs.
Gaudry and Seegmiller on any kind of notice when they were purchasing this property
that this would be imposed upon them as a requirement. If we look at the CUP
application process under the -- under the Meridian ordinance, which is 11-17-1, it
speaks to some of the things that you would consider are whether or not the use will be
detrimental to other persons or properties or uses in the vicinity. There is no testimony
that this would be a detrimental use, it's consistent with the zone, and it’s consistent
with the other approved uses in the area, so there is no finding or recommendation to
support the concept that it's detrimental. The ordinance also provides for
recommendations for approval or modification that include conditions deemed
necessary to insure compatibility of development with other uses. To impose this
condition presupposes that the doctor's use is not compatible with the other uses and,
again, if you look at the record there is nothing in the record to support that -- there is
no such finding there has not been a record to support such a finding. Finally, if we look
at the Idaho Code, which ultimately governs judicial review of CUP applications, it's very
consistent with Meridian's zoning ordinance and it talks about attaching conditions
which are -- minimize the adverse impact on area development. Again, there has been
no testimony that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on any
other area development and I don't think there is any -- so the attachment, again, of a
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 33 of 78
condition of the nature as suggested by the zoning commission presupposes that there
is some adverse impact. The question is here what's the real beef -- and could I ask
you to put the letter from G.L. Voigt --
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I don't believe it's part of this presentation. It was submitted
to the record. I believe they have -- they should have a copy on their laptops, I believe.
Wishney: I apologize I thought this was scanned in, so we could all see it. The
developer has suggested that the concept of interconnectivity for its own sake or for fire
emergency access is what is important here. In the letter that, apparently, you have on
your laptop, which is dated March 28, 2003, if I could refer you to the second sentence
in the third paragraph, the developer clearly states what their primary concern is and
that primary concern is improved access to Lot Number 3, which is the flag lot. I mean
the developer realizes at this point in time that they have a lot that may be difficult to
sell, because of the limited access and would like to see improved access to that lot.
Again, let's be real clear, that this is not an issue of interconnectivity it is an issue of
improved access to Lot No. 3 for resale purposes. Now can these various concerns
best be met? Gordon Anderson, the applicant, has shown you on the plat that the
developer can easily provide access -- alternative access to Lot 3 through Lot 1.
Alternatively, of course, the city could adopt the recommendation of the zoning
commission. I'd ask you to weigh which is the better alternative. Access through Lot 1
provides the improved access to Lot 3 and that's -- again, that's the developer's primary
concern. It provides alternate fire access and it potentially reduces the traffic out onto
Millennium. Access through Lot 1 avoids the safety issue entirely. I would ask you to
make special note of one of the exhibits to my memorandum is a letter from Captain
Musser where he -- and he expresses his concern about this interconnectivity and the
greater potential for students to be cutting through these lots. He is clearly against the
concept as it relates to this project. Allowing the developer to provide his own
alternative access to Lot 1 is legally sustainable, where attaching this condition has
serious questions from a legal perspective. Given the alternatives, I can't fathom,
frankly, why the city would choose to bear the time, expense, and burden of imposing
this condition, as opposed to leaving it with the developer who has it entirely within their
power to fix their own problem. Any questions?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Wishney, we haven't really had an opportunity to read your brief, since we
just got it today. You know, I understand -- you know, when I read Captain Musser's
memorandum, I don't see how an access point here will have anything to do with
increasing traffic from the high school. There is already an entrance here and there is
already an exit here. Regardless of whether this is the point here, it shouldn't make any
difference.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 34 of 78
Wishney: Your point may be correct. Only time would tell whether additional students
would cut through Lot 3 because of the -- nobody even thought about this problem with
the students until it came up.
Nary: Where are they going to come from?
Wishney: Pardon me?
Nary: Where are they going to come from?
Wishney: Well, they'd all have to come in the same access.
Nary: Oh. Okay.
Wishney: So, the question is, then, is it a race through the parking lot on the Gaudry
Seegmiller Subdivision or down the flag lot and across? Since Captain Musser raised
this question, he was really the first one to bring it to our attention, Drs. Gaudry and
Seegmiller have, actually, talked about whether or not closing off the exit to -- is that --
Nary: Gala?
Wishney: To Millennium.
Nary: Oh.
Wishney: Whether or not they might end up -- because certainly they are going to have
to look at some type of traffic calming devices, safety devices, to try and impede the
flow of student traffic through there, but we don't want to add to it.
Nary: Mr. Wishney, the point Ms. McKay was making -- and I think I noticed here also in
Captain Musser's letter was having either emergency vehicle only access to provide
some fire safety. Because at least at this juncture on this Lot 3 we don't really know
where the building is going to be or what the relationship is for the fire truck to get there.
Captain Musser, I think, was speaking of pedestrian access as an alternative to allow
for whatever the medical office types of buildings here to have foot access, at least, into
these areas, not vehicular access.
Wishney: Well, the applicant has no problem with the concept of providing pedestrian
access and putting in a sidewalk between the two.
Nary: Okay.
Wishney: With respect to the fire access, again, we think the preferable route would be
through Lot 1 to the east.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 35 of 78
Nary: And I would agree that preferentially most of the time I think that's what Council
Member de Weerd said as well. That's where the fire truck's going to go, but, again, at
this juncture we don't know where the building's going to be or what the configuration of
the building would be or where the cars are going to be parked or all that. I mean I
guess I'm not -- the only thing from what I guess I've heard to this point that I'm not
totally adverse to is just that limited emergency access here, because I can't see that
impacting negatively your clients' needs, it only provides emergency only access. It's
certainly not going to add to the traffic. I think your clients are going to have to address
this traffic anyway, because the connectivity exists regardless of our -- of this issue. I
don't see how that would injure anything to have just limited -- and, you're right, I think
initially it was wanted to be more, but now we only were looking at emergency only
access.
Wishney: I would agree.
Nary: The impact's fairly minor.
Wishney: I would agree.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Wishney: Thank you for your time.
Corrie: Any further discussion from Council?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, the Public Hearing is still open, but you may want to
discuss the issue of the proposed access to the parcel to the east, as well as the one to
the south. You have discussed the south, but you haven't discussed the one to the
east, whether that connectivity would go there as well.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess the other thing we really, I guess, needed to make clearer for the record,
because it wasn't totally clear to me. When we are talking about this cross-access and
cross parking, from what I understood -- and, again, the public record is still open, we
are not talking about any aversion from the applicant for cross-parking among these
lots. We are not talking any issue about cross-access among these three lots, it's
merely to the other lots in the subdivision, but I think Mr. Nichols is right we really
haven't discussed any of this east connection. I think this is an empty lot at this point,
isn't that right, Brad? I'm assuming it's the same concern that you have, but I don't
know that.
Wishney: Well, it is, Councilman. In fact, that creates almost a larger concern, because
it's such a large parcel. It was slated for an ice rink. If another user like a bowling alley
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 36 of 78
or similar one, you could imagine the flow of traffic and that parcel is -- has enough
frontage on Millennium that it should have sufficient curb cuts to support itself.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, could you just put that other overhead on that showed kind of where that
lot is in relation that Mr. Wishney just said about the access onto the Gala there that
had -- okay. Yes. That one. This one would have access somewhere over here and
we don't know what this -- this is out of the city at the moment isn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. That's owned by Mr. Van Auker.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I will just throw my two cents worth out while -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr.
Zaremba.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, with all difference to Mr. Zaremba, I'm a little reluctant to have any
more testimony from the P&Z Commissioner that has also heard the conditional use
application as well, so --
Corrie: That was going to be my question to you, counselor. Thank you, David.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess my comments were I appreciate the efforts on looking at
connectivity. I think it's very important, I think I have been a big supporter of that. I
don't know where you place the burden of that connectivity when it's through parking
lots and not specified roadways, so -- and without a good view on how the road system
is going to work within those three other lots I'm really reluctant to really impose that on
this piece -- this particular parcel. I guess since the connectivity from Millennium is to
Lot 3, I just do not see -- I know it doesn't have a whole lot of cost factor or impact, but I
still don't understand why we would impose that condition. If you have pedestrian
connectivity and you already have a connection to the south through the parking lot and
that easement, it exists. I guess at this point, until we know what goes on with the other
lots, which right now the developer has control of, you can circulate traffic around there
and it can work. I just don't see why these to particular accesses are being requested
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 37 of 78
and why the southern one, if it can -- if it's accessible to just do a safety one, why that
safety one isn't just as important going through the easement that already exists.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Every time I go to Dairy Queen I think who in the world made this that you have
to drive two miles to go a block, because we didn't -- there is no connection created
between Water Tower and Corporate. To me, having some connection makes sense,
because, otherwise, you are going to end up with people having to drive back out onto
the main roadway. I guess what I think makes some sense to me -- because I think
you're right, the primary access is this will always be here it will be right off of
Millennium. Having an emergency access or at least a temporary emergency access --
because this piece has not been developed yet. It hasn't been -- I don't recall where we
are at with this piece. I think long term the access is going to have to be from this piece
to these pieces for public safety, for fire access and the like. If there is going to be
connectivity, the connectivity should be down here, not through these three buildings
that are already there. The parking lot and cross parking and all that's going on in this
area, I think you're creating more of a traffic snarl. I think a temporary access, at least
until this develops out and we see what happens with this piece, would make some
sense. Because at least what I think I'm hearing is that this piece, that's designated Lot
3 is coming forward to develop prior to this piece that has the proposed ice rink on it.
Having an access point in here at this point might make sense, it might not make sense
in a year when the rest of this develops, but I do think long term, like you just stated,
Council Member de Weerd, if we are going to have cross-access, it's going to have to
come down here. It's not through here. There is already cross-access here at the
entranceway. Again, I think the only thing that's probably missing is any real discussion
about how this traffic calming or some showing of traffic calming that's going to occur in
this lot, because I guarantee it won't take too many kids to figure out I can cut through
here and get out here and beat that light. They are going to figure that out pretty quick.
That's -- that's something that's probably as big a priority in my mind to this lot. Having
a temporary access at least at this juncture until we see where the rest of them go, they
can, eventually, then, request to remove it, curb it up, put a tree in or whatever, or put
landscaping in to cover up that temporary access. Until the other one's developed, I
think we got of have something to this lot. My fear is, depending on where the building
is situated and this piece and where the parking is situated in this piece will really drive
whether or not the fire truck can get here. By having that alternative, at least it provides
two different methods to access this piece and as we discussed, I think it probably
should have been handled prior, we are kind of stuck with it now. I think having a
temporary access to allow that with bollards, pedestrian access makes sense and, then,
in the future the developers of Lot 3, this southern lot, are going to have to have access
across to this big piece.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 38 of 78
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I just need some clarity from Councilman Nary. Lot 3 has access to
it from Millennium. Am I not looking at this map right?
Corrie: Right here.
De Weerd: Kind of towards the back. Like the third from the --
Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor, what I had understood is Lot 3 has a cross-access easement --
that driveway is here on this property. Okay. They have a cross-access to get through
here. This is -- this is -- this access here for Lot 3 is part of this cross-easement.
De Weerd: Exactly.
Nary: And that's the only access to Lot 3. What I'm saying is that it makes some sense
to me to have an emergency access somewhere in this location. It can be temporary, it
doesn't have to be permanent, and they can look to remove it in the future when they
develop this other piece to the east that will allow greater access for fire safety to this
Lot 3.
De Weerd: But why isn't that -- we are going to debate each other up here. I just want
to understand your rationale for -- we never want to land lock any lots.
Nary: Right.
De Weerd: And we are not. We are not, because they have access out onto South
Millennium Road, so why are we going to make them provide yet another access only
for emergency vehicles when it doesn't make sense for emergency vehicles to go
through a parking lot to get to another lot?
Nary: Because at some point in the future when this building is on fire, this road could
have 300 cars waiting to turn left at that light and you may not be able to get through
this way and that's the only other avenue you may be able to get through that way.
That's my only thought. We don't know where this building is going to be on Lot 3. We
don't know what shape it's going to be. We don't know what the access point is. All we
are saying is right now if they want to develop this lot, then, having a temporary access
here is minimal impact with this property, but it provides at least an alternative for safety
here, but, eventually, the safety access is going to have to come through this big piece.
It's just the potential that it maybe 3:00 o'clock and there is a fire and there is a car
stuck in this driveway and the only way to get there is there. That's all. Okay?
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 39 of 78
Corrie: Any other discussion? Mr. Nichols, is that stuff enough you feel?
De Weerd: Is that enough for the record?
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I guess I still don't understand. I'm wondering why -- why the emergency
access can't be created after the building is built, since you don't know where the
building is going to be, and at that time you can determine whether you need an
emergency access or not.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess my reasoning is because right now they want to get -- they have to plat
this property and build these buildings. If we don't require at least some access point
here temporarily, they are not going to put it -- when this building comes along to be
developed, there won't be an access. There won't be a way to do it, then, because this
will have parking spaces, curbs, trees, grass, something in this location and there won't
be a way to create it and they won't have -- there is no mechanism to require them to
put that in at that point. All we are saying is at this point you can't build anything in this
location if we do that, but, again, it will be only temporary, but, otherwise, it will just be
curbed up and there won't be any access. If they are going to put a sidewalk or a foot
path or some kind of access easement in this area that allows foot traffic to cross,
essentially, that foot traffic can be bollard off to be able to allow emergency access at
this juncture and, then, eventually, that can go away.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess, essentially, Council Member McCandless, I see his point and I
don't like his argument. You know, I really don't care where the building is on that lot
that is not even an application in front of us. I do understand that temporarily to have
that access in until whatever happens to the east happens, at least in case we know
what the traffic is going to be with those high school students, because that's their only
route out, to just give another option for emergency personnel to get in there. It will not
be open for circulation by the general public it will only be bollard off. Once that
connection to the east is in, it can be, then, landscaped and they can do away with it, so
it won't be a connection. It's just there in case our fire personnel or police personnel
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 40 of 78
need access to that lot and they are hampered by South Millennium Way and it seems
kind of ludicrous, but I understand -- I understand the argument.
McCandless: Well, Mr. Mayor, I understand the argument. I'm also concerned about
Captain Musser's objections and like Councilman Nary said, the kids are going to find a
way to crawl out of there regardless of what we do. I am concerned about his objection.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: The Public Hearing is still open and I certainly don't have an objection if Mr.
Nichols, doesn't, since this is the applicant's show, to let them have at least the last
word. I mean we just had a general discussion anyway, but to let them have the last
word seems fair before we make a decision.
Wishney: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, the applicants are willing to accept the
temporary emergency access that you have described. I assume it would be worded
somehow that in the future they could come back and apply to remove it.
Corrie: That clears that up a lot.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I'd rather see a trigger, rather than to make the applicants come
back with an application to take that out. It's just when there is a connection through
the east property for that secondary access, that that eliminates the need or -- I don't
know. There is -- there must be some way we can trigger it without them having to
come back and apply.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Maybe once that access is approved -- I don't think a formal application process
may be necessary. Maybe the Planning and Zoning administrator could make that
determination if that were to be objected to. Then, it could be reviewed, but that way --
otherwise, there will be some -- there could be some dispute, a different property owner
or something, saying I thought I could take it out, the other property owner said they
couldn't, so -- I mean that way it can be done by the Planning and Zoning administrator,
would be fine to me.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 41 of 78
De Weerd: That sounds great.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mayor, Members of the Council, I think it would be easy to word it that the --
until such time as Lot 3 in Block 1 has an additional access to the east, that the
temporary emergency vehicle access remains in place and such time as that parcel
does have access to the east. The applicant, at their choosing, can ask the Planning
and Zoning administrator to approve taking out that temporary access. As a practical
matter, I would expect with the bollards, since they are going to want pedestrian access
anyway to their dental offices and such, they may find that it's just as easy just to leave
the bollards up, as opposed to actually doing some change. At least it would be bollard.
I think we can word that condition such that there would be a trigger of some sort and
would also have the additional protection that the Planning and Zoning administrator
would have to sign off before it was terminated.
De Weerd: Thank you. Sorry it took so long to get so little a distance.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, is it possible to add one thing from staff on that?
Corrie: No.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just --
De Weerd: How long will it take?
Corrie: The chair recognizes staff.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just throw in, since you are talking about a fire emergency
safety, for the most part, if I could just throw in that probably the Fire Department should
have some involvement with that determination, as well as the zoning administrator.
They are the ones that use the -- you know, use the bollards they are the ones that
typically determine if access is adequate to get to a site.
Corrie: That's a good point. We can put that in a motion to include the Fire
Department. Any other discussion? Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Close the Public Hearing?
Nary: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 42 of 78
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing is made with a second. Further
discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Further discussion? Okay. Who wants to take a stab?
De Weerd: Bill. He did the majority of the talking.
Nary: And am full of ludicrocity, so I guess I won't -- Mr. Mayor, I would move the
approval of PFP 03-002. Request for preliminary and Final Plat approval of three
building lots on 155 acres in an L-O zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon
Anderson. Southeast core of East Gala Street and South Millennium to include all staff
comments, to amend Condition 4 to delete the -- to delete the language regarding
recorded cross-access easements for adjoining lots not part of plat. To amend to
include language for a temporary cross-access easement for emergency vehicle use
only, on the southern boundary of this property adjacent to Lot 3 of the adjourning -- of
the adjoining property, said temporary -- temporary access shall only be required until
lots -- until Lot 3 has access from the east. At that time, the applicant may request
removal of the temporary emergency access easement by approval of the Planning and
Zoning administrator and the fire chief and I think to include all other staff comments, for
counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. Did
I forget anything, Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Wait for a second.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think I would recommend that you not
use the word easement, but simply say an emergency vehicle access point through that
south boundary, rather than easement. An easement implies a servient and a dominant
estate and in order to get rid of that easement would require the signature of the
dominant estate holder and I think it gets too far, so I think --
Nary: Point well taken, Mr. Nichols. I would amend my motion to indicate that it simply
be a temporary emergency access point.
De Weerd: Second agrees.
Corrie: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 43 of 78
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Would we need clarification, Mr. Attorney, as well to suggest that that, then,
be a pedestrian access, so if they do away with it.
Nichols: Yes.
Nary: And I would concur, then, that -- well, I guess the only issue are we -- I don't
know that that's a pedestrian point. They can put the pedestrian access anywhere they
want. They don't have to put it there. I think -- I think -- I guess as the maker of the
motion I'd add that they submit a plan for pedestrian access to the adjoining lots to the
south or if there are any pedestrian access to the points to the south it will be east. It
doesn't have to be in that emergency point, it can be somewhere else if they want it to
be. They don't have to make it the same.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Do you agree?
De Weerd: Yes. Whatever you said.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if it's okay, when I word that particular
finding it will require that the pedestrian access to the south be located somewhere east
of the center of that south boundary line.
Nary: Sure.
De Weerd: I would just suggest the applicant look at that condition closely.
Corrie: And if you expect me to repeat that motion, I'm not going to do it. We have got
a stenographer back there that's got it all correct? Okay. Motion has been made and
seconded. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 44 of 78
Corrie: I want to really look at those minutes when we get them back here. Okay. Can
we take five -- five minutes, everybody? Five minute break until 9:30 and, then, we will
come back and do the next Public Hearing.
(Recess.)
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2003: PP 03-007 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 7 other lots on 11.65
acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K.
Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West
Ustick Road:
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2003: VAR 03-012 Request
for a Variance to block length requirements for a block on the south side
of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K.
Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West
Ustick Road:
Corrie: All right. I will open the meeting back up after the recess. We are on Item
Number 12 and 13. One is a continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2003, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in an
R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision. Item 13 is a continued Public Hearing
from July 15th on a Variance request for a Variance to the block length requirement for
a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by
R.K. Development, LLC, west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road.
With no objection from Council, I will open the continued Public Hearing on both 12 and
13, take testimony on both the request for Preliminary Plat and the Variance at one
time. I will start testimony with staff comments. Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Since the majority of the
background and testimony on this item has already been into the record and there was,
mainly two issues that is my understanding were the reason for it to be continued. One
was for the consideration of street calming for this long straight entry road and the
applicant did submit since your last hearing a street and storm drain plan that has a
drawing date of July 16th. This drawing that I have on the screen right now does show
what they have proposed. They are showing the street to have a choker at the
intersection with -- I believe this is Northwest 3rd Avenue to the north, this is a stub
street, so they -- generally about in the center of the project they are showing the public
street to choke down and, then, flare back open for this Indiana Rock Street. That was
one modification that was submitted. The other issue had to do with the storm water
retention ponds and you have received a letter dated July 18th from Stan McHutchinson
of Briggs Engineering that was addressed to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. That
does talk a little bit about their proposal to install ponds to store all of the street runoff
that would have a slow release into Finch Creek, which is on the south side of their
project, also called the South Slough. We have not, to my understanding, received
anything from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in writing stating that they agree to
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 45 of 78
that. It certainly is not an usual -- it's not unusual that the irrigation would allow a
project to allow pre-development flows into one of their facilities and maybe if you need,
Brad Watson can speak further to that, but I believe that the applicant Briggs
Engineering did get a verbal statement from Nampa-Meridian that they would allow that.
They are, I believe, at this point still proposing to have -- have the pond areas be
generally in the same locations. They would clearly be required to design them to have
the standing water minimized. As you, I believe, saw last time on the photographs, it
still does occur that some standing water happens and in some of these it's pretty
critical at the design stage to get the grading correct, so that it flows to that outlet point,
but I think those are the two main issues. You also did receive a written letter dated
July 22nd from a Chris Broer, who had stated his opposition to the development and I
guess that's it from staff right now.
Corrie: Okay, Brad. Any comments? Okay. Any comments, discussion from staff?
Okay. Is the applicant or representative here this evening? Is the testimony you're
about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Cook: It is.
Corrie: Thank you.
Cook: Richard Cook, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road, City of Boise,
here tonight representing the applicant R.K. Development, LLC. To address the traffic
issue we have knuckled out on two corners of Northwest 3rd Avenue and we put a bulb
out across a portion of one of the storm drainage lots and the adjacent lot. This area
here will serve very effectively as a traffic calming device and we have run that by Ada
County Highway District in a meeting we had with them and they are in agreement with
this particular design and Mr. Mills is here this evening from Ada County Highway
District if you have any questions of him. The ponds, we are redesigning those ponds
to where they will be what we call dry ponds. In other words, we are going to drain
everything out of those ponds into the Finch Creek or South Slough at the
predevelopment flow rate. We have been in communication with Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District, had telephone conversations with John Anderson and he has agreed
to that and I was hoping to have a letter in my hand before the meeting this evening, but
John was tied up in a meeting and didn't get the letter out to us, but I should have it
tomorrow. Those were the primary issues that we discussed at our last hearing. With
the dry pond development and design, that will solve the mosquito problem and I think
that pretty well takes care of the issues that we discussed. The Variance, I'd like to
touch on that. The Variance is required, because when the Waterbury Park Subdivision
to the south was developed, they were not required to put in a stub street to the north
and the development to Lansbury, when they developed. They were required to put this
stub street in right here, so we were able to meet or hook up at that existing stub street
going to the north into Lansbury Sub. As you can see, coming from Waterbury there
was nothing there and probably the biggest reason for that is because this is where the
South Slough or Finch Creek runs and they would have had to put in a bridge to make
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 46 of 78
that happen. That's why we are asking for a Variance, because we don't have any
break to the south, other than the three retention pond areas as open space. I
understand it's not being counted towards open space for the five percent requirement,
but it does break things up as we go along. Plus, we have -- going along the sides of
the ponds, we do have the 15-foot wide pathways that hook into the 25-foot wide
greenbelt that runs along the slough area here. That greenbelt will have a ten foot wide
paved pathway and, then, it will have grass and, then, areas along the side of the path.
With that, I will conclude my remarks and answer any questions you may have.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cook any questions of Mr. Cook?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Cook, I'm wondering on that choker there in the middle of the street -- or in
the middle of the subdivision, I didn't see a comment from Deputy Chief Silva, but I'm
assuming that street is wide enough for parking on both sides?
Cook: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nary, there would not be any parking in this
particular area on the street.
Nary: No. I understand that. The rest of it's all parking on both sides?
Cook: Correct. We have the standard -- standard street width that will allow parking.
Nary: I guess I'm just a little concerned -- and I don't know whether you can answer this
or maybe Mr. Mills. You have got -- if you have got vehicular traffic coming east to west
down that street, part of the concern is the street is pretty straight. Now you're going to
have vehicles parking on both sides of the street, so there is nothing to really tell that
driver as they are coming down at maybe an excessive speed that that road's going to
narrow about halfway down to slow down. I guess, you know, that was why I liked the
island effect you had initially. Then, took out, was because it was a visible barrier up
ahead, they can see a visible way to have to slow down on that street. I'm afraid with
those chokers, I mean they are real good if you can see them, but here you have got a
straight road, cars parked on both sides of the street, you have really no way to see that
until you're on it and all of a sudden the road's very narrow. I'm not sure that really
solves the problem very well, or least as well as what you proposed initially. Maybe you
could address that for me.
Cook: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nary, I don't recall that we ever had an island in this
particular street. We have one at the entrance coming off of Meridian Road, but I don't
recall having ever proposed a design with an island anywhere in here.
Nary: Maybe that was the discussion at Planning and Zoning.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 47 of 78
Cook: We had a discussion about putting something in here, but decided that that was
a very poor location to try to put any kind of a traffic circle and I think during our last
meeting Council agreed with that. During the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting we did talk about putting an island in the center of the street, but it was the
consensus of opinion of the Council -- or the Commission, rather, that those particular
islands in the middle of a street like that tend to cause more problems than they solve.
In this area here, I don't know if it would do any good or not, but I'm thinking that we
could probably put in a traffic sign that states road narrows. I have seen that in many
areas and, you know, I don't know what else to say, as drivers can be stupid no matter
what you do. They can drive over the island, they can drive over sidewalks, you know,
they can drive through marketplaces, you know, so I don't know if there is a perfect
solution to it or not, but we felt that this was the best solution that we could come up
with.
Corrie: Okay. Any further comments or questions for Mr. Cook? Okay.
Cook: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify for this subdivision?
Okay. Anybody wish to testify against this subdivision on the new -- is the testimony
you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Broer: It is.
Corrie: Thank you.
Broer: Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, I wish to respectfully state my
opposition to the proposed Clearbrook Estates Subdivision on general and specific
grounds. I will be between three and four minutes. On general grounds, the biggest
investment most Meridian taxpayers have is their home.
Corrie: Could I have your name first?
Broer: Chris Broer.
Nary: Address?
Broer: 387 West Woodbury Drive in Meridian.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Broer: The biggest investment most Meridian taxpayers have is their home and yet our
property values are falling behind Mississippi, Arkansas, and all but two states in
property value appreciation. As you can see in attachment one, Idaho ranks 48th in
home price appreciation over the past five years. Attachment two shows that the Boise
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 48 of 78
metro area would rank only 41st out of all 50 states in home price appreciation over the
same five years. I have left copies of these attachments on the back table for anyone
that would like a copy. Basic economics and supply and demand tell us that there is too
much of supply of new homes being approved. There are a number of ways of limiting
supply, which include maintaining existing agricultural zoning, minimizing density,
increasing open space requirements, and limiting new subdivisions. How that supply
would be limited would be up to you, but the excess supply must be addressed to
protect existing voters and homeowners. Another factor, which diminishes the property
values of existing homeowners, is the lower quality of life that they experience when
new subdivisions are approved. I agree with the Mayor's concerns when he states in
last week's Valley Times that, quote: I don't think anyone envisioned this much traffic.
End quote. Every new subdivision approved adds that much more traffic. The City
Council has control of the gas pedal of development. If they allow too much building,
our home prices won't increase much and that's what's happening now. To quote a
Kuna resident at their city council meeting last week, as reported in the paper, quote: I
just wish they would slow it down, so we don't end up like Meridian, end quote. On
specific grounds, the proposed Clearbrook Estates Subdivision should not be approved
for several reasons. First, to count the -- as stated tonight, ten foot wide section of
pavement along the canal as their usable space would be in stark contrast to the green,
vibrant and pavement free south side open space of the canal that's part of the existing
Waterbury Park Subdivision. Second, the proposed standing water and its potential
mosquitoes will be right across the canal from our homes in Waterbury Park. Even if
permission could be granted for the predevelopment water to run into the Nampa-
Meridian canal, all of the post-development runoff any sprinklers in the subdivision and
any new rain runoff may collect would wind up in these standing water areas. I'm not
sure Central District Health will allow such standing water. Some irrigation districts don't
allow any water, even predevelopment, into their system. Experiments to try curbing as
an alternative by ACHD were only tried on much larger, ten to sixteen thousand square
foot lots. Third, they are requesting a Variance to block length requirements. In
summary, I oppose the proposed Clearbrook Estates Subdivision on the general
grounds that by adding another subdivision it will hinder the existing property values of
Meridian residents from appreciating and on specific grounds over standing water
issues and the need for a Variance. I thank the Mayor and the Members of the Council
for allowing my input.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Broer? Okay. Thank you. Anybody
else wish to testify? Okay. Mr. Cook, do you have any -- you got the last word if you'd
like. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Council, discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I will kick off the discussion. I am somewhat amazed that Mr. Cook
was able to get a response from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. I'm rather in awe. I
-- and I do appreciate the fact that we now have a better design for the drainage in the
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 49 of 78
dry ponds. I guess I continue to be concerned with that -- with granting a Variance. I
know a number of things have been tried with traffic slowing or calming, but I think that
Councilman Nary had a point with his comments. If you have cars parked along the
side of the road people tend not to notice those things and I do appreciate Mr. Cook’s
comments about drivers will drive over anything if they have the desire to. I have
actually seen that happen. I just don't know if we are being creative enough with the
traffic calming on that. This is an in-fill piece. I think that the applicant has attempted to
do what he can with the open space. Certainly, a pathway is a great amenity and a
good open space amenity at that. I'm still kind of undecided about this project, but I do
appreciate in that high water table area the efforts that have been made to make those
dry ponds, instead of wet ponds. It certainly is going to have a lesser affect on
mosquito breeding areas and certainly, I think will have fewer problems through a Public
Works perspective than the way it was proposed to begin with.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'm sort of torn as well. A recognize, as Council Member de Weerd said,
this is an in-fill piece, those are very difficult to sometimes fit the needs of the
development and configuration of what they have to work with, so I recognize that's a
problem going in. I am very concerned about the street configuration and I'm not as
concerned about the -- what's been raised by Mr. Broer as to the mosquito issue, I think
that's been taken care of, I don't really think that's an issue any longer. The issue also
that he raised -- Mr. Broer raised in his written material. The fact that Idaho -- the entire
state of Idaho is 41st in housing appreciation really isn't very relative to whether or not
to approve a 36 home subdivision and the fact that the city of Boise is 140th in the
country in appreciation actually speaks pretty well for this area. I think that's pretty
good. Most of the other cities that finish higher aren't necessarily places that you would
want to live, because the reason their housing prices are going up is because there is
not a lot of houses to get. It's usually overcrowded and it's very metropolitan and I don't
think those are areas that necessarily are really comparing apples to apples, so I'm not
sure that that really is compelling. I am very concerned about the Variance to allow this
straight block down the middle of this subdivision and the traffic calming I don't believe
is adequate. I have driven down Waterbury and I have driven in the past in some of
those areas. There are some concerns and I think we are just creating a problem here
by allowing that. Again, I don't fault Mr. Cook, I think he's done the best that he can
with this property, but I really think that there has to be something more creative to be
able to alleviate those concerns. I think one of the things at least that I have said a
number of times in looking at these subdivisions as we have seen them come across is
creativity really can make the difference here, especially on small, skinny pieces of
property like this. This is one that I just am not convinced yet that this is the best that
can be done with the piece that's there to alleviate that type of concern. I know we
grant Variances fairly routinely on some of these subdivisions. I'm concerned in
granting this Variance we are really just creating a traffic hazard that we are going feel
sorry for later.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 50 of 78
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Do you want to continue the hearing,
Public Hearing, close it, and make a decision?
Nary: You spoke first.
De Weerd: Mr. Cook has stated that he did what he could with the traffic calming and,
you know, if there is no other alternative than what we have today, I don't think we need
to continue it.
Corrie: Okay. If that would be your wish to Council, I would entertain a motion to close
the Public Hearing.
Nary: Mayor, I move to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13.
Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: The Public Hearing is hereby closed. Further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I hate to see all the efforts, in particular about solving the drainage
problems for not. I can't support a Variance for -- I don't see that it meets the criteria of
the Variance on block length, because I do think there can be something different in
design to help break that up, and I guess it would still need a Variance, but I'd feel more
comfortable if it had something more obvious to slow traffic down. Really, that's my only
remaining issue is I do not feel that I could grant the Variance and so the plat would not
be in compliance with our city ordinances.
Corrie: Well, without the Variance you wouldn't have the Preliminary Plat. Any other
discussion? Okay. Let's -- if you're ready for the question, we will do Item Number 12.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I need to caution you on this Variance
issue on the block length. The way the block lengths are calculated, there really isn't
anything this applicant can do with this piece -- there isn't anything this applicant could
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 51 of 78
do with this piece to make it into two blocks. Because of the subdivision to the south
has no connections across the South Slough and the subdivision to the north only has
the one stub street at Northwest 3rd Avenue, so if there was ever a case -- and I'm not
saying you have to approve this development, but if there was a case for the Variance,
this is it. There is no other way to create shorter block lengths in this piece. That is a
separate issue from the traffic calming in the plat. I mean you can still have a long
block with a different traffic-calming device. I'd also remind the Council this is not an
annexation and zoning piece, this property is already in the city limits, so the issue is
the plat and the Variance for the block length. If you deny the Preliminary Plat
application, you're required by code to tell the applicant what they must do in order to
obtain approval for development on this piece.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I appreciate -- I appreciate that and, yes, I kind of got ahead of myself that
this is something that he can't do anything different. I do think it can be -- the traffic
calming can be different than what has been offered and that straightaway -- you look at
Waterbury, you know. For example, to the south, that kind of breaking the straight line
certainly does slow the traffic down. I guess that was more of what I thought we might
be seeing. I know that the piece of property that the applicant has to work with, he is
going to lose a couple lots, but the little bump outs just are not -- are not enough, in my
opinion. I'd like to see something done better, but the applicant didn't show that he'd
like to give it another try, so I guess we can go ahead make a decision on it.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I, too, appreciate Mr. Nichols pointing those out and this I think, as Council
Member de Weerd said, I mean I think this rendering really shows what you can do. I
recognize it's limited, but if I look at this map, this road is curved to avoid the straight
line. This road has an island in the middle of it and this road is curved. These pieces
are no larger -- or if they are they are slightly larger than this piece and, yet, they still
found something else to get the traffic slowed down and I just don't think that those
bump outs are adequate.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, let me ask you a question. If the Council approved the Preliminary
Plat, they couldn't do anything, because it takes a Variance. Could they come back on
a Variance to that block length and do what Mr. Nary has suggested?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I can restate your question to make sure I understand what your
question is, are you suggesting that the Preliminary Plat be approved, the Variance be
denied, which requires them to come in with a new Variance application with a new
traffic calming design?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 52 of 78
Corrie: That's sort of what I meant.
Nichols: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the Preliminary Plat is the
place for the traffic calming design, not in a Variance application. The plat itself would
have to show the traffic calming devices the Council would approve, because the Final
Plat is, then, based upon that Preliminary Plat and any significant variation from it
doesn't really tell the applicant what kind of traffic calming device you're really looking
for, other than Councilman Nary's comment in terms of islands, that sort of thing.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any further discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Did we close the Public Hearing?
Corrie: Yes.
Nary: Okay. I guess I'll just take a stab at it, then. I would move to deny PP 03-007,
the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on
11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development.
West of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road, basically for -- that the -- I
think as Mr. Nichols stated, the traffic calming, the traffic method. The traffic design of
this Preliminary Plat we feel is inadequate and a potential traffic hazard and that they
need to address the -- as direction, they would need to address the traffic calming
measures more than has been proposed in this current Preliminary Plat in providing
better traffic methods. I'm not trying to design their project for them, because I look at
three different alternatives that are above me, so I'm not a traffic engineer, but there are
other alternatives to the traffic that the traffic pattern as proposed is inadequate and
they need to address the safety concerns that have been addressed by Council. Is that
adequate if we get a second, Mr. Nichols?
Corrie: Do I hear a second to the motion?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. I have a second to that motion. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing
none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 53 of 78
Corrie: Item No 13 is -- I guess we have to do the Variance now, don't we.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And before I make the motion, I would comment I would agree with Mr. Nichols
that if the plat had been approved, this Variance is the only method they really can do.
It would be pointless to make stub streets to the south to break up the block length,
because there is no -- there is no connection to them, so it would be -- unless they
provided something else to that, it seems kind of pointless. I would move to deny VAR
03-012, the request for a Variance to the block length requirements for a block on the
south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K.
Development west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road, and for
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for denial based upon the denial of the
Preliminary Plat.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the denial of the request for
Variance. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess since we all agree that there is going to be no other thing they can
do, if they come back with another Preliminary Plat, then, they are going to have to
apply for the Variance again and that -- I mean how -- why? We know a Variance would
have to be granted, so they would have to pay another fee. I guess I don't know what
my question is, other than we already realize that they are going to exceed the block
length on whatever they come back with and so it seems meaningless to make them
pay another Variance fee when we recognize that this fits the Variance. Could any
future applications on the Preliminary Plat, the Variance -- or a fee Variance -- fee for
the Variance could be waived or -- you know, I --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't have a real objection to waiving the fee. I guess the problem is that if we
don't deny the -- if we were to grant the Variance instead, we would only have a
Variance and no application and no -- nothing else. We'd have to do something in that
regard. Whether or not we waive the fee for a future application -- you know part of it is
we don't know exactly what it is they would design.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 54 of 78
De Weerd: exactly.
Nary: I mean it could be any length, so it's really hard to know, so -- and maybe by that
time that block length Variance issue won't be an issue anymore. Maybe we won't have
the same ordinance that we can address with it, it may be different, so I don't know, so -
-
De Weerd: Just --
Nary: How much is the fee?
Hawkins-Clark: Three hundred and fifty.
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: It was just a question that I wanted to throw out there and -- would staff
have any recommendations on that?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, Mr. Mayor, if I -- maybe a question for legal, too, is my
understanding has always been that while, yes, the Variance application was submitted
in conjunction with a development application, it's not unlike a Conditional Use Permit or
a zoning, in that it would run with the land. Is that not correct? I mean if -- so that if it's
approved on this parcel of ground, if this parcel now basically has somewhat of an
entitlement, if you will, that says this piece of -- this tax parcel has a Variance on it for
block length that says they don't have to construct a block -- a new block to the south.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think Brad's right, I think you can have it
run with the land, I think you could also put a time frame on it and have it, you know,
five years, some reasonable period of time that if no application had been submitted by
then, that the Variance is gone. Again, you're looking at a parcel where because of
your lot dimension standards for this particular zone, there is -- you're either going to
have the road go through the middle or -- or no place. I mean it's -- and so it’s going to
have to go through the middle and, as such, it's going to exceed the block length. Even
I think in the proposals for revision to the block length ordinance this one would still
probably exceed what's been considered there. This one is different than some of the
ones where they requested block length Variances inside of an 80 acre piece where it's
just because of the particular configuration, you know, that they have got a long block.
They break it up with pedestrian pathways and some other things, but this one is very
different from that, because of its in-fill nature. It could be that I'm missing something,
but I don't see where granting the Variance gives up anything with regard to future
Preliminary Plat design that you wouldn't be required to accommodate anyway,
because of the nature of the in-fill parcel.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 55 of 78
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I understand where Mr. Nichols is coming from and I understand what Brad is
saying, but I guess I'm not ready necessarily to approve a Variance, although that is the
likely outcome in the future, without having some idea what it is. I mean we are almost
doing it in the dark if we do it any other way, because -- and, again, maybe that's just
the static way we do things, but having it tied to a plat that is proposed makes the future
ability to verify that, to look at that, to make sure it's complying with that, much easier.
All I can envision is we grant a Variance now that allows a block length that basically
matches no plat, other than just saying you can vary from the block length ordinance,
the ordinance changes that may impact this or not, we don't have a way to really
address it. I mean I think you're absolutely right, Mr. Nichols, I think we probably legally
can, I'm just afraid to set that precedence and do that when there is no -- there is no
assurance as to how they are going to actually do this in the future. I mean they are
limited, but, still, I just -- I guess I'm just not ready to do that.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I'm not ready to do that either. That's why I only asked about the
fees. You know, I'd hate to approve a Variance without seeing what the plan is, but I
was just more concerned about the fee issue, how many Preliminary Plats are we going
to have to look at and how many Variances will they have to apply for before this gets
approved.
Nary: If we reject the next one, maybe we can look at waiving the fee.
Corrie: All right. Any further discussion?
McCandless: Question.
Corrie: Motion before the -- okay. The question has been called for and the motion is
for denial of the request for Variance. Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion to deny is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Item Number 14 --
Cook: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Was the fee waived?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 56 of 78
Nary: No.
Cook: It was not. Okay.
Item 14: Public Hearing: FP 03-038 Request to amend conditions of approval on
the Final Plat for Packard Acres No. 2 by the City of Meridian – east of
North Wingate Lane and south of East Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item Number 14 is a Public Hearing, request to amend the conditions of
approval on the Final Plat for Packard Acres Number 2 by City of Meridian, east of
North Wingate Lane and south of East Ustick Road. I will open the Public Hearing and
invite staff's comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Members of the Council this application was
an application that was initiated by the city. The application is to amend a Final Plat.
The plat for Packard Acres No. 2 is shown in bold on the screen. Ustick Road is on the
-- the north, Wingate Lane is called out here, and it doesn't reflect graphically on here,
but certainly does connect to Ustick Road and comes down along the eastern boundary
of this Packard Acres Phase Number 2. The public street that is shown here on the
south boundary is -- is East Challis and that is a public street that was approved to
cross Wingate Lane. I have submitted a number of different items into the public record
that give the history and background on the project, which I think probably the Council
and the majority of the public that are here are well apprised of the background to the
project, so I won't -- unless you need me to, to go into that. It is there with the three or
four attachments as I was included. The -- just a couple of photographs are shown
here as well for the Council. Wingate Lane is currently gravel, which is shown here on
the upper left picture and, then, the bottom right picture here shows a picture of East
Challis crossing Wingate, which is in between the two fences here and it is paved 30 to
40 feet back from East Challis. East Challis does -- is certainly paved and sidewalked,
curb, gutter across the distance there. In the application that you have there is a cover
letter dated June 10, which addresses a couple of conditions that start on page two and
the conditions are pulled from the Final Plat order of approval that the Council placed
on Packard Estates, LLC, which was the developer of -- of the Packard Subdivision.
Exhibit A in the application has a copy of the order that has all of the conditions listed
there. Council did, on February 11th, have a Pre-Council Meeting where Mr. Dale and
Helen Sharp, which are owners on Wingate Lane, which is this five-acre, parcel here on
the bottom of the screen that's currently shown RUT. It is Ada county zoning, reside,
and they did testify at that Pre-Council Meeting that they had some concerns about how
the city, particularly, the Planning and Zoning Department, was enforcing a couple of
conditions. At that meeting the Council, as you may recall, sort of sent staff away with
the instructions to kind of address this. We did send a letter to the Sharps that
addressed what we felt was Council's direction, particularly the issues that are at hand
on this application tonight, our proposal to remove two conditions, one of those has to
do with a gate across East Challis. The conditions that are currently on this plat say
that the developer was to construct a gate on both sides of Challis to keep vehicular
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 57 of 78
traffic from moving east west. It would preserve an opening for pedestrians, but that
was -- that was the extent. The Highway District did have a meeting subsequently, they
chose to remove that condition. They said that they do not -- they did not feel that they
were within their legal rights to obstruct the public right of way. Therefore, the
developer was asked to remove those gates. The condition remains in the city's
conditions, so we are proposing to remove that on the basis that the Highway District
has the jurisdiction over public rights of way. Essentially, we are saying we don't and
we are going to remove that, because of the Highway District's decision. Then, the
second condition on this Final Plat is condition Number 22. It has to deal with
developers or contractors repairing damages that they cause to the lane and that has
also gotten some discussion. There is input into the public record as well, that the -- we
feel that there is very little grounds it's a fairly unenforceable condition the way that it
was approved. How does the city have evidence of the exact conditions of the lane
prior to the approval and we would need to sort of track the maintenance of that street
throughout the development and at this point we don't feel that we have the staff, nor
the -- really, the understanding of how to enforce the condition. We certainly agree with
the owners that there is -- it is a lane that shows up on some maps. It certainly is going
to get used by people that do not have the right to access the private lane. That
Wingate is not unusual in that regard, there is a number of lanes in the city that -- or not
in the city, that, you know, the homeowners on that lane who are the primary users of
the easement have the responsibility to maintain and sign the lane, et cetera, so that it
gets used by only those that have the right to use it. I think, in summary, that's what this
application is for is to help to bring this project to a place where we feel all the
conditions are enforceable or have already been met. I think that's all I have at this
point.
Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Any comments, questions from Council? Okay. Is the
developer or representative here this evening? Is the testimony you are about to give
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Wyrick: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Wyrick: Stacy Wyrick, Packard Estates Developers, LLC. Place of business 6223 North
Discovery Way, Boise. 83713. I would like to state that on condition Number 20, which
was putting up the gates across Challis Road, we did meet the conditions of the city
and, then, it was, as Brad stated, overruled by ACHD, at which point we took down the
gates. There were two meetings that were held and one work session that was held in
discussion of taking down these gates. I was not personally there. However, what
came about from that was that the developer would agree to put up an electronically
operated gate on the Wingate Lane side to decrease traffic flow for them. However, for
him to put that up or us to put that up, the users on Wingate Lane needed to sign a
maintenance agreement stating that they agreed that once this mechanically operating
gate was up, they agree that it was their maintenance responsibility. The developer's
attorneys drafted said maintenance agreement and has yet to ever be given back to the
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 58 of 78
developer, so he has never put up the gate. However, he has gone through and put up
signage along Wingate Lane saying that that is not access, for the homeowners not to
enter that lane, it's a private lane, do not enter. On condition Number 22, it's really a
non-issue. We have contributed to the maintenance on Wingate Lane and the
developer has also agreed to contribute again. He owns property along Wingate Lane
and so he contributes through that fact and he has agreed with the person that runs the
fund, so to speak that they contribute to this maintenance he's agreed to contribute to
that also. Do you have questions?
Corrie: Any questions? Okay. Thank you. We have one, two, three, four, five, six
people signed up for -- against this. Is there anybody for it at this point? Okay. I'm
going to have a three-minute time limit on this. We have been through this many many
times. I think we are well aware of what's going to be said, but let's -- we want to hear if
there is anything new about this, so we will give the people here that signed tonight, or
anybody else that would like to testify, you have a three-minute time limit on this. With
that understanding, we will start with Dale Sharp first. Is the testimony you're about to
give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Sharp: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Sharp: Dale Sharp. 4445 Wingate Lane. First off, I want to object to changing any of
the conditions being proposed for change here and the thing to remember here is that
the City of Meridian, ACHD, developers, and contractors are responsible for their
decisions and accountable for their actions. In regard to Item Number 2, repair of
damage to lane, quote the Planning and Zoning Department is fully prepared to enforce
the conditions, but only after we have the appropriate evidence to support our position,
photos and so forth. The City of Meridian's fundamental responsibilities are to insure
the safety of its citizens in their private property. It is only -- it is not the responsibility of
ordinary citizens to monitor or even provide evidence that conditions established by the
city through numerous Public Hearings are being carried out, as the citizens do not
have enforcement authority. This is empowered to public officials. The City of Meridian
had ample opportunities to enforce these conditions as their vehicles traveled up and
down Wingate Lane daily from Ustick to access Packard Estates on both the east and
west side of Wingate Lane. Furthermore, we contacted enforcement officials by phone
on numerous occasions to observe conditions of the lane as a result of development
activities. We also sent letters requesting information on how to proceed with
enforcement of rulings by the City of Meridian and this went -- on September 9th we
sent one to Mayor Corrie and a copy of it went to the City Council and on November
15th to Mayor Corrie or City Council and a copy to the Ada County Commissioners. We
said -- on this one we said the conditions for approval of the Packard Subdivision were
thoroughly discussed and agreed to during public meetings. What happens when the
conditions placed on a subdivision are not followed? We are requesting the developers
of Packard Estates Subdivision to be held into compliance with agreements reached
during public meetings or be subject to legal action by the City of Meridian. No
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 59 of 78
response to any of this. After the fact, we received information during our February 11,
2003 Pre-Council Meeting saying we should provide pictures and, again, on February
24th stated that we should have had pictures, but not -- this request was not made
before that. In regard to the conditions of the lane, steel posts, large boulders and
rocks were left on the easement after development activities and I rolled those rocks
and boulders aside and I put the steel posts off the easement against the telephone
poles, so people wouldn't run over those and damage their cars or other -- we had to --
Kiwis had identical language in their contract to repair any damage, Mr. Nary. We had
had 12 -- about nine years of this and now we have got three months -- three minutes to
rebut. I would request a little bit more time.
Corrie: I'll give you one more minute and, then, you stop.
Sharp: Qwest had identical language in their contract and they repaired that without us
having to say to them go out and take care of this. The City of Meridian repaired
damage to the lane when they crossed at the sewer by the slough and we didn't to have
supply photos to get that done and it was very obvious -- damage to the lane was from
all the development activities beyond normal wear and tea and so we are saying that
this should stand, this condition should stand, and any contract would have the repair
from damage from development.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sharp. Helen Sharp. Is the testimony you are about to
give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
H. Sharp: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
H. Sharp: Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane and, I, like my husband, I feel that we
should be entitled to a little bit more than three minutes, especially when we have sat
here all evening listening to those that have gone on and on and we do feel that we
have a little bit new information. The big question to me is why, why are they amending
a Final Plat after all this time once the subdivision has started. The City of Meridian,
after a Pre-Council Meeting, told the city -- Planning and Zoning they had to adhere to
all conditions, not part, but all of them, and when nothing was done, I wrote -- contacted
Brad -- he probably got tired of me -- saying why aren't these things being adhered to
and nothing was done. It goes on and on. Of course, there was -- I'm referring
especially to condition 20 that states until two five acre parcels, the one known as
Reichart and ours is developed, there would be fencing along Wingate Lane from the
north boundary to the south boundary, with emergency gates across Challis Road. This
was known by the developer’s way back in 1995 when the issue was started and we
had meetings with Ada County Highway District and they agreed to it. Now that the --
as I say, now that they have started, then, they want to change that and I don't think
that's right. It's like any law. I realize that there is supposed to be a law now similar to,
but not the same as, a ruling in Sandpoint, Idaho, where Ada County Highway -- or the
highway district is supposed to have jurisdiction. There is also other legislature that I
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 60 of 78
have here that says if it's new, than the city or Ada County has jurisdiction, otherwise,
the road district has the jurisdiction. Oh, they also said that when they changed their
mind on the meeting of February 27th, 2002, that was not a Public Hearing. There was
a letter written stating that it was for the residents of Wingate Lane, developers, and
their people, but it was not a Public Hearing. The City of Meridian was not included in
that. I cannot believe, then, that they could go ahead and change -- 48 hours later the
gates were down and Challis Road became a public road. Another thing, too, is Ada
County has got to have some say. Their description of a private lane is you cannot
have a public road to the north, Ustick and Challis. From Ustick to Challis it cannot be a
private lane. Are they addressing it as a private lane or are they addressing this as a
public lane. If it's private, they will have to put the fencing back on and make sure it's
private and Ada County also says you cannot have a gate across Wingate Lane, which
they said that we agreed to. We did not. Some the residents were in favor of a gate
across Wingate. The only ones that would be jeopardized, so to speak, by it is us. We
are the dominant, the developer is servient to us. That also goes back to a ruling here
that I looked up in the law library, the Idaho law book, private land use or arrangement,
KS 657, K67, 1990, S406, interference by the servient owner, the developer, they are
servient to us, that states the servient owner may make any use of his land which does
not interfere with the reasonable use of the easement. It also says that the servient
owner can do nothing to diminish the use of the easement or make it more
inconvenient, costly, or hazardous. It has made a tremendous hazard there and that
has been confirmed by Captain Musser of city of police Meridian -- city police. He has
been out there and checked and found out it is a very serious condition and that has not
been addressed either. We also have -- if it's a public lane -- if it's a public lane, then, it
has -- a public road, then, it has to be brought up to standard and that was not done.
We have also been told repeatedly that if there are more than four houses on the lane
that's over 400 feet, it has to be -- the fifth house has to bring it up to standard. We
have eight houses on the lane and, of course, it has not been brought up to standard.
We -- the question is is it going to -- is it a private lane? We have a private road
agreement that I'm sure you're aware of that was -- like I say, we sat here all evening
listening to others for hours, the Council included -- that states that it's a private road
agreement from 1913 and that everybody knew about. The Ada County Highway
District, the developers, and everybody knew that by joining those two there was going
to be problems. They could have designed that with cul-de-sacs, they could have put
stub streets. Have you ever gone to a subdivision that didn't have cul-de-sacs? What
do they do when they got a cul-de-sac they go around? The question is why -- why
should they at this point in time take away from us the residents on Wingate Lane? My
husband and I have been there since 1968 and we have -- since they opened that up
and made Challis a public road, there have been residents from the subdivision that use
it. It's been posted private lane, no trespassing, but, obviously, if we can't teach kids to
read, we can't teach adults either, because they do not abide by it. We have -- one of
the neighbors, I'm sorry to say --
Corrie: Mrs. Sharp, your time is up.
H. Sharp: I'm sorry, sir, but it just doesn't make sense --
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 61 of 78
Corrie: I said your time is up.
H. Sharp: That's not fair. That's just not fair.
Corrie: There is more out there that --
H. Sharp: That's not fair. When we sat here and listened to them spout off for ten or 15
minutes and we get four minutes, that's just not right.
Corrie: No, they didn't spout off for ten or 15 minutes. Sit down, please.
H. Sharp: Yes, they have. Yes, they have.
Corrie: Okay. Billie. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Premo: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Premo: Billie Jo Premo. 3045 Wingate Lane.
Corrie: Thank you.
Premo: I would just like to enter into the testimony how much our lane is impacted, so
you realize that it is affecting not just the Sharps, but all the rest of us who are on the
lane. I teach at a year around school, so I'm not home during the daytime a lot and
haven't seen as much as some of the others who are on vacation who would be here if
they were here, but -- in town, but I live -- one of the northernmost people on the lane
and so we get the traffic by our place all the time. We get everyone who comes down
the lane passed our property and the amount of traffic has -- well, I can't even
enumerate the amount of traffic that has -- you know, the volume has picked up so
much. Just a couple of incidents. We know of people down in the subdivision who are
giving directions to their place to people who are coming to work, because it's easier to
give them directions, so they come down the lane, even though they know they are not
supposed to use the lane. Yesterday I was out working in my garden and one of the big
construction trucks came through with all of the debris from the construction zone, they
know they are not supposed to do that, but they are doing it all the time. It is just an
endless -- we see people go in with the logos on their -- on their trucks that say, you
know, they are construction people, they go down, we watch them go and turn and go
into the new area that's being developed and we are at your mercy, you know, what do
we do? We have a speed limit zone posted. They say that on a private lane you can't
have -- legally you can't have a speed limit, but we are asking for 15 miles an hour and
people go by 35 to 50, because it's such a straight shot, you know, it's a half mile long,
and they get to roaring down there, even though it is a gravel lane and we just -- we are
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 62 of 78
at your mercy, because we don't have any rights. We pay for it, it's my land, I pay taxes
on it, but I have no control over it and we are so frustrated, we are so frustrated. We
have been at every meeting for almost -- well, a good eight years and every time people
say we will make provisions for you, we will do something, and, then, the next meeting
it's like you haven't even said anything, because you're trying to change it again and we
are frustrated because we have been promised things for eight years and almost every
promise has been broken and we have a terrible problem that we stated was going to
be a problem the first time that we came in here and it has just plowed ahead as though
we have no rights at all and that's our concern and that's why we wanted to come and
restate our concerns. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mrs. Premo?
Premo: Yes.
Nichols: I'll defer to the Council Member first.
Nary: Well, I was just going to ask you, Mrs. Premo, that Ms. Wyrick had stated that
there was a discussion with the homeowners about putting an electronic gate and, then,
the homeowners maintaining that gate going forward and, then, that had never been
agreed to and hadn't been --
Premo: That has not been signed and I cannot speak for everyone, but I felt like this
issue about the gates and the issues that the Sharps were addressing should come
first. I, as -- the land I sit on was the original homeowner that granted the easement to
go down to the Sharps and I feel that I need to honor that until such time as I'm not
under that moral obligation to them anymore and, therefore, I stand until we are told
that East Challis must stand and that you don't have to stand up to the agreement to
have that gated until that property is sold. I feel that I am morally obligated to them to
stand with them and not sign anything that would take the burden off of you.
Nary: Well, I guess -- I guess I understand your point, but I also think that part of your
concern that I have heard was the traffic that's using it --
Premo: Oh, it is very definitely a --
Nary: And that could be solved by having a gate there.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 63 of 78
Premo: It could also be solved by cutting off Challis.
Nary: I understand, but what I'm saying is -- so, then, what you're telling me, then, is if
agree with the staff that we can't gate off Challis, because it is a public road and the
highway district has control over that, you would, then, rethink on whether or not to
provide that electronic gate that would only allow access to the Wingate Lane residents
and that would cure your traffic problem.
Premo: That would address my problems, except for my moral obligation to the
Sharps.
Nary: I understand. At least it would address your traffic problem better than what you
have today.
Premo: Yes. We have no control today.
Nary: Thank you.
Premo: Yes.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols? Something Lee Roberts? I'm sorry. I don't do too good a job of
reading names. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Roberts: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Roberts: Dixie Lee Roberts at 2855 Wingate Lane. I really have a lot of concerns with
the gating not going up on the lateral side of Wingate Lane. It is a private lane. We pay
for the maintenance of it and it's tripled, the traffic that comes down through there. I
also work during the day, but I have recently had surgery and so I had an opportunity to
stay home for a couple months and I would watch the workers come down on the
Wingate side of my house and, then, I have a big window on the west side and I seen
them go around and park where they are doing their construction and large trucks come
down through there and they just barrel down through there and they are the supplies
for the subdivision and it's really a problem as far as the children the pets and people
just come down through there at 50 miles an hour and late at night and it's really a
problem. I know the gate across Wingate, they have proposed that, but, like Billie Jo, I
just don't feel like it's fair to the Sharps, they are at the end of the lane and it would
cause them problems and I want to be supportive of Dale and Helen and that's my take
on it and I really feel like they promised us the gates on the lateral, each side of
Wingate Lane, and I just feel like that isn't being honored.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 64 of 78
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Roberts?
Roberts: Yes.
Nary: Where do the Sharps live? Right here?
Roberts: No. Clear down.
Nary: Right here.
Roberts: Yes. No. Clear on down. Right there. Yes.
Nary: So, I guess I'm curious, what I was understanding is what the developer is saying
is they'd put a gate right here.
Roberts: I don't know. Is that where? Is that Challis right --
Nary: On the north and south side of the lane, not the east and west side of the lane.
Okay?
Roberts Okay.
Nary: So, I guess what I heard you and I heard Mrs. Premo say, you have this moral
obligation to the Sharps, but if there is a gate here -- but all we are talking about is
gates here. I mean this is all -- this is all Packard Estates but they would put gates here
right. I guess I don't see any point from what you're telling me. What you have said to
us was your concerns about the Sharps and I'm just asking you, not the Sharps. They
have had their opportunity, but what -- what prevents them from accessing their
property if there is a gate here and not across Challis, but here -- they can access this
southern part of the lane and they can get to their property. Why does that concern
you?
Roberts: Well, because they want usage down to Ustick down the lane and I think they
have the right to have that.
Nary: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 65 of 78
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, before we go any further in testimony, I think it would be
appropriate to get Ms. Wyrick back up and have her indicate where these gates would -
- how many gates, where it would be, that sort of thing, so that you understand what
that proposal was.
Roberts: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Where are these gates? Take that microphone with you
right there. This one right here.
Wyrick: Can I just clarify? The gate that we are speaking of right now would be the
gate that the developer would be willing to put in to not have traffic on Wingate Lane;
am I correct. Not the gates that we put up across Challis to prevent cross-access. The
private lane gate would be right here. Thereafter, this traffic -- there is no -- there is not
a way out down here nobody would be coming down here. It would prevent any traffic
from going up to Ustick Road, which is what the head of the lane people are having
problems with is the traffic going out to Ustick or Ustick down to Challis and this is
Challis right here. Essentially, the Sharps would be the only folks using this gate to
access their property.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I know we have other folks to listen to, but since Ms. Wyrick is here, I did have
one question from one of the testimony -- and you will get another chance, too. What it
says in Condition 22 is besides the issue of the repairs, was the developers have
agreed that no construction will be allowed to access Wingate Lane and what I heard
one lady say was they are continuing to access Wingate Lane now. That's something
the developer does have control over and what are they doing to alleviate construction
traffic, because it sounded to me, at least from one person, that they are still doing it.
Wyrick: Well, right now we can't block off their lane, we can't block off access for them.
Nary: No. No. No. No. You can control the developers and the construction traffic.
You have to --
Wyrick: We have communicated with our -- our builders to let their subcontractors know
that they can't use Wingate Lane, they are only to use the public streets, you know, we
have communicated that to them.
Corrie: But they are still using it.
Nary: But they are still doing it.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 66 of 78
Wyrick: Okay.
Nary: I guess you're not doing enough. That's what I guess my point is. It sounds to
me like you need to be more diligent, because that is part of the condition here that they
are not supposed to continue to use construction traffic. If we separate out the issue of
repair of the lane from when it was initiated, it was a continuing obligation to alleviate
construction traffic and at least what we have heard previously from the Sharps, as well
as tonight, was that's not being addressed either, and that the developer isn't taking
very diligent steps to assure no construction traffic down that, is sort of -- not you
personally, but that the developer is sort of thrown his hands up saying, well, I told them
and they just use it and that's the way it goes. That doesn't seem like enough.
Wyrick: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to ask what the Council would so suggest
that we do.
Nary: Would you do more than what you have been doing now? More than what you're
doing now. If it's not working, then, you're going to have to be more diligent. Maybe not
pay those people, maybe get signed agreements from them not to use that lane.
Maybe police it. Use an off-site manager. I mean I'm not trying to --
Wyrick: Well, we can certainly put it on our option agreement, absolutely, that, you
know, they are not to use that lane. Once a builder has purchased the property, of
course, you know, we have our interaction with the builder and we strongly encourage
that.
Nary: But whose condition is this and who is it that has the continuing obligation under
these conditions, the builder you sell it to or does your client?
Wyrick: Understood.
Corrie: Vern Alleman. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Alleman: I do.
Corrie: Thank you.
Alleman: My name is Vern Alleman, I live at 2101 East Ustick, Meridian. I have given a
great deal of thought to this situation and I'm deeply troubled at what is being proposed.
You may ask why I should be concerned, as I do not live along Wingate Lane and this
does not impact me one way or the other. Let's examine this. In 1913, neighbors got
together, wanted a lane, and said we are willing to dedicate part our land for this
purpose and we will maintain same. The understanding being that it would be a private
lane for the benefit of those dedicating the land. Now, I'll give you the definition of
private. Private: Not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public. Let's see.
Understand this was not public land and there has not been any public funds used for
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 67 of 78
this lane. Not only that, but the people continue to pay taxes on the land so dedicated
this is truly -- this truly verifies the privacy of this lane. Let me say the real reason this
concerns me is government taking private property rights away from people. You may
say this is just a small thing and it doesn’t -- it doesn’t affect me, so why worry about it.
The way we lose our freedoms is by one small incident at a time. Where is the integrity
of the county and the city? What is a Final Plat? When is a Final Plat not final and
when is a Final Plat final? Who decides when a Final Plat can be changed? Can you
site me an instance when individuals have been allowed to change a Final Plat? There
were a number of hearings on this situation and it was always agreed and stated that
Wingate was to be gated. This was agreed to by both the county and the city. The
road across Wingate Lane should never have been allowed. Remember, this is private
property. I ask each of you what you are going to do when the government invades
your private property. This lane can and should be gated just as gated communities
are, which allow emergency vehicle access. I ask you to put yourself in these people's
position and not change the Final Plat. Please do the honorable thing and implement
the plan you agreed to and at least give it a try before you say it won't work.
Corrie: Thank you, Vern. Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. I believe the
next one is Audrey Bentley. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Bentley: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Bentley: Audrey Bentley, 620 East Wakely Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I think we
are all pretty frustrated here. I know I'm frustrated. This is the first meeting I have been
to, but the Sharps are my parents and I have watched them deal with this for nine years
and I'm pretty -- getting pretty mad, mad at Ada County Highway District, mad at the
developers, mad at the City Council, my parents had to go out and get lawyers -- I don't
know how much time my mom has researched, gone to the law library, and nobody
seems to listen, nobody seems to care. First of all, Ordinance 389 says there it no
gates or other travel way obstacles shall not be allowed on a private lane. It is a private
lane. Ada County Highway District illegally crossed it, there is a lawsuit on that going
right now, as you should know. The question is what are we going to do. You asked
why don't we put a gate right in front of the Sharps? The Sharps have grandfather
rights the people on the lane are subservient to the Sharps. Why should the Sharps be
the only one who has to deal with the gate, because we all know electronic things, they
break down, so who is going to fix the gate when it breaks down? The Sharp? I don't
think so. Why should that be their responsibility? As far as safety, Meridian police has
been out there, they say it's a safety hazard, because it is a safety hazard. People
speed down Challis, they speed up turning up to the lane, which I have almost had
people hit me, hit my children on their bikes, so when it comes down to it, if something
happens to anybody of my family or anybody on the lane, you will take responsibility,
Ada County Highway District will take responsibility and the developers will take
responsibility. The gate should be up on Challis. You guys made that decision in the
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 68 of 78
last Council meeting. You guys need to do your job and enforce your decisions. Quit --
you just -- you make these decisions -- how -- where in the business world is it that if
you don't like what somebody told you, you just go make a million changes. That's
what's going on, change after change after change. Why don't we do our job and
enforce what you have decided? That's all we are asking you to do. Everybody is so
scared of Ada County Highway District. They are not God. They can be brought down.
Enforce what you decided. That's all we are asking you to do. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to issue
testimony? Okay. The developer is up next. You can -- anything that's come up you
can have the last word here.
Wyrick: I don't know that we really have a rebuttal, other than that we are -- we have
put the offer out there several times to try and compromise with what ACHD has said
their jurisdiction is over and that's to cross Challis and we have tried to provide what
seems like the right thing to do for the parties involved.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I know our staff and our attorney have looked at several different options
and -- and I hope that Mr. Nichols can address this as well, but from my understanding
of what they have found out is the city doesn't have the authority over roads and it's a
condition in our finding, but because ACHD went the process -- and I guess until this
lawsuit is settled, we have to -- and I guess this -- I would like to be corrected if I'm
wrong -- go with the decisions of Ada County Highway District. The law supports that.
The cases that I know the Sharps have brought up, we've had our attorney look into,
and it still shows that the jurisdiction goes to the Highway District. We feel like our
hands are tied. I also agree with neighbors and I really admire that they are standing to
the agreements that were made in 1913, that the Sharps definitely have grandfather
rights, in my opinion. I don't see why a gate should have to go on Challis to
inconvenience the Sharps when they were the first ones there. Unfortunately, I'm not
the one that makes the decisions on those gates and what opened Challis up. I guess
the lawsuit is going to make those decisions. What our staff was looking at in trying to
change this out of our findings is that it's something that we can't enforce, because we
don't have the authority to do it. Believe me, Mrs. Sharp, if I see that we have the
authority to do it, then, that's something that we can do. What our staff has found and
from the counsel of our attorney is that we do not have the legal authority to enforce
those conditions. We are kind of looking at another way of adopting the findings of Ada
County Highway District in a way that -- that we can have an effect on as a city and
what we can't have an effect on as a city. I understand your dilemma. I think that we
have a dilemma, too, and until I'm told differently, I -- I have to agree with you that it's
not fair, but I don't know what we as a city can do to suggest it. I know -- I've seen Mr.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 69 of 78
Alleman at these annexation hearings, we don't want to force annex and so we look at
grandfather rights and say certain things shouldn't happen until those grandfather rights
are transferred, because someone has sold their property, and I know the Sharps have
said that. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't know if we can enforce a
condition that we have no legal authority over, and that is why the staff has brought that
in front of us. I guess my question to the attorney is if you can address the legal
ramifications of enforcing a condition that we don't have jurisdiction over.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the issue is -- is one of competing
jurisdictions and where ACHD has, by state law, jurisdiction over the rights of way in this
county, the city's role with regard to streets is limited. They have some role over how
streets are placed, how streets are designed, such as the last Preliminary Plat that
preceded this one as far as the Council denying that plat because of inadequate street
design. The city can't -- the city tried with regards to that condition, but ACHD pulled
the trump card is what it boiled down to. Now, perhaps through the lawsuit we will find
out something different, but I don't believe that that's the case. The other thing that I
think needs to be emphasized here, Mr. Alleman, the developer to the subdivision had
access rights to Wingate Lane. The Wingate Lane agreement from 1913 does not state
a limited number of residences, it doesn't do anything other than state the width and the
property that benefits from the easement. The developer could have insisted on access
to the lane, but chose not to, and I think one of the conditions was we required that the
developer release any interest in that easement. In terms of enforceability, the two
conditions that the application before you requests to be removed from the Preliminary
Plat -- or, excuse me, from the Final Plat. The first is condition Number 20, which is the
condition which required gates, which would be parallel to Wingate Lane and cross
Challis and that is the condition which ACHD has denied the enforceability of and
required the gates be removed. The second condition has to do with repair of damages
to Wingate Lane from the development activity. The easement holders have a private
cause of action for any damages that they wish to prove with regard to that. If I
understood Ms. Wyrick’s testimony correctly, the developer is poised or ready to
participate in the maintenance of the lane. The issue of unauthorized construction
traffic is also one that there is a private right of remedy for. If the developer has, in fact,
released the easement for the property under the development, then, those contractors
and material suppliers have absolutely no right to use that lane and, therefore, they are
trespassing. Wingate Lane is, for the most part, county property and I think the sheriff
would have jurisdiction over those that have no right to be there. Certainly, a
preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, from a private lawsuit would be
available to those lot owners that have rights on Wingate Lane, if that's what they
prefer. I think Councilman Nary's suggestion that there are other things the developer
can do to put some teeth in it. When we see the XYZ lumber truck come down the
lane, the ABC truss company truck come down the lane or the Joe's plumbers come
down the lane, unless they are going to the Sharp's house to fix the sink, then, I think
there is some things that Mr. Groves and the others involved in the development can
do. Require the builders to agree to and maybe impose some penalties that -- that
would require -- you know, I mean contractors are a difficult bunch. You know, we see
the signs of the subdivisions, no loud music, no dogs, no this and that, and they don't
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 70 of 78
always obey them, but I think there is -- the developer is the one who has some control
and perhaps -- I don't know if this particular development is one that's open to all
builders or only select builders and there are means at the developer's disposal to
enforce that, but I'm not sure that's the city's business to do it at this point. If you
believe it is, then, I would revise condition Number 22 to modify and delete all but the
last sentence, which would require the developer to come up with a plan for reducing or
eliminating construction traffic along that lane. Perhaps even impose in that condition
that if they do not, that the dominant estate holders in Wingate Lane have a private
cause of action, make them third-party beneficiaries, and they have a private cause of
action against the developer.
Nary: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I wholeheartedly agree with what Mr. Nichols said and I think that the best that I
can see out of this hornet's nest that exists is on condition 20, that we would consider
amending it to include the language: If allowed by law. Because, I agree, I don't
believe it is allowed by law. If someone tells us differently, then, the condition could be
enforced. It isn't enforceable today in the current state of the law. I don't have an
objection and I guess I'm going to propose here in a second, unless someone else has
an alternative, that on condition 20 that the developer install -- construct and install
gates on the north and south of Wingate Lane if it will be maintained by the property
owners of Wingate Lane. It's just me, but I would not have put up with this for eight
years. I admire the Sharps to be so diligent in this in not giving up, but I wouldn't have
put up with it for eight years if I had one alternative that at least would eliminate it,
although I recognize it's inconvenient, I would at least have eliminated the problem and
still address the issue, as they are attempting to do. If the homeowners on that lane will
maintain a gate so that that could be repaired, that will alleviate the traffic problem and
at least resolve a piece of the issue. On condition 22, I agree with Mr. Nichols, I would
recommend -- or at least what I'm going to propose is that we eliminate all of the
language but the last sentence. I think what has happened here in just my short time
here in listening to this is that that sentence got swallowed up by the whole issue of the
initial development of this property and it really hasn't been addressed very much in the
last five or six years and that has allowed the situation to exacerbate to where these
neighbors are justifiably frustrated that this has not been addressed fairly at all by the
developers. I think the developer should have to provide a plan to the city as to how to
alleviate or eliminate construction traffic on Wingate Lane to include, but be limited to
signage, gates, or any other alternatives to be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Department and that the private landowners have the opportunity -- have the private
cause of action to enforce it as well if it isn't being adhered to besides the city. There
are only so many things that we can enforce, but I think that's something we can
address better than has been addressed to this point and I think some plan which has
been nonexistent to this point needs to be done, but I don't think anything else in that
condition regarding the preexisting condition of the lane is enforceable eight years later.
I don't think there is any way anyone can enforce that. I don't think that's something
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 71 of 78
that really needs to continue to be in there. That's my thoughts on those two things,
that I think we need to amend them both and try to address some of these concerns,
but some of this stuff we can't enforce it.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I have a great deal of empathy for the people who live on Wingate Lane
and the problems that they have found, but in listening to our attorney, I don't know that
we can do an awful lot about it. I think it has to be done by private -- what did you say,
private attorneys that can solve those things or attempt to solve them. ACHD -- we fight
with them ourselves. They have so much authority and we can't cross them as far as
their authority with the public roads, but I do feel that you people have a very good
complaint. I honestly don't know what we can do about it, other than what Councilman
Nary has said, but we haven't ignored it like we have been accused of doing. We only
have so much authority when it comes to those private roads and things of that sort.
We can't do anything else.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess in comment to Councilman Nary's suggestion, if we can't impose
the gates on Challis, I guess the only other option would be the gates on Wingate, but --
and I understand the Sharps' objection to it. I really do. What I -- and that would have
to be acceptable to the residents on Wingate Lane. My concern is the gates were to go
on Challis and they would have been maintained by I don't know who, either ACHD or
the homeowners association. Why, if you put gates on Wingate do the Wingate
residents have to maintain them? They didn't ask for the opening on Challis. Why
would that, then, be their burden? Just a question.
Corrie: The only thing I can say it's their lane, it's not a public lane, so the public should
not have to do it. I can see your point that if it's a private lane and they don't want a
gate there, they don't have to put a gate there, but they are not going to stop traffic if
they don't. I mean we have no jurisdiction over a private lane. That's theirs. They can
go to court and the court can settle it and it's been -- I think debated enough that they
are going to have to go to court if they want to get the street the way they want it and I
don't think they will get that either. It's just -- that's the law. I think if I hear Mr. Nary
right, they are going to -- you would eliminate condition 22, except for the last sentence,
and put it on the developer to -- that no construction traffic means no construction
traffic. It's a private lane. Then, they will have to have the sheriff to come out there and
get anybody that wants to, I guess that's on their property, but we can't do it, we can't
even send our Police Department out there and enforce the law on a private lane. I
think that it's going to have to be settled in a court of law and that's the way it's going to
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 72 of 78
have to be. If there is no other discussion, I will entertain a motion to close the Public
Hearing, if the Council has nothing else to say on the Public Hearing.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I did have one more question for Ms. Wyrick.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Ms. Wyrick, Council Member de Weerd sort of asked the rhetorical question
about the original gates that were on Challis. Those were installed by the developer
and removed when ACHD required them to be removed.
Wyrick: That is correct.
Nary: Who was maintaining them?
Wyrick: They would have belonged to the homeowners association, Packard Estates
homeowners association, just as the homeowners association maintains the perimeter
fencing.
Nary: So, then, why was the obligation put to the Wingate Lane association to maintain
the gates that are moved? If we move them from east to west to north and south, why
wouldn't Packard Estates just maintain them again?
Wyrick: The gates that were put up on the homeowners association property were
more a cedar fencing style gate and the gates that will be put up, should the members
of Wingate Lane choose to accept the developer's offer, are more of a mechanical,
more in the lines of a 10,000 dollar gate that would be mechanical and used only by
them. The gates that were going to be -- that were actually installed across Challis
were for emergency purposes only, they weren't to be opened or closed, or -- other than
a pedestrian crossway, which had a lock on it. I'm not sure if I --
Nary: Other than the value of the gates, the principle of maintaining it was the
obligation of the developer. When did -- why would the principle change of who
maintains it, just simply because the cost of the other gate is more extensive? If you
were obligated to maintain them previously, why would you still not be continued to be
obligated to maintain them now? Just because they are more expensive really isn't the
issue.
Wyrick: I understand. The gates that were put up were for emergency purposes only.
That's what we were told to put up was something that an emergency vehicle could
crash through. Otherwise, the property would have had perimeter fencing, just as the
City of Meridian requires us to put up and there would have been no gates at all.
Nary: But it was also intended not just for emergency -- I mean it was for emergency
access to get through them, but the purpose of putting them there in the first place -- I
mean I can understand your point if we were only talking about a gate on the west side
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 73 of 78
of Wingate Lane, but they were required to put -- and I wasn't here, but there was a
requirement to put a gate on the east side of Wingate Lane. That wasn't for emergency
access, that was to prevent traffic from driving down Wingate Lane; right?
Wyrick: I didn't understand it that way -- oh, too --
Nary: You would only need it on the west -- if all it was was for emergency access, you
would only need a gate on the west side of the lane; correct?
Wyrick: Sure. I understand your point.
Nary: So, once you put it -- once it was required to put it on the east side of the lane, it
only goes to assume that it was also intended to prevent the traffic from driving on
there. Now that we have moved the gates to a different location, why would the
obligation to maintain them change?
Wyrick: I'm sorry, I can't answer your question.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know if -- piggybacking on that last
question, if you want to continue the hearing to allow Ms. Wyrick to inquire of the
developer if -- so there could be a response to the question. Another alternative would
be that the gate would be maintained by the homeowners association until the last lot is
developed and sold and built upon or some other issue that could have some
termination date for that maintenance responsibility that would be coincident with the
developer continuing to sell those lots coincident with the need to eliminate construction
traffic on that lane.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I don't have an objection to continuing it to get a better answer to that
question, but I guess when Ms. Wyrick goes back, if we do that, if Ms. Wyrick goes back
to talk to her client, I guess the answer I want is if we had the legal authority to require
them to put the gates on the west and east boundaries of Wingate Lane and for them to
maintain it, why don't we have the legal authority to put it on the north and south of
Wingate Lane and for them to maintain it. Now, I understand homeowners don't
necessarily want that there and if they don't want it, then, they don't have to have it, but
if they want to eliminate the traffic, that is the only way to eliminate the traffic. There
isn't any other alternative better than that. The issue of maintenance, I think as Council
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 74 of 78
Member de Weerd raised, is is why should they be obligated to maintain them. The
whole intent initially was to eliminate the traffic on that lane, so if the authority existed to
impose it, I don't see why there isn't authority to make it be on the north and south,
instead of the east and west, so -- but I'm all in favor of continuing it if they can get a
better answer to that question and if we don't have the legal authority to impose that,
then, Mr. Nichols can tell us that and the developer's attorney can tell us that, but I don't
know the answer to that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Then, I have a question for the attorney. If we have the legal authority to
ask that gates be put on on the north and south, why don't we on the east and west? Is
it because of the right of way issue or -- which I'm assuming that's the case or -- or
what?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, we have to look at the issue. A lot of
times these conditions are imposed to try to achieve a compromise and the developer
agrees to them and they are put into the -- either the development agreement or the
findings are agreed upon by the developer as a way to compromise an issue and that
doesn't necessarily mean that it would be an independent way to impose the condition.
We’d have to look at that.
De Weerd: It just seems that expense wise and the developer had already done it, they
put gates up on the east and west side of Challis.
Nary: Yes. They were just wooden --
De Weerd: And that was -- well, they were wooden fences, but they solved the issue
that the developer needed to do and they addressed the desires of the residents. If we
have the legal authority to do it north and south, we should have the legal authority to
do east and west and I guess that's what I want further clarity on.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I guess I'm not -- I don't believe we do have the legal authority. A gated
community is not like a very complicated issue. They can have a gate across that
roadway if the developer requests it and ACHD agrees to it. It's no different than any
other gated community. I don't think we have the right to impose it. I think ACHD has
the right to allow it. One of the things that I haven't heard from anybody in this is that
the developer asked to put the gate there. They actually wanted to remove it and
ACHD said, yes, it's a public street, take it out. No one's ever asked that Packard
Estates be gated from that point that I know of. I don't know why the developer, to help
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 75 of 78
resolve this issue, hasn't requested -- and maybe they have, but I don't know this -- why
they haven't requested of ACHD the authority to gate off Challis Street at that location
with gates. That's a public street. That doesn't have a tremendous necessity, at least
from what we are looking at up there, there is plenty of access, you can provide gated
access both to the Wingate Lane people, as well as the Packard Estates people and
they can get out onto Challis Street in that location if they want to or they can proceed
through the other ways to get out of that subdivision, but I don't think I have ever heard
anybody say they have asked for it and I think if they ask for it and ACHD agrees to it
they can do it. There are gated communities all over the place.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know, maybe Brad can help me out
on this, but the gated communities I have seen are private streets and so if you're
talking about gating off Challis, as opposed to gating off Wingate, I'm not --
Nary: And I don't know that. Yes. I agree, there may be an issue there, too, but I think
those are the questions that really haven't been answered. There has been a lot of
rhetoric that we have heard about the frustration everyone's felt and the anger they
have had and the traffic that continues and all these other things, but, you know, the
real brass tacks is what can we do to resolve this and I don't know that there is a good
answer that everybody is going to like, but I haven't heard anybody talk about whether
that's a possibility, whether or not it has to be a public street, whether or not it can be
rededicated as a private street, whether or not there is any of those things that have
been explored -- I don't know. To me, if we are going to continue this, then, those are
the kinds of issues that we at least want to talk about a little further. If we are going to
carve out something that nobody's going to like, I'd at least like to have as much
information as we can get.
De Weerd: I agree. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I don't even know if ACHD can talk about it at the time, since they are in a
lawsuit. How long do you continue it?
Nary: Well, the developer can. I mean he can at least give us more information as to
what's been done to this point, so that we have -- again, if we are going to carve out
something from what we have right now, we at least need a little bit more information
and Ms. Wyrick needs to really talk to her client to get a better sense of what exactly
has been done. I don't know, but I think the Sharps and the rest of the neighbors don't
feel like a lot's been done and I don't know that we have heard a lot, so that's all I've
got.
De Weerd: When do you want to continue it to?
Nary: At least two weeks. Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 76 of 78
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would suggest at least two weeks, if not three. Mr. Bird, I think, would
like to have the opportunity to read the transcript or listen to the tape, and get up to
speed. I think he certainly would like to participate in this discussion and I don't know
whether two weeks is cutting it close for him to do that, if three weeks would be better.
Corrie: I would say three. I won't be here --
Nary: Oh, right. Three weeks might be better. The 12th of August might be better to
continue this to try to get some of that information. Again, we may not have much more
than we have today, but I think at least we have to give some opportunity to get a little
bit more information than what we have and, then, Mr. Bird also can be prepared to
participate.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would make a motion to continue this Public Hearing until
August 12th, 2003.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing
until August the 12th, 2003. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the
motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Three ayes. Motion carried. The Public
Hearing will be continued to August the 12th, 2003, for the developer to get the answers
to those questions.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from June 24, 2003: Fire Department Plan
Review and Inspection Fees:
Corrie: Okay. Item 15 is a continued Public Hearing from the June 24th, 2003. Fire
Department Plan Review and Inspection Fees.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I believe that we -- I know Joe is out of town and I think that we had
continued this to August 12th. August 12th? Okay.
Corrie: August 12th, then.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, there is a memo from Chief Bowers that says that Joe will be back off
vacation August 12th.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 77 of 78
Corrie: Okay. Seeing nobody in the audience, I will entertain a motion to continue the
Public Hearing on Item 15 until August the 12th.
De Weerd: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16: Water, Sewer, and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Let's see. I have got something else I've got to do here. This is to inform you in
writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30,
Tuesday, July the 22nd, 2003, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to
be judged on the facts and defend a claim made by the city that your water, sewer and
trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on
July 23rd and/or July the 30th, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone
present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Hearing
none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the city
reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho state code. Even
though you do appeal, your water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is
$20,806.55. With that being said, I will entertain a motion to approve the delinquency
turn-off list, if you so desire. If you don't, do it anyway. Do I hear a motion?
McCandless: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Nary: Council Member McCandless wanted the list read in full, I think.
Corrie: Okay. All in favor say aye? Opposed no? There is none, so we do have that
delinquency turn-off schedule.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes.
De Weerd: I move we -- oh, I did want to make a comment. Well, no, I won't.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 22, 2003
Page 78 of 78
Corrie: Well, you can make it, that's fine. At this time we can't do anything, but if you
have a comment --
De Weerd: No. I'll move to adjourn.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made. Do I hear a second?
Nary: Second.
Corrie: To adjourn? All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Adjourned at 11:35
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK