Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 10-21Meridian City Council Meeting October 21, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, October 21, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Sharon Smith, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins- Clark, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird __O__ Robert Corrie De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the regular meeting of October 21st , 2003, to order. We'd like to welcome you all here and ask the Deputy Clerk to call roll. I'm sorry, Sharon. I was ahead of you. Smith: That's okay. I'm ready. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item two, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't believe we have any changes on the agenda tonight, so I would move that we adopt the agenda as published. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 2 of 68 A. Approve minutes of October 7, 2003 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Tabled from October 14, 2003: Resolution No.03-415: Approving the Memorandum of Understanding with Meridian Firefighters Local 2311 regarding Wages: C. Tabled from October 14, 2003: October 2003 Addendum to Development Agreement Correcting the legal description for AZ 00-026 Bear Creek Subdivision No. 6 (fka / approved as Kodiak Development): D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-005 Request to vacate 29 feet of right of way along the alignment of Venable Lane for Cedar Springs No. 3 by Howell Murdoch Development, Corp. – west of North Meridian Road and north of West Ustick Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-038 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tri-plex in an R- 15 zone for Troy Palmer Tri-Plex by Troy Palmer – 1236 East 2 ½ Street: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for shell and core for multi-floor medical office building in an L-O zone for Meadow Lake Village Medical Office by Hummel Architects, P.A. – east of North Eagle Road and south of East Franklin Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 017 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.00 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC – 355 West Ustick Road: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.00 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC – 355 West Ustick Road: I. Development Agreement: AZ 03-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 3 of 68 J. Development Agreement: AZ 03-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: K. Development Agreement: AZ 03-013 Request for annexation and zoning of 79.77 acres from RUT to R-8, C-G and L-O zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: L. Water Main Easement for the Sonoma Square Building in Bonito Subdivision – Kimball Properties Limited: M. Acknowledgement of Judges and Clerks for November 4, 2003 General Election as submitted by Elections Coordinator Lova June Pack: De Weerd: Item three is the Consent Agenda. Please note on item B, the resolution number is 03-415. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we approve the Consent Agenda, including resolution number 03- 415 and for the President of the Council to sign and the Clerk to -- Deputy Clerk to attest all papers that need be. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as stated. Or Consent Agenda. Mrs. Deputy Clerk -- Sharon, will you call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Department Reports: De Weerd: Okay. Item four does not show any department reports. Are there any? Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) De Weerd: Okay. We did not move any items from the Consent Agenda for item five. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 4 of 68 Item 6: Continued from October 14, 2003: Ordinance No. : Amending Ordinance 03-1033 Correcting the legal description for AZ 00-026 Bear Creek Subdivision No. 6 (fka / approved as Kodiak Development): De Weerd: So, we will go ahead and move to item six. Continued from October 14th, Ordinance No. 03-1049, amending Ordinance 03-1033, correcting the legal description for AZ 00-026, Bear Creek Subdivision No. 6, formerly known and approved as Kodiak Development. Sharon, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Smith: Thank you. I have City of Meridian Ordinance No. 03-1049, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 03-1033, finding that certain land to be part of Bear Creek Subdivision and that Bear Creek, LLC, are owners of certain real property located at 2435 South Meridian Road, which lays contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official map of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you, Mrs. Deputy Clerk. You have heard Ordinance No. 03-1049 read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none, Council? McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 03-1049, amending Ordinance 03-1033, correcting the legal description for AZ 00-026, Bear Creek Subdivision No. 6, with suspension of rules. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1049. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, if you will please call role. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 5 of 68 Item 7: Continued from October 14, 2003: Ordinance No. : Amending Ordinance 03-1037 AZ 03-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 24.004 acres from R1 to R-2 zones for Carol Subdivision by The City of Meridian – west of North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item seven is continued from October 14th, 2003, Ordinance No. 03-1050, amending Ordinance 03-1037 on AZ 03-012, request for annexation and zoning of 24.004 acres from R-1 to R-2 zones for Carol Subdivision by the City of Meridian. We will have our Deputy Clerk read this Ordinance by title only. Smith: Thank you, Madam President. I have Ordinance No. 03-1050, an ordinance correcting Ordinance No. 03-1037, an ordinance correcting the legal description for Ordinance No. 03-1037 for Carol Subdivision, which is generally located west of North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road, Meridian, Idaho, and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described herein below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho. De Weerd: I'd like to thank the attorney for cleaning up that title. You have heard this Ordinance 03-1050, by title only. Is there anyone who would like it read in its entirety? Thank you. Okay, Council? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we approve Ordinance No. 03-1050, amending Ordinance 03-1037 for Carol Subdivision, the annexation and zoning of 24.004 acres from R-1 to R-2 zones and with the suspension of rules. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1050. Deputy Clerk, please call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Ordinance No. : AZ 03-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 6 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. Item eight, Ordinance 03-1051, request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for the proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments. We will start with Deputy Clerk to read this by title only. Smith: Thank you. I have City of Meridian Ordinance No. 03-1051, an ordinance finding that Sundance Investments Limited Partnership and Ada County Highway District, the owners of certain real property generally located east of Eagle Road and south of Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known Silverstone Campus Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you very much. You have heard Ordinance 03-1051 read by title only. Is there anyone who would like it read in its entirety? Either she's put them all to sleep or they don't want it read. Nary: We just know why the City Clerk didn't come tonight. Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move the approval of Ordinance No. 03-1051, AZ 03-016, the request for Annexation and Zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for the proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments at the southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, with suspension of rules, pursuant to the Idaho Code. McCandless: Second. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1051. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 7 of 68 Item 9: Ordinance No. : AZ 03-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item nine, Ordinance 03-1052 on AZ 03-014, request for Annexation and Zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Tuscany Village. We will begin by the Deputy Clerk reading this ordinance by title only. Smith: Thank you. I have City of Meridian Ordinance No. 03-1052, an ordinance finding that Tuscany Development Corporation, the owner of certain real property generally located at the southwest intersection of Victory Road and South Locust Grove Road in Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Tuscany Village and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official map of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard Ordinance 03-1052 by title only. Is there anyone who would like it read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council? McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 03-1052, a request for Annexation and Zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Incorporated, with suspension of rules. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1052. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 8 of 68 Item 10: Ordinance No. : AZ 03-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 79.77 acres from RUT to R-8, C-G and L-O zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is Ordinance 03-1053 on AZ 03-013, request for Annexation and Zoning of 79.77 acres from RUT to R-8, C-G, and L-O zones for the proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Smith: Thank you. Members of Council. I have City of Meridian Ordinance No. 03- 1053, an ordinance finding that Kevin Howell, Kelly and Brenda Fulfer, Jack Fulfer, Randall and Tonya Calkins, and Kevin Howell Construction, the owners of certain real property generally located at the northwest corner of Linder and McMillan Roads, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Kelly Creek Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8), Limited Office District (L-O), and General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official map of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1053. Is there anyone who would like it read -- this ordinance read in its entirety? Okay. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: This is the last one, folks, too. I'd move the approval 03-1053 for AZ 03-013, the request for Annexation and Zoning of 79.77 acres from an RUT to R-8, C-G, L-O zones for the proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction at the northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road, with suspension of rules. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1053. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 9 of 68 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Tabled from October 7, 2003: FP 03-048 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 residential building lots and 11 other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: De Weerd: Thank you very much. Okay. Item 11, tabled from October 7th, 2003, FP 03-048, request for final plat approval of 92 residential building lots and eleven other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision. Staff. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this was tabled because there was an issue about a road easement at the northern portion of the site. They have resolved that, so we are finally here before you. The preliminary plat -- or I mean the final plat does substantially comply with the preliminary plat. They have -- this is the preliminary flat. This is the final plat. They have added one small pathway right here that was not on the preliminary plat that's on the east side of the subdivision coming off of Black Cat toward the northern corner of the property, but staff was fine with the addition of open space to the preliminary plat. There is one small issue remaining over in this corner. This lot still doesn't have access. There was a little -- there was a little interim lot here that was supposed to be included with Lot 4. They, instead, included it with Lot 5. So, there is a note to that effect in the conditions of approval. But other than that, it substantially complies and staff is recommending approval of the final plat that's dated October 9th . De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here tonight? Would you like to step up here, please. Just state your name and address. Pull the mike towards you. Thank you. Porter: Carl Porter with W&H Pacific in Boise and representative of our client. De Weerd: Do you agree with the conditions that staff -- Porter: We accept the conditions of approval. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? Porter: No, ma'am. De Weerd: No? Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. I would entertain a motion on this application. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 10 of 68 Bird: I would move that we approve the final plat approval of 92 residential building lots and 11 other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road and incorporate staff and applicant comments. The date on the final plat is 10/9/03. And for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item number 11, FP 03- 048, request for final plat approval for Birchstone Subdivision. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from October 14, 2003: ZOA 03-002 Request for Amendments to Sign Ordinance: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We have Item 12, continued Public Hearing from October 14th , 2003, on ZOA 03-002, request for amendments to our sign ordinance. Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Good evening. Hopefully, you received a memo from myself dated October 16 and I think the goal of that memo was basically to highlight several of the items that Council and the public raised at the last Public Hearing for the sign ordinance. A couple of directions were given. One was to meet with Commissioner David Zaremba and Debbie Anderson of Idaho Electric Signs to review the electric reader boards paragraph. We did do that and I think we have some consensus, at least among -- among us, as well as Joe Venneman, the City Code Enforcement Officer, in terms of enforceability. And, then, there was also a couple other research items that were done since the last hearing. So, the way that I have presented it, I have tried to just refer to the page numbers of the draft ordinance, so that if, at the Council's pleasure, to just basically refer to this memo. I think the only item, maybe, to point out, assuming that you don't have any initial questions, the clarification that we made on the second page of my memo on item number four, as you may recall, there was a much longer description about how these electronic reader boards may work. Basically, we nailed it down to A and B under item four, which we felt, after going over this for about two hours thinking, well, what really is the safety issue. I think I also submitted to you a memo from Chief Bill Musser, who commented that the wording that you see here they felt was adequate. They have not really had an issue that they can determine with the animated signs having any kind of a hazard on traveling public. So, he was okay with this language. It basically eliminates somebody flashing and strobing letters of any kind to have text. It does not eliminate the opportunity for someone to use Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 11 of 68 a graphic. For example, a hopping bunny during Easter time or at July 4th having some kind of animated firework on the screen, something like that, that, you know, these reader boards can be programmed in a very dramatic way. So, if it's graphically oriented, this -- as it's worded, it's not prohibited from having that flashing effect. This is geared towards text that is intended to be read and to eliminate -- if you want us to read it, put it on the screen for five seconds, leave it there, and, then, change the screen if you want after that point. But that's, essentially, what this accomplishes, I think. So, was there any discussion that you wanted to have on that point? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess if we wanted to address instead of having it say in all other text displays for 4-B, you could just say in all other displays and so that would incorporate text and characters. If you want -- if we wanted to -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right. Nary: -- do that. I mean I don't know if it's a burning desire either way, but I just -- I guess if we took out text that would probably cover that as well, too. Hawkins-Clark: Right. If it read -- yeah. And also striking the letters and/or numbers, maybe. Nary: Right. Hawkins-Clark: If you went that way. Yeah. I think -- one of the arguments that was made was these signs are manufactured with a lot of capabilities and, you know, if the city is going to allow them, then, what's -- you know, is it equitable to basically take away their ability to program these signs that they have purchased and, you know, if we are going to allow the reader boards anyway. And it really becomes difficult for the Code Enforcement Officer, I think, to subjectively go to some of these and determine is that a graphic, is it not, so we went with just strictly text. I mean if it is intended to be read and, you know, processed by a reader, rather than just sort of artwork, so that was the thinking of our small, humble committee, anyway. De Weerd: So humble. Any other questions for Brad? Nary: Madam President. I just had one. Brad, in your memo in the second paragraph, the last sentence says -- well, the second to the last says if the Council chooses to make a motion of approval or recommend incorporating this memo, which I think is good. It says staff can, then, prepare a final ordinance based on -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That's a fill-in-the-blank opportunity. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 12 of 68 Nary: Oh. I'm sorry. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The merged documents. I'm sorry. That's what that was intended to say. I'm sorry. Nary: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. On page 19, which deals with the vehicle signs, Councilman Bird and I think Councilman Nary both expressed some concerns about that regulation dealing with the 72 hours and putting some kind of a time frame and after reviewing a number of codes, very few jurisdictions really go into much explanation or detail about this. One suggestion that was given at the last hearing was to have the vehicle signs -- just have a distance. The 35 feet -- so it reads the parking of any public -- or any vehicle or trailer on either public or private property, any part of which is located within 35 feet of a public right of way and which has affixed to it a sign which is intended to attract or direct customers to a business, is prohibited. Thirty-five feet is the widest landscape buffer that our ordinance currently has in certain entryway corridors. Most of them 20, 25, but the 35 feet would, basically, accommodate that and, for the most part, it would eliminate using the first bay of parking stalls that front an arterial road. So, I think it -- we are using a measurable distance as the enforceable thing, there instead of a time standard that is difficult to enforce. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bid. Bird: I have got a question on that to Brad. Brad, I do like the wording a lot better on this, but, you know, out on some of these jobs -- and I like the 35 feet, but I don't think it's going to be practical on some of these jobs, because the site are so tight anyway and, you know, these big contractors bring out their semis to work out of on these larger jobs that have signs -- their company sign on it. It's not advertising business, because they have already got the job. Would that be included in this ordinance here or not? I don't believe it would be, but we need a clarification on it, I think. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I think, Councilman Bird, about midway through that paragraph it states this is not intended to apply to standard identification practices where advertising displays are painted on a permanently attached -- painted on or permanently attached to a business or commercial vehicle that's actively being used. Since we eliminated the actively part, I think, clearly, if they are actively using a trailer, you know, on a construction site, I think -- at least that would be my interpretation. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 13 of 68 Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, also in the previous sentence it talks about where it's intended to attract or direct customers and that construction trailer is not intended to attract customers to that site or direct them in some manner. So, I don't see that type of display as violating this provision. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Did you want to comment, Debbie? Are there any questions for Debbie Anderson? She worked on some of these revisions. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would like her on record either yea or nay with the revised -- you know, this is her business. Anderson: Debbie Anderson with Idaho Electric Signs, 6528 Supply Way in Boise. I'll stand for questions. De Weerd: I'm sorry. It is a continued Public Hearing and you were sworn in -- Anderson: Correct. De Weerd: -- at the last one, but I will swear you in one more time. Because I love doing it. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Anderson: So help me God. De Weerd: Thank you. Anderson: You're welcome. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Debbie, is the changes and stuff all suitable to the committee, you and Dave, and you met with Brad and everything, and agree with all these changes? Anderson: I think that given the variables that are involved in signage and advertising issues, I think that we did come up with the best solution for all involved and I think it's acceptable to everyone. Bird: Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 14 of 68 Anderson: Thank you. De Weerd: Thanks for you help. Nary: Madam President. I just have a question, too. On that issue we talked a couple of times about the scrolling signs and the reader boards. What is your thoughts on this -- this one little point that's sort of left on the text displays versus character displays? I guess the flashing is what concerns me, because I think it's a distraction to the roadway. Anderson: Right. We discussed this issue at great length at our last meeting and I think the way we resolved it was in order to compromise, we decided that the existing language was -- was most comprehensive and just to perhaps reword it a little bit to -- I guess to cover some of those areas which can be very subjective and the fact that you're not allowing flashing and strobing I thought covered those areas which were a source of irritation with some of those existing signs and future signs. Nary: Isn't that flashing and strobing only prohibited if it's text, not if it's something else? Anderson: Well, as Brad kind of tried to articulate, it's -- we are not -- we are not denying graphics that are animated. For instance, the hopping bunny, fireworks on the Fourth of July. What was -- I think we found to be more a problem was that strobing, irritating effect that is possible on the message centers that it's not always necessary to get your point across. So, I think that was where most of the opposition was, that the sign not be obnoxious, but still be effective. Nary: Sure. Was there any discussion for the committee and you being a part of that industry, in educating the public out there that -- the different businesses in town about these changes and how to get that message across? Because, obviously, if we pass this ordinance here in the near future, we could either make it take effect at a later date, so we have some time to educate the businesses about what's going to be available and usable -- I guess I don't want someone coming in and saying I just bought a 30,000 dollar sign and now I can't use it. Anderson: Right. Correct. I don't think that this will affect, really, anyone with an existing sign. There are a couple that are in existence now, which were, actually, approved under the old ordinance, which still denied flashing and strobing. So, you know, with that ordinance having been in effect when they were approved, that was covered. So, this is not really going to deny anyone full use of their sign, its just going to I think moderate the effect that you can do on that. Nary: Thank you. Anderson: Thank you. De Weerd: Maybe even better clarify. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 15 of 68 Anderson: Right. I think it's much better clarified now. I think it's very clear what the expectations are of a user of that type of electronic message center and it is a very effective way of advertising, but it's not meant to be an eye sore or obnoxious in the city. So, there are a lot of things that you can do with these -- these message centers that won't be -- and that are allowed under the way the ordinance is rewritten. And certainly a lot easier to -- I think to police. De Weerd: Enforce. Yes. I'm sure Joe will appreciate the new language. Nary: Madam President, if I could ask -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: And I don't know whether Mr. Nichols can answer this or Mr. Hawkins-Clark, but, you know, since we are not talking about -- I guess I'm not seeing grandfathering issues here of signs, because some of this -- some of these signs prohibited here, like to reader board ones, are uses of the signs, not the signs themselves. Anderson: Correct. That's correct. Nary: I mean you can still have a reader board, you just can't have it maybe doing what it used to do. Anderson: Right. Nary: So, again, I think -- has there been some discussion or thought about educating some of those businesses that maybe may not be in compliance any longer if we pass this ordinance, so that they are aware that is going to change. I don't know if we have done any of that type thing and maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is some more of a grandfathering type of issue, but it seems to me usage of sign really isn't going to be a grandfathered issue. Anderson: I don't believe that there is a grandfather issue. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but any usage of those signs that I would -- I would say are not being used appropriately, that was already in effect, it just has never been enforced, because there was a gray area there. But the sign ordinance, when those were approved, did prohibit flashing and strobing. So, that, in itself, you know, was against ordinance. Nary: And I guess that wasn't the only one I was thinking about. It's like the vehicle signs, for example, those types of things. Anderson: Oh, I see. Yes. That might be an issue. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 16 of 68 Nary: I don't think you have a grandfather right to continue to park the vehicle there. So, I guess I think it's another issue just -- of educating them before these, you know, come into effect, I guess, is my thought. Anderson: Correct. Of course, the City Council meetings and the group that we had together, the committee, that was all open to anyone who wanted to attend, as are the Council meetings, to discuss this. So, I would -- Nary: Oh, I agree, too. Anderson: -- hope that anyone who had any opposition to the sign ordinance would attend. Nary: I agree with you, but we could shout it on the front steps -- Anderson: That's exactly right. Nary: -- and I guarantee you, people are going to come and say I didn't know. Anderson: That's exactly right. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. De Weerd: I imagine that we can take care of some of those by the date that we set and ask the code enforcement officer to maybe go out and look at those businesses that will have some impact to -- and let them know it is on its way to be changed. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And education has been a goal of his, particularly of late, you know, to spend quite a bit of time with business owners, property owners, business managers, you know, to help them understand. I think the text change will certainly impact several, you know, around town that use text for more like one or two seconds, instead of five, and I guess I would agree, I don't know about Mr. Nichols, but, you know, if you set it -- if the adoption was effective right of way, you know, maybe Joe could continue to work with them, instead of citing right away. I mean it could be an education process. I don't -- De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, do you have any comment? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think the way to do it is to set an effective date that's in the future and, then, direct the Code Enforcement Officer to basically -- we know those that need to make some changes and go to those first and, then, if there is a data base of sign permit holders, I mean there might be a letter that could go out to them that says there have been changes in the sign code, you know, contact us if you have any issues or questions, but rather than change it, have it effective immediately, and go out and give warnings, because you -- that's really not a very diplomatic way to do it. I -- in a sense of fairness, if you say the ordinance would be effective -- let's just say December 1st and you had a letter or a hand bill or something that Joe could pass out to business owners and managers, that's going to Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 17 of 68 get you a lot farther than to say you're in violation, but I'm not going to do anything to you, but I'm going to be back in a week to see if you got it fixed. That's just not really a very good way to do it. De Weerd: Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Madam President? Sorry. If I could just mention one concern on that. I think we are holding like three or four applications in anticipation of this ordinance being passed and I don't know if it's an option to just have the effective date be on just a key -- couple key sections, like the animated sign. I guess what I'm saying is there has been some expectation that our department has given to sign companies that the ordinance would come through within, you know, the next few weeks -- let's put the December 1st, that's just one concern that we have. Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, we can -- I think we can work on the effective date part of it and there could be a distinction in the effect of the ordinance with regard to say physical standards, because it seems to me the sign permit would be directed to the size of the sign, the type of the sign -- Hawkins-Clark: Height. Nichols: -- all of those sorts of things could be effective at one -- we'd have to look at that, but we could either do it in two pieces, adopt some amendments as one part that are effective immediately and, then, adopt a second ordinance with the other part that's effective in the future. We can try to sort through that and see how we can get it -- De Weerd: Would it be a little easier to look at it in terms of existing and proposed? That existing would allow a certain length of time to come into compliance, so Joe had an opportunity to talk with them? Nichols: We can look at that. We can also look at whether we have -- we will figure out some way to get it done, so that that -- we will find some way to put it in final form to where it does what you need done. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this item? Okay. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I just had one last comment before we close the Public Hearing. We did have some further follow up after our last hearing from the gentleman who owns the Subway out there at Magic View and had some very good information in that as well and I would concur, too, with his concerns, because I guess I didn't know where it was. I did see it since our last hearing and didn't realize where it is located, so, obviously, signage is a Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 18 of 68 real key and so I think that's going to -- I think this is going to be helpful. I think he was very supportive of these changes, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move we close the Public Hearing that has been continued on ZOA 03-002, the request for amendments to sign ordinance. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item number 12. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Nary: Madam President, what do we now need, basically just the direction to bring this ordinance back in its final form? Do we need a motion for that? Bird: Yes, you do. De Weerd: Yes. Nary: Okay. I guess that I would move to bring forward the amended changes to the city's sign ordinance pursuant to the public testimony, the staff report, the discussion we have had, Mr. Hawkins-Clark's memo of October 16th and, as Mr. Nichols has stated tonight, after their review as to how this is can be done in one part or two parts, will be brought within a reasonable time. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to have the attorney draw up the appropriate paperwork for Item 12. Mr. Attorney, when would we expect that? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think we could possibly have it in two weeks, I think, because the changes aren't that extensive. Bird: The 5th . Nary: The November 5th meeting? Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 19 of 68 Nichols: I believe so. De Weerd: Okay. Nichols: We will certainly do our best to try to have it ready by then. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from October 14, 2003: AZ 03-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from October 14, 2003: PP 03-020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from October 14, 2003: CUP 03-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: De Weerd: I will go ahead, if Council does support this, and open 13, 14 and 15. Any objection? Okay. I will open the continued Public Hearing from October 14th, 2003, AZ 03-015, request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sageland Planned Development. Also 14, continued Public Hearing from October 14th , 2003, PP 03-020, request revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and nine other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sageland Planned Development and Item 15, continued Public Hearing from October, 14th , 2003, CUP 03- 036, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Sageland Planned Development and I will start with staff comments. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Before we start, I got a question to ask. We got a memo shoved on this -- and I realize we have opened all of them up, so I can bring this forward on the plat. I don't Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 20 of 68 know if the applicant has seen this. It's from 10/21, which is today, 2003, from Wendy Kirkpatrick. There is quit a few changes regarding from the fire -- Meridian Fire Department. We seem to look pretty hard on applicants that bring stuff into us on the day of the hearing and here our own staff is. I don't know what the hold up was, whether it was the Meridian Fire Department, why this wouldn't have been picked up on the plat before October 14th by the Fire Department or if it's within the Planning and Zoning, but the main thing is I want to know if the applicant has seen this. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? I will need to swear you in first. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Forrey: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Forrey: Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Wayne Forrey with Pathway Planners Consulting. And my address is 1952 South Wildcreek Way in Boise. 83709. De Weerd: Thank you, Wayne. Forrey: And I am working with Quasar Development, the developer of Sageland, and, yes, we have a copy and we had also discussed with the Fire Department and knew that this would be prepared and available tonight. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anna? Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, would you like for further explanation, Council member Bird, or -- Bird: I would love it. Powell: My understanding is that they did not receive a transmittal until yesterday. However, this was on previous versions of the plat, so they wouldn't have received latest one. There was a little bit of misunderstanding on the part of the Fire Department. The primary road going through the development is a 50 foot right of way, but it only has a 29 foot back of curb to back of curb and so he didn't realize that the parking restrictions needed to apply on all of this. All of those -- of those notes that were handed to you are in regard to just no parking signs, that's all they are relative to, and the applicant would have been aware of those restrictions throughout, it was just -- it was not stated on the final plat -- or on the preliminary conditions. I mean it's not -- Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 21 of 68 we always have restricted parking on one side of the reduced right of way, so they weren't unusual comments, it's just we had never spelled them out. Bird: Thank you, Anna. Powell: Okay. Backing up. Now that we have gone to the specifics, back out to the general. This project is located -- it nestles up into Sherbrooke Hollows. It is located on Locust Grove and has frontage on Victory Road also. There are -- while we are out at this scale, there are some issues related to the fact that development of the Tuscany project down in this area that came through and we briefly discussed this development in relationship to that and I believe Brad is going to talk a little bit more about that as the presentation goes on. But just to let you know that this is the Tuscany project that was just approved. The yellow over here is the final plats that are going in for the previously approved Tuscany. Back to the site. There is -- the primary access road does come through and goes back out to the major arterial. There is one cul-de-sac off of it. This is a private drive. It terminates near the south end of the property, where upon there is grass creet to provide Fire Department access through that, so there will be gates and, then, grass creet that will allow the fire trucks to drive back out onto Victory Road. There is also -- one of the notes given by Ms. Kirkpatrick is for no parking along this private drive. The original application had 39 building lots. The revised application added two lots in this area here. They didn't have to give up quite as much right of way to the highway district and they were able to get another couple lots in this area down here, so that's why we have the revised application before you. They have submitted this as a planned development. Their amenities include a large play area down here that will also serve as their drainage area and, then, the pathway system to the north of the project following along its boundary there. In exchange for the proposed amenities, they are asking for a reduced lot size of 5,000 square feet for detached and a reduced frontage down to a minimum of 20 feet and these are primarily on the cul-de-sac areas. This is the landscape plan. You can see the play area and the heavy landscaping berm toward the -- along Victory Road and along Locust Grove. There is also, you will notice, the pathway that gets -- goes out to the -- or the micropath that goes out to the larger pathway system. At the Planning and Zoning Commission one member of the public testified, not really in opposition, it was just comments from Matt Schultz with Tuscany Development regarding the sewer issues and no one -- no other members of the public testified. There was no changes to staff recommendations and no outstanding issues before the City Council. It does come with a recommendation for approval. I should note that it is two more lots and you can see -- you can see how -- this was the landscape plan. You can see the pattern of the lots here. This was the original application. This was the revised application. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission saw it with two fewer lots, but staff felt it wasn't a significant enough change to remand it back to Planning and Zoning Commission. And with that I will end -- no. I will pass it onto Brad. Watson: Thank you, Madam President, Council Members. When Tuscany Village Preliminary Plat was before you I was a little confused on how that turned out that night. I have since read the decision and order and I think I understand it. But just so that this Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 22 of 68 application dovetails with what you approved for Tuscany Village, I was just going to point out would that decision and order said. It required the Tuscany developer to cost share in sewer from their eastern boundary to the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory Road, which is at their southwest corner. It said that this would be a private cost sharing agreement. The second paragraph said that if Quasar Development does not desire to enter into a private cost sharing agreement, then, the applicant Tuscany Village simply satisfy the standard full frontage condition policy to extend the ten inch sewer beneath the Ten Mile Drain at their eastern boundary at Tuscany's sole cost and that Quasar -- I'm paraphrasing -- would connect to the sewer at that point and bring it to their project. So, to me, the Tuscany was a bit of an if-then decision and order and I just wanted to make sure that that was in the forefront of people's minds when that got discussed tonight. That's all I have, unless you have any questions. De Weerd: Any questions for Brad? Okay. Watson: Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions for Anna either? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Anna, I didn't notice in here -- and maybe I missed it, but was there concerns about that roadway at the Planning and Zoning level? Powell: President de Weerd, Councilmember Nary, which road? Nary: Isn't that a road that's lined with trees that runs right through the middle? Powell: The primary road? Sagemoor Drive? Nary: Sagemoor Drive. Powell: No, there wasn't. Nary: Because it -- I mean it sure seems like it's a pretty easy cut around for that corner and I'm just concerned with that -- with the high school north of this site, that people driving down this roadway to avoid that corner are just going to turn into that property and zip down that straight road and out onto Victory. Was there any thought about that or discussion about that at all? Powell: There wasn't -- I'm sorry. There was not discussion. I believe that the applicant -- the reason that they chose the 50 foot right of way with the 29 foot section was to provide kind of a narrow road with the kind of landscape feel, so that people felt Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 23 of 68 like they should slow down, but we did discuss it at the pre-apps and it didn't come up as an issue at Ada County Highway District. De Weerd: I think that that's the issue that Haven Cove has been having, isn't it? Nary: Yeah. Cut-through traffic and, actually, I think the road is a little windier than that. De Weerd: Yeah, it is. Nary: In Haven Cove. And people still cut through it and I just was concerned that you get traffic coming southbound on Locust Grove and can avoid that corner fairly easily by simply turning in this subdivision and racing down that road and coming out on Victory, so -- Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Councilman Nary, my biggest concern is going west on Victory and swinging up there when you're late for school, swinging up through there and hitting Locust and going on that way. It's not the coming home, because you have to cross traffic, but -- to get in and to get out, but this way you don't, you turn right and you turn right and I'm with you, I see a real concern here on that. ACHD didn't have any problems and our Planning and Zoning Commission didn't have any problems, but I can see a real problem, especially you're going to have youth -- young kids out there getting ready for busses or walking to school and you get kids -- high school kids coming through there and I think you're a hundred percent right, I think that's going to be a real corner cutter. Nary: Just one more comment before the applicant gets up to speak. But I guess I -- I guess I don't see narrow roadways as a means to slow traffic down. You know, the only things that slow traffic down tends to be some windier roadways, some islands in the road, something else besides just the road narrows. That doesn't seem to have worked anywhere. Bird: Kids just get smaller cars. Nary: So, I guess the applicant can address that when we get to their part. De Weerd: Okay. Anna, I guess I also had a question on the pathway. What does it connect to and what is the overall plan up there? Or down there. Powell: This is the -- would be the Nine Mile Creek pathway. I do believe that Tuscany has plans to develop that as part of their development. They have done the Ten Mile, we have got a pretty good start on the Ten Mile. This would be the Nine Mile and it is just cutting the corner. It would come from this property and, then, it would have to cross Locust Grove and go up through -- I believe it's Meridian Greens, the east side of Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 24 of 68 Meridian Greens Subdivision. It's -- the other -- I'm being told it's Sportsman's Point. Sorry. De Weerd: Yes. Powell: I haven't got all the sub -- I haven't got them all memorized yet. Forgive me. The other thing it does provide kind of a feed into the neighborhood center, which is -- begins shortly east of their east property line. De Weerd: Okay. And the property just to the north of the western corner, is -- what is there right now? Powell: It's a very -- I think there is one house on it. It's not likely to change. It's pretty limited and the pathway likely wouldn't go up that whole way -- or, well, are you likely ever to see it come in as anything other than maybe a house or commercial use. If you saw the commercial use, you could extend the pathway up there, but they are pretty constrained. De Weerd: I guess my -- the reason for this questioning is can that pathway connect at least to Locust Grove, so you can have some kind of a system that goes down Locust Grove and that can connect to it, otherwise, you're going to have a beginning that may or may not ever develop. Powell: My understanding was that it did connect. Maybe the applicant -- yes, it does. De Weerd: Does it? Bird: Yes. Powell: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. I guess I didn't look close enough. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? You're already sworn in, but if you will restate your name. Forrey: Yes. Wayne Forrey with Pathway Planners Consulting. De Weerd: Thank you. Forrey: I represent Quasar Development and Amanda Alvaro is here and she's a project manager and partner in Quasar Development and Brent Clayborne is here and he is the engineer on the project. And just to digress a little bit, I was reminded tonight when you read all of your ordinances, many years ago I was a scout master and I brought my scout troop to Meridian, so they could get their Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge. Mayor Kingsford said, you know, anyone that would like to Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 25 of 68 read the ordinance and one of my scouts raised his hands and it was a 15 page ordinance -- Nary: Thank you for not bringing the scouts. Forrey: Yes. Let's talk about Sageland. It's a very unique site, in that it's surrounded by a canal and two roadways, two major roadways, and it has a very nice existing farmhouse. I'll use your pointer here. It's a home that is usable, it's not a home that you would demolish or move off the site and there is all these mature trees here along Victory Road and all around that home. So, our challenge was to save the trees and try and save that good home that's there and work with the canal and the road system. We had a neighborhood meeting in July and one of the things that we committed to the neighbors is that we would save the home and the trees, we would put in a pathway and they really felt like, you know, that they wished that their developer had put in a pathway on the canal, but at least there was going to be a pathway on our side of the canal, so they felt that was good, and they felt that the buffer, if we were going to have a park, should be down in this corner, because of the intersection, the noise of -- just a traffic intersection. And so we submitted a planned development application to the city, using that as kind of some guiding principles in our application. We have -- and, then, in return for the pathway, which is called for in the Comprehensive Plan, and for the park site in our planned development application, in return we are asking for 4.2 dwelling units per acre density in an R-8 zone and we have 41 total home sites and 20 percent of those home sites are larger than 6,500 square feet and so it's a mix from about 8,000 square feet and our minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. The minimum home size that we have committed to is 1,400 square feet in size and the market value of these homes will start at 160 to 180 -- 160 to 180 thousand and go up from there. Amanda and her partners have done a very extensive marketing study and found that there is good demand in this south side of the interstate in Meridian for larger homes on smaller lots, for folks that want a nice high value home, but not a lot of yard maintenance, but they wanted a park and a pathway and a strong homeowners association. So, that, again, was some of the criteria we used in designing this project. We are going to extend the sewer. We support your sewer master plan and we are going to -- in a joint agreement with the Tuscany folks, come back here and pick up that sewer and we will take it all the way under the Eight Mile Canal, although I heard Nine Mile Canal, it's either the Eight or Nine Mile Canal, we will take it under that, because that's called for in your Comprehensive Plan, that allows sewer to go onto the east and into the south, into these properties here. So, we are going to follow your sewer master plan. And so we have tried to bring in some Comprehensive Plan elements, some neighborhood issues, some good development issues and, hopefully, you can see this is a good project. I have got some easel boards I'd like to show you and, then, a very short couple of slides, if Anna could put that on the screen. Okay. These are some photographs here of some of the styles of homes -- De Weerd: We need you to talk into the mike or you can use this mike over here, Wayne. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 26 of 68 Forrey: Okay. I'll set these on this front row of chairs right here. De Weerd: Okay. Powell: Madam Chair, Members of the Council -- Madam President, Members of the Council, apparently it is the Eight Mile. I was -- I misspoke. I'm sorry. Forrey: These are some actual photographs of homes that will be built in Sageland. These are homes that Amanda Alvaro and her partners went through the community -- some are in the Boise area, some are in Meridian, and each of the homes that you see here can fit on the lots that we have shown in Sageland. Some of the homes will have side entry garages. Some of them could have shared driveways, for some flexibility in design. They will have a very strong builder team, a strong builder design guidelines and homeowners association covenants, so we feel very good about the project. Wrought iron fencing, as well as vinyl fencing and here is a layout of the project. Now, let's go to the slide presentation, I'll just show you a couple of things here real quick. Let me walk you through some of the development features. The 20 foot pathway is here along the canal and it's in its own separate lot. I remember years ago in working with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, it seems like it was always a struggle to get a path inside the canal easement and this is a separate lot totally outside of the canal easement. The canal is 80 feet wide, ours is 40 feet right here from the center of the canal to this line, so there is no interference with Nampa-Meridian, this is a separate common lot that would be dedicated to the public for a community pathway system. This is a micropath here and we have a separated sidewalk, so that we can get street tree landscaping and one of the reasons we selected that was for the traffic calming. It may sound like it's unworkable, but the engineers -- the traffic engineers at ACHD say that the narrower roadway does tend to slow traffic. Now, given the discussion Council had about the potential of cut through with the new high school, there is a couple options. We could put a stop sign right here and make the traffic actually come to a stop right here -- I don't think that would bother the residents and that might stop some of the cut-through, once they realize they have got to make a stop when they penetrate in, they might think twice, well, heck, I will just go to the intersection next time. That's a possibility. If the Fire Department -- maybe there could be a speed hump or a speed bump here and maybe one back over here, and maybe a couple of speed bumps would work, if the Fire Department wouldn't object to that, and there -- we maybe even could path an island here and an island here. So, there is a couple options if the Council feels cut-through traffic could be an issue. ACHD did not and the Planning and Zoning Commission did not feel it would be cut-through, but that was before the new high school opened. So, maybe that's -- maybe some new awareness of the potential. Nary: It's all about timing. Forrey: Yeah. We have a large park right here, half ache park, and we are anticipating subsurface drainage here, so this is all surface open space and that's at this corner by design, because it's a nice buffer to that intersection. Some of the neighbors said, you know, we just don't want to see any intense development at that intersection, let's make Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 27 of 68 a nice looking intersection here and so they felt good about having a park there. We are going to make utility crossings, as I mentioned, under the canal over here, so the sewer can continue on. We have angular lot lines here. They are not perpendicular to the street, so we get a stairstep effect as you go down the street, the fronts of houses will have a stairstep effect and that's just to give more variety to the way that street looks. We will have some shared driveways. There is a couple lots like this and maybe down in here on the cul-de-sac, where we could have shared driveways. We will have some side entry garages and we identify in our application these lots here at these corners would have, actually, side-entry garages, again, for some architectural variety. The neat thing about this design is we are able to save this house right here on this lot and we are able to safe these big mature trees all through here. We lose one tree and it's this tree right here, because it's in the roadway. But all the other trees on that site and the home have been saved. If you could go to the next slide. Here is a little closer look at that community pathway. It's 20 feet wide with a ten foot asphalt here and, then, this is the micropath here, totally outside the canal maintenance area and it provides good neighborhood connectivity. Okay. Next. When we originally applied, we felt that ACHD would require 48 feet of right of way on Locust Grove. As it turns out, they actually said 35 feet, so we ended with 13 feet of less right of way along Locust Grove Road and that allowed us to add a lot here and add one lot in this area, as Anna Powell mentioned, and it also allowed us to increase the park by an extra 4.2 percent. So, that's why we went from 39 to 41 lots. Next. Here, again, is some styles of the homes can actually -- and we are anticipating will be built in Sageland and here is an example of that shared driveway where you have detached garages that could be set in the rear and so we are hoping for just a nice feel, these kind of homes that would be built in Sageland. Next. This is the last slide. We agree and we accept with staff report and we had worked with the Fire Department on this last set of items and totally comfortable with that. We comply with your planned development standards. We support your adopted sewer master plan and we are going to carry that forward. We are going to provide a neighborhood buffer and a pathway connection, because any path we can get in Meridian is a good path. And that's it. Be happy to answer questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Forrey: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to testify in favor of this application? Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Come up for -- is the testimony you provide tonight -- if you will raise your right hand. I'm sorry. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Semaha: So help me God. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 28 of 68 De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Semaha: My name is Lucien Semaha and I live in Sherbrooke Hollows and I live on 3036 South Grime's Creek Avenue. The reason I'm here tonight is not to oppose the development and, actually, we welcome the development. I'm part of the neighborhood -- the board asked me to come and see what Sageland is going to do, because to the east of Sageland another development is about to go in where they are requesting an R-8. But, anyway, the point is this, that when you look -- if we can have the development again with the road. There is Muir Place to the east and let me tell you when I come home -- and, again, nothing against this development, but there are some valid concerns that when traffic, you know, stops at the four way stop signs, people go through the new section of Muir Place, you know, avoiding Eagle Road and going on Victory and avoiding the four way stop. So, people will do that. Hopefully, they should no better, but they do it. We see the traffic going through that poor subdivision all the time and it's like, wow, this is not a -- but, anyway, the concern is speed limit. The speed limit -- and I don't know if -- when you talk to ACHD they say it's okay, but there is Tuscany going in, there is Thousand Springs, again, to the east that has all these -- that traffic coming in. In the morning and in the evening -- you know, the evening when we leave to go to work and when we come home and the children come home and the buses come home, the traffic is just challenging on that stretch of Victory Road. It's not -- I mean when we moved in I remember it was 50 miles an hour, because it was considered out in nowhere. Well, now, of course, it's being developed and they dropped it to 45 and, you know, we can list it that, but now we are saying, well, with all these new developments, Tuscany, you know, Sageland, and, then, Soda Springs, I believe, is trying to go again next to Sherbrooke Hollows, so Sherbrooke Hollows has to deal with two new subdivisions, you know, abutting, you know, the existing subdivision or Sherbrooke Hollow. But the speed limit is truly a concern, because, again, there are a lot of children, you know, bicyclists, et cetera, you know, that travel that road and it's becoming more and more dangerous, so I just want to put it for the record that truly is, because one section of Victory, if you're going east towards Thousand Springs, it's 35. On other side, if you're heading west, it's 45 and we always said why don't you make it 35 all the way between Eagle Road and Locust Grove with all that development going in and make it one consist speed -- consistent, you know, speed limit and they said, well, the traffic does not justify it. Well, I don't know about reality, but I think reality does. I mean things are changing rapidly, but -- so I wanted to make that point, you know, tonight, because as these developments go in, those of us who live in these subdivisions are truly concerned and worried, because, you know, if it's 35 they are going to go 40. If it's 45, they are going 50. That's a dangerous speed. Very dangerous speed. And, you know, knowing what the high schoolers will do, God only knows, but -- anyway. The other issue is sewer. The sewer -- not in particular to Sageland, but as the eastern part is being developed where Soda Springs wants to go in, there is already an existing sewer on that lot that is going in and what we heard from the P&Z is they are going to connect the same size development, by the way, we are talking about. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 29 of 68 Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, he's testifying about a project that hasn't come before you yet. I'm not sure if -- Semaha: I guess what I'm trying to convey to the Council is the sewer issue, not the development itself, but it's the -- with this development going in and, then, the other development going in right after it and the sewer capacity that we were told right at Sherbrooke Hollows, it's already at capacity. So, we have a concern, you know, and they were proposing, you know, a temporary solution until they connect and, you know, we hope with planting the seed right now as these developments come through the Council, that we connect where it's supposed to connect, instead of having a patchwork connection and, then, connect and that's our whole point. I mean that was a concern. And the other thing is we are noticing as residents that live in Sherbrooke Hollow and Thousand Springs and, personally, as a resident of Sherbrooke Hollow, we were an R- 1, maybe an R-2, you know -- R-1, I believe, you know, residential. Now all these R-8's are starting to go in and I guess there is a little confusion of what is the standard of R-8. Is it a -- for instance, Sageland, you know, is saying a minimum of 5,000, which means a 50 by -- you know, by 100. I mean simple math, you know. Okay. Now, another development may go in and say, well, we want a 3,500. I mean is there a limit? And that's the question that I'm posing tonight and the concern that the neighborhood has. Where is R-8 going to stop and what is the -- you know, the stepping stone where, for instance, Heritage Commons, you know, started this whole idea and it was a good idea, by the way, and, yet, again, the concern is to conserve the quality, the consistency, and the cohesiveness of all these new subdivisions that are going in, you know, next to the existing subdivisions and we want them fit in. I mean, again, nothing against Sageland, I want to make it clear. I mean in particular this development is by far going to look better than the other one that will be proposed to you in the near future. But for our educational purposes, you know, what are the standards for us residents who have chose and invested to live in these subdivisions, and we went in, by the way, based on the prior city plan, that you call it, the city plan and -- De Weerd: The Comprehensive Plan. Semaha: Comprehensive Plan and now it's been amended, which means we have to live with the amendment and respectfully so, but, yet, we want to try to work with the Council on reducing the impact on the existing subdivisions -- I mean it's nice to have diversity and new things and we welcome it, but if it's well done we believe it is beneficial to all and that's where I will end it right there. De Weerd: Thank you. I think staff could probably answer a couple of your questions in regards to densities and that kind of issue. Anna, can you please -- Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, the R-8 does allow for a density of up to eight dwelling units per acre. Sherbrooke is zoned R-4, which has a density of four units -- or up to four units to the acre. With the planned development provisions you can achieve that density with lesser standards, so I have indicated to Mr. Lucien that there is no minimum lot size standard if there is a PD, it's just a question of whether Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 30 of 68 the amenities are being provided and the design that's proposed is worthy of allowing a reduced lot size and reduced frontages. De Weerd: Okay. I think you have heard the definition and maybe not put your mind at ease for future development, but as they come along, you know, notices will go out and the opportunity will exist there to provide public testimony and share your vision of that area. Certainly, that testimony holds great value and weight, so we would want to hear from the residents at that time and your point taken on this application, I -- it sounds like you're very supportive, as your homeowners association is, and so we appreciate your comments. Any questions or comments at this point, Council? Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to summarize or any further comments? Forrey: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. We are open to -- it sounds like the traffic is an issue, so if the Council has some direction on some way to control that or a potential control method, be it speed humps, islands at the intersections, or a stop sign control inside Sageland, we are open. We are open. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Forrey: We'd do something to try and address that. Nary: I did have another question for you, too, Mr. Forrey. I'm assuming that there is some type of fencing all the way around this subdivision? Forrey: Yes. Nary: Vinyl fencing or something? Forrey: Correct. Nary: So, that that area there, that playground for children, I noticed in there there is a tot lot of some sort that's going to be there. Forrey: Yes. Nary: Do you know, approximately, where that's going to be in relation to the ground? Forrey: Right in the center here. Right there. Powell: Mr. Forrey, for the benefit of the public, would you mind using the one behind you? Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 31 of 68 Forrey: Oh. Yes. I'm sorry. The play facilities would be right here. And there is the landscape buffer that the city requires here, with landscaping, and, then, there is landscaping in the park itself and so the playground is in this area here. Nary: And I guess it's just me, Mr. Forrey. I appreciate your comments about some of the speed challenges there. You know, I don't think we -- at least since I have been sitting here I don't think we have required speed bumps very much. I think there is other traffic issues concerning -- I guess I'm -- maybe growing up in Hawaii I'm much more in favor of islands and I think islands tend to slow the traffic down, because they are a visual -- they are a visual barrier to people and they have a tendency to do better than just a narrow roadway in slowing traffic and I think -- I think both your residents there, as well as others, are going to really be concerned about that cut-through traffic. I think you are -- as Mr. Bird said, you have a fairly large development to the south of this property and to the east of this property with a lot of people that are going to cut through to go to that high school and I think without having some islands at both entryways there on Victory and Locust Grove and possibly one, even, in the center where that pathway is, approximately there, you're going to have a lot of people not only cut through, but speeding through. And I don't know that a stop sign is necessarily the best answer either we have found. That doesn't always work either, but the islands have a tendency to do that better. That's just my thought. Forrey: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: Mr. Forrey, are you aware of any plans to widen or at least put some turn lanes in Victory Road at this point? Forrey: I'm aware, Madam President and Councilwoman McCandless, when we met with ACHD they indicated that we would provide to them 35 feet of right of way for future widening of Victory Road, but it was not within their five year plan, so I don't -- so I know they are anticipating some future improvement, but I don't know what the improvements are. McCandless: It just seems like there is an awful lot of traffic on Victory now and there is going to be even more and it's not very wide. Forrey: True. McCandless: Your development, however, is very nice. Forrey: Thank you. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 32 of 68 Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Forrey, on the lots -- the residential lots that butt up against the small park in the corner, have you got restrictions on the type of fencing on the backs of those lots? Forrey: Yes, we do. They are -- it's wrought iron railing on -- abutting the park itself. Bird: And you said vinyl the rest of it? Forrey: Yes. That's correct. Bird: Very nice. De Weerd: So, Mr. Forrey, will you have turn lanes, then, into your project? Forrey: ACHD did not require them. Just the right of way dedication at this point. De Weerd: And any -- Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think if we -- if he had turn lanes in there, especially the one on Victory -- especially the one on Victory, the entry on Victory, we would be encouraging the cut through. I'm like Mr. Nary, I don't know if the stop sign is going to stop it up there in the middle, but I think dividers at both entries and maybe in the center will do it, but we need -- we need to discourage that or it's -- we are not going to -- we are not going get it completely shut down, don't get me wrong, but we can -- if we can discourage 50 percent of it would definitely help your development, plus our police and stuff. But I think the dividers at both entries and in the center there will distract enough that maybe they -- 50 percent of them will say we will go to the corner, hit the stop sign, and go right there. But I think if we required entryways in, that we would be encouraging that to happen I'm afraid. Forrey: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments or any questions? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 33 of 68 Bird: I would like to make one comment that they have done a nice job on that difficult corner to figure it out and I -- Forrey: Thank you. Bird: Keeping that old house -- which isn't that old of a house. It's a real nice house. And the trees and stuff, it's a very very nice job and will definitely add to the development, but -- nice job. Forrey: Well, Quasar Development is a Meridian based company and they are a very good development company. Thank you very much. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, might I ask the applicant one thing related to the photos that he's provided tonight? De Weerd: Yes. Powell: Several of those are alley loaded models, so I assume you're going to be using the shared drive, but I'm wondering if you want to ask for reduced rear setbacks for garages or joint garages to accommodate those shared drives if they are at the rear of the lot? I'm just not sure that that's been articulated in your request. Forrey: Good point. We would. I -- boy, I don't know if I'm prepared right at this moment to say what that setback would be, but we would like that flexibility, because some of these architectural styles we do want to have in Sageland and, you're right, they do have some flexibility on those setbacks on the rear for the detached garages. Powell: If you're coming back, we can work on it, but I don't know where Council is going, so -- Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: That has to be done in the preliminary plat and we can continue these and get it done. I think she brought up a great point for you that has been overlooked and we need to get it done in the preliminary plat. Forrey: Could it be handled in the development agreement? Bird: I'd have to refer to the attorney on that, but I don't think so, I think it has to show up on the -- I would prefer it to show up on the preliminary plat. Forrey: Okay. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 34 of 68 Bird: And, then, carry over to the final plat. Nary: Give you time to draw up those islands. Forrey: Okay. Bird: And we can continue this for another week or whatever you do and, basically, just come back, if Madam President is okay with this, it can just come back for this one change and we don't have to go through the public hearings on any other items, other than this one and, then, go from that, because I think you got to a nice development there and I think you can thank Anna for thinking about that. Forrey: Thank you. Traffic islands and setbacks. Bird: Yeah. Forrey: Okay. De Weerd: Yes. So, we can entertain continuing it for those two items. I would like to ask Bruce Mills as well, I appreciate the position of the homeowners association and their concern about the speed of traffic. With Eagle Road closed, it probably adds to the stretch that he's referring to. If -- and I know it's not really associated with this application, but if he can get us some information back, at least even look at traffic counts that we can even take it to our traffic safety committee for their recommendation, just report back on what your recommendation would be on pursuing what our options would be. Thank you, Bruce. Thank you, Wayne. Forrey: Thank you. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion on Items 13, 14 and 15. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move that we continue Items 13, 14 and 15, the AZ 03-015, PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036, all for Sageland Planned Development at the northeast corner of South Locust Grove and East Victory Road and I guess just a week or two. One week or two weeks, Mr. Forrey? Forrey: One. Nary: One week would be adequate? I would move to continue this Public Hearing to the October 28th, 2003, meeting for information and -- I guess further information to be provided in regards to rear setbacks -- request for some exceptions to rear setback requirements, as well as islands for the roadway for traffic calming. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 35 of 68 Bird: I second that with one question. That would -- that would -- what we are asking for is on the preliminary plat? Nary: Yes. Bird: Everything is in on the preliminary plat? Nary: Yes. Bird: Thank you. Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearings on Items 13, 14 and 15 to October 28th on the two specified issues. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Our following items all are regarding the same application, so if Council doesn't object, I'd like to open public hearings -- Powell: Madam Chair, can you just open the Comprehensive Plan amendment first and deal with that before you open the others? De Weerd: You bet. Okay. I will open Item 16, Public Hearing CPA 03-003, request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the Mixed Use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates and I'll open the Public Hearing with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow residential uses within the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment zoning designation. As you know, this was a well-discussed item when the Comprehensive Plan amendment went through. The area shown in brown was designated as -- as having special constraints on it, due to the fact that the wastewater treatment plant was in the area. One of those constraints was specifically to discourage residential and pretty much just right out not allow it. The Planning and Zoning Commission did take testimony. We did try to take it just on the Comprehensive Plan amendment portion. There was quite a bit of testimony from the surrounding neighbors. Most of them did seem to be in favor of some residential use within the area, although I think generally it was expressed as more in line with the size acreages that are out there, which tend to be one to two acres or larger. I think one member of the public Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 36 of 68 testified, you know, horse people don't mind the smell as much, I think was her direct quote. There was quite a bit of testimony about the unsure nature of this area and how several applications have been denied in the area, but I believe all of those occurred before the Comprehensive Plan was finished and adopted and I'm the sure the applicant will address that in his testimony as well. The Planning and Zoning Commission also took in testimony about how other cities have dealt with their treatment plants or other kind of noxious uses held by the city and also the City of Meridian -- or City of Boise with their avocation easements related to the Boise airport. So, having taken all that testimony, they asked the applicant to come back with some proposed easements to address the noise issues associated with the wastewater treatment plant and the odor issues and I believe you have got a copy of those proposed easements. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing there have been a couple other letters. Those pertain more to the preliminary plat, so I will address them later. The other issue I wanted to point out is that staff's original recommendation was for denial. When it was apparent that the Planning and Zoning Commission was working toward recommendation for approval, staff did point out that there was two other Comprehensive Plan amendments that needed to be removed and I'd like read those. It's goal four, expand, improve, and maintain the city's infrastructure to meet existing and growing demands in a timely, orderly, and logical manner. Objective A under that was develop logical master plans for all public facilities and services and public safety to guide the growth of the city and follow them. And, then, under that, item 17, plan land uses surrounding Wastewater Treatment Plant to reduce human exposure to odors. So, that would need to be removed. And, then, under goal four, encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of the land. Objective A. Address conflicts with compatible uses and impact areas and, item number eight, discourage residential areas in close proximity to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. So, it has several affects on the Comprehensive Plan beyond just the description of the area. Staff, both Planning and Public Works Staff, are still very much opposed to this Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it does come forward to you with -- forwarded with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I know that Brad has additional items he'd like to discuss about some of the challenges that the Boise facility faces with regard to their Lander street sewer plant. Watson: Madam President, Council Members, I issued a memo -- comment memo I think August 6th to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to Mayor and Council. I hope that you had seen that and I won't go through it in detail, but there are four basic areas of concern that I wanted to point out when there is residential development adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. One was odor. Two was noise. Three was ongoing construction, which hasn't really ceased since I have been here in eight years, and general esthetics of an industrial site adjacent to a residential subdivision. And if there are any questions on any of those topics, I would be more than happy to answer those. I did talk with Carl Ellsworth of Boise City Public Works this morning about the policies and challenges they have at their Wastewater Treatment facilities. In a nutshell, they -- they have bought properties up when the opportunity arises, but they haven't made a concerted effort to do that, from what he tells me. It sounds like they have only bought one property of any significant size close to the Lander Street facility. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 37 of 68 I asked them also about their ongoing odor control costs. That seemed to be a bit of a nebulous figure to extract from them, but they are -- they do have ongoing odor control costs at the Lander Street facility and we don't presently at our Wastewater Treatment plant. They have also planned a somewhat major odor control project in the next year or two to the order of magnitude of several hundred thousand dollars. The other thing that they pointed out to me is when they did do a major upgrade in '97, that the noise from the plant was significant and that they did have to go back in and retrofit with noise barriers or sound walls around some of their equipment and they didn't have those costs. Those were six years old. I'm just briefly touching on a few of the concerns that we have with residential development close to the treatment plant and can go into a lot more detail if you want me to. I will stand for any questions if you have them. De Weerd: Council, do you want more detail or any comments, questions, at this point? Okay. Thank you, Brad. Watson: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? And if you will remember that we are just listening to Item 16. Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Wardle: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Wardle: For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise. Happy to be here with you this evening and to discuss this issue. Just to give you a little bit of background, we went into this process with our eyes wide open. We did our research. We reviewed minutes from a number of meetings, both in the recent past and a little bit older than that. But starting back in 1993 the city in this area at least had on their Comprehensive Plan at that time it was proposed for residential in most of this section. There was no differentiation between industrial, although it did show the Wastewater Treatment Plant. I think it actually showed a park site and that was -- as I went through the minutes I saw where many people came and testified that they thought that there was going to be a park site out here. Things have changed. But I just want to give you a little bit of background and why we are making this request of you today. I think everybody here on this Council may have been -- also previous planning commissions -- familiar with Utility Subdivision. That was -- it was a period of 2001 to 2002, which was pre-Comprehensive Plan update during the process and after the Comp Plan was adopted it continued. There were a total of ten hearings and I'm pretty intimate with that, because I read every single minute associated with that. There was a lot of discussion. There was a regional park site, as I said, indicated or shown in the corner, but the public testimony was -- the Parks Department made on the record was they were told by Public Works that there may be a concern for odor, you may want to look for some other place to go. So, they went for the regional park site down on Meridian Road, a mile and a half, two miles the other way. There was also a concept Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 38 of 68 for a residential subdivision put forth by Collins Engineering. It was for an R-4 style subdivision on the corner, which was Utility Subdivision before that came through. The applicant was notified that the subdivision would not be approved, because of its close proximity, so they decided not to proceed with that application. Also, there was discussion between the same applicant who wanted to do the residential subdivision and staff about doing a business employment center. They thought that they had a user that might be able to use that facility, that acreage. Same discussion. It went to staff, staff said, no, it's too close to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, you need to look for some other place. So, that's how they got to Utility Subdivision. All those things were told no along the way. Utility Subdivision came in, you know what happened, it was denied because they were heavy industrial uses that were proposed there. Not on all the sites, but on the majority of the sites there were uses that were deemed to be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. All those uses -- and there was some discussion during Utility Subdivision, but all those previous uses were discouraged because of the perceived odor issue. In 2002 the City of Meridian adopted what they call the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is kind of an orangish brown -- depends on how you look at it, but it takes up about 420 acres of that section. In order to develop in that area, you needed a Conditional Use Permit -- or you need a Conditional Use Permit and the uses that the Comp Plan said would be allowed, if granted a CU, would be light professional office uses, flex spaces, including light warehousing, no new residential uses will be permitted, although existing residential would be allowed to continue. Limit small scale retail uses and mini storage. So, those were the uses that were deemed appropriate for this area. In a staff memo just previous to the August 7th hearing, which was actually continued to August 21st , staff indicated there were about 292 acres available for development, of which 40 of those -- so 420 -- they got down to a number of -- some of those parcels had already been committed to residential, they took out the Wastewater Treatment Plant and, then, they also pulled out 40 acres for a proposed school site within this section. So, of that, it allows plus or minus 250 acres that potentially could be developed in this section. But I just want to take you through some steps of what we feel might or might not happen here. Industrial uses. We know the city has made a pretty strong stand that industrial uses were not compatible with single family residential neighborhood around and those were denied. Retail uses. In late 2001, as part of the Comprehensive Plan process, although it wasn't official adopted, staff did ask an outside consultant by the name of Ed Starkey to perform a review of how much commercial use would be seen in the city. He came up with a number on a per section basis about 43,000 square feet of commercial per section. If you break that down to acreage, that's about four acres. So, if we bring the number down from 250, now we are at 246 acres, four acres of which probably could be commercial, so what do you do with the remaining 246 acres. Locational linkages is an issue here. The mixed use Wastewater Treatment area is not ideally situated for good connections to transportation corridors in terms of a significant office employment center or warehousing and manufacturing space. It's two miles away form Highway 20-26, eight miles away from the nearest interstate access and there is no rail access to the site at all, so it makes it a little bit hard for some uses to go here in terms of a light manufacturing, warehouse space type. We also need to keep in mind that there are a number of projects that have been approved in the north Meridian area Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 39 of 68 currently, have large components of commercial, office, mixed use. Some of those have better access and linkages to those corridors, some are right on Chinden, some are on other roads lead right to freeway connections. Eventually, Ten Mile will be a freeway connection. That's still a ways out. But there is a lot of projects on the drawing board that are in the phase of development now that have proposed commercial and office uses. Even if the transportation linkages were better, the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant appears to disallow a large office project, manufacturing parks, that would leave only light professional office space, flex space, and limited retail. There was an additional study done, commissioned by ACHD, in regards to the north Meridian area plan. They gave some numbers in terms of how much retail and office space they anticipated seeing in the north Meridian area. They came up with 2,744,000 square feet of office and 1,929,000 square feet of retail space, for a total of 4,673,000 square feet of office and retail in the north Meridian area. So, it's a ten square mile. If we look at the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant and we use a very conservative floor area ratio of what the footprint of that building would be on a given acre, it would be 25 percent for office, commercial, flex uses, the city could possibly see 2,678,940 square feet of nonresidential space in this section and that's almost the same as how much office space would be in all of north Meridian. So, just as a comparison. If we use a floor area ratio that's reflective of what you do for flex space in manufacturing -- and I confirmed with those that develop these type of facilities, it can be anywhere from 35 percent to 50 percent coverage of a given acre and so those numbers could be anywhere from 3.7 million, all the way up to 5.3 million square feet of potential warehousing space. If the mixed use Wastewater Treatment plan was to develop to this magnitude, it would represent between 57 and 70 percent of all commercial, retail, flex space in the north Meridian area. You got to remember there has been a lot of space already approved. It's unlikely that you would find that much space in this section given the other projects and the market dynamics. I have talked with brokers about this location specifically. We all know that it takes a major -- a major push with what might be an employer of a use, but they don't see this as on the radars, they look for those better linkages near the freeways or other -- rail might be an option. De Weerd: Excuse me, Mr. Wardle. Could you start to summarize? Wardle: I'd love to. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: I'm about there. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: If you look at the area, the area is surrounded by residential. We feel that residential -- specifically along Ustick Road, because there is residential just to the south, is appropriate. The Planning Commission was concerned about how to notify residents that the Wastewater Treatment plan is there. We came up with some scenarios. We also put together a notice -- it was originally called notice, but it is a Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 40 of 68 noise, odor, light, and dust easement, that would recorded at the time of rezone, it would run on the plat, and it would be on each individual lot as well, notifying the residents that they are going to be in the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant and there is an ongoing facility here and these are some things that they need to be aware of. This is very similar to a document done is Las Vegas, the same situation. Utah is going through a similar process where they are adopting these types of ordinances. Just given the research that we went through and the likelihood of some of these other uses that the city intended to want here, we don't see those likely happening. Looking back to the hearing notes from just recently, it was about a year ago now when this property was zoned -- when the request was for residential, but it was zoned commercial, this Council made very specific comments of we have got an area here of the city we don't know what to do with and we have just stepped forth, given the research that we have done, and we feel that residential is appropriate and we feel there is a mechanism in place to protect the city in its investment. So, I just wanted to provide you with that background and I will stand for any questions you have in regards to this Comp Plan text amendment. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Council? You know, I believe when this was discussed during the Comprehensive Plan public hearings, a Charette was discussed and I think at the time we were trying to define what this specific area designation would be and this -- I believe that it was Idaho Smart Growth, wasn't it? Or the Treasure Valley Futures Project that had mentioned that this might be a good area surrounding the sewer treatment plant to provide a Charette type of an opportunity to involve the residents and the public and staff and the property owners to come to the table and start defining what is the most appropriate use. From what I see in what we put in the Comprehensive Plan, this amendment you have raised some good points on use in that whole area, but that Comprehensive Plan and pursuing what actually could go in there, considering the designation, hasn't really been pursued before we start looking at other types of uses. I haven't heard anything really compelling that -- well, you did have compelling statistics and, certainly, market will only bear so much, but I guess in absence of trying to further define that, instead of piecemealing it -- and I think it was the piecemealing part of it that was of concern as well, that I would like to see that kind of activity before we start changing our Comprehensive Plan and before we even see what -- what everyone could come to together with that could exist there. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'm pretty torn on this area. You know, I think a lot of what Mr. Wardle said is what we have discussed. I mean I think -- I have been one to say many times when we have been asked to amend our Comprehensive Plan, that my perception is that you need to bring us something better than we thought we could do. But I guess the other side of the coin with this particular area, we didn't know what we thought we could do Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 41 of 68 with that and that was part of the problem that we had in addressing why we created this Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment plan zone to begin with, because we didn't know what to do with it. But I share Council President de Weerd's concern of piecemealing that change through and trying to sort of shoehorn different things. I don't know that what we envisioned was right. I mean I think it ends up being somewhat of a holding zone is what it ends up as. But I'm not sure that amending the text to, then, consider having these residences right there is necessarily the best alternative available. That's -- I guess that's where I'm a little bit torn. I know that the minutes reflect that we didn't have a very specific defined use for this area, but I am familiar, as what Mr. Watson's talked about, of the difficulty in dealing with residences that are so close and adjacent to the treatment plant and there are other ones already -- I don't know that that by itself is enough, because I recognize that there are homes immediately across the street that are just as close to that treatment plant as this place is going to be. There are homes that aren't in the Wastewater Treatment Plant zone, that may be there to the west that, again, are really no different and, you know, the difficulty is is I think the easements provide us a legal buffer in dealing with concerns being expressed, but they don't really provide a very realistic buffer to people, you know. It's not going to help Mr. Watson and his department to say tough luck, read your plat next time. Don't buy your house there. That's not going to work just because we have those things. So, I'm not sure that that's still the best type of use and that was the one thing it seemed that when we had this discussion, which I'm sure you saw in the minutes, the one thing that we did all agree on is that residential didn't seem to be the appropriate type of use in this particular area and so I guess I'm pretty torn on amending the plan today. I think you have raised some valid points, Mr. Wardle, but I am -- I guess I'm not totally convinced yet that we have really defined this area adequately to be able to say, then, we should amend it to allow residential in there, when we had already made the decision that that was the one thing we thought didn't belong there. Wardle: I guess if I might, how does the city feel about having a school in that section? Bird: I think it would be worse. Wardle: I don't disagree. This -- if I can quote. I have got the minutes here. I mean I read too many of these minutes. I have gone black and white color blind. I don't see colors anymore, because I read too many of these. It says we have got a big, orange five hundred pound guerilla now around the Wastewater Treatment Plant that we don't know what to do with and we don't know what to do with it now. This was a year ago. Someone brought in a rezone request, wasn't allowed residential, but they were allowed commercial. What is the impetus to get us to the point where we start discussing this issue? We are a year down the road and we knew that coming in we would have to make this request. It was, actually, very specific that if we wanted to move forward, that a Comp Plan amendment would need to be made. That's what we have done. And I don't want to discount the fact that there may be opportunities for some of those commercial uses. I really see them probably happening on the corner where Utility Sub was. That's likely where it's going to happen. The farther you get down Ustick Road, the less likely that's going to happen. The more you get up into the middle of that Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 42 of 68 section, the less likely it's going to happen. So, what do we do with those? They can't be a holding zone forever. There is residential all the way around this section. You know, I, actually, called about the odor issue. I called code enforcement. They didn't have any idea. They said call the police. So,I called the police. The police said -- referred me back to code enforcement and code enforcement sent me to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Do you know how many complaints or calls there have been over five years in terms of odor? Three. Three phone calls in five years. One of them was from a resident who just moved in, had no idea that the Wastewater Treatment Plant was there. I understand that it is a -- what is it, a type A -- or some technical word for this. It's a class A bio solids sludge treated facility, so it's moved around three to four times a year. So, at those times the Wastewater Treatment Plant staff indicated that's when probably the smell occurs the most. It's not an ongoing issue. I was also informed that there are certain upgrades being done to the wastewater treatment plant to address some of these. I know those are ongoing. I know construction is ongoing. We just feel that there is an opportunity to expand the uses that were intended by the Comp Plan. I don't take lightly the work that went into the Comp Plan. It was a long process. I was involved in that myself quite a bit. And this was one of those nebulous issues. What do we do with this area? And that's why we put forth this amendment to you for your consideration. If you say no, I'm not sure what the next step is. Who is going to initiate a Charette? Who is going to -- what's the next step? I know if you talk to the residents to the south, they are going to want to see residential across the street from them. I know that if we come in with a retail project -- because we have a zoning that's C-N, but if we come in with a retail project, you will probably have a lot more complains about that have, than having residential right across the street from it, even though we have zoning. And most people probably didn't know that that commercial zoning occurred, because the request was for R-2 and it was made of this decision -- or at this level to zone it commercial. So, that was never noticed that it was a commercial zone in terms of notifying the neighbors. So, I understand your concerns. I don't want to come across as being difficult or argumentative, I just -- I'm not sure what the next step is if this isn't the right step. De Weerd: Anna, do you have any insight on what the next step would be? Powell: Yes, but can I do a preamble? I mean it's clear that there is not a lot of ideas about what should occur here, but I'm not sure if that's a horrible thing at this point in this stage of Meridian. There is plenty of developable land. If this just isn't right for development at this point, then, that's not unusual to some of the situations to the south end of the city area of city impact as well. The issue regarding the odor, perhaps there is not odor right now, it's not a problem, but you got to remember that this is our one and only sewer treatment plant area at this point. There is not plans for another sewer treatment plant. So, as the city develops and absorbs all that farmland that's out there, there is going to be a lot more sewage moving through that plant and to look at it just from the here and now to say that, well, we don't know what to -- commercial isn't right now, industrial isn't right now, residential -- the Comp Plan says isn't right now, maybe that's okay for right now and that this might be developable land sometime in the future. So, having said that, we could perhaps -- this might be a good opportunity to work with Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 43 of 68 Sherry McKibben on one of her urban labs to have some of her students tackle this as a land use design Charette issue. She's usually looking for opportunities to do those kinds of things. She's definitely interested in the City of Meridian. It might be a good opportunity. And it may be that there are other options, rather than allowing residential immediately adjacent, maybe the size needs to change, so that it's a little smaller and have a -- allow residential toward the outskirts of it. Perhaps that's one of the answers. But just to wholesale allow residential uses within the area -- I tried to get the Planning and Zoning Commission to perhaps comment on what density of uses. That was not addressed. So, it's kind of free reign at this point as far as what density would be of those residential uses as well. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Anna, this is a -- although we have an open hearing on it, this is associated with an application for a rezone. How many other parcels in this section, besides this sewer treatment plant, are annexed into the city? Powell: Just the sewer treatment facility itself, it would appear. De Weerd: And I think Charles Crane's place as well. Powell: Yes. I'm sorry. You're correct. Nichols: Okay. So, there is just those few along Ustick Road, plus the sewer treatment plant, are currently inside the city limits. De Weerd: And the Ten Mile Storage. Nichols: Okay. Powell: I'm sorry, I didn't realize the Ten Mile Storage -- I thought that was part of the city's property, but, yes, there is one there, too. So, it's coming here is one, there is one, and that's theirs, and I believe this -- it's one of these two little ones here. Both? The remainder of it is still zoned RUT. Nichols: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing, so we can take additional Public Hearing and, then, ask you to come back. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 44 of 68 Centers: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Centers: My name is Jake Centers. 2011 Locust Grove in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Centers: And I know the documentation showed that Mrs. Britton owned this property and that's incorrect. I actually own the property, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Centers: It's been talked about, the odor issue, and the reality of it, there really isn't an odor out there but once or twice a year. We have had a neighborhood meeting, the neighbors came out, a few of them, just wanting to know what was going on. Testified that maybe once or twice a year they get a whiff of it. I talked extensively with Mrs. Wilkins that lives next door. Same thing. I'm actually renting the house out right now, purposely didn't tell the people that I'm renting it to what the facility was behind it, just because I wanted to see for my own interest, you know, if there was any issues, because if I'm going to develop this property, I want it to be lots that I can sell, you know. I don't want to develop a product that, you know, has some hindrances to it. So, went out and asked them before the P and Z hearings and they said, you know, we smelled something once, but they thought it was kind of cool that the meth gas was kind of burning off the stand back there, so, other than that, there really wasn't any comment negatively towards that, but -- so you keep hearing about the odor issues and, you know, that the city is growing, you know, it's going to maybe be more odor, but I guess my thought is what's the difference if it's residential or if it's office? If I'm looking to locate my office in a location that I'm going to bring clients into, I'm not going to locate it in an area that has foul odors. So, the issues that they are bringing up with the odors, those are issues that are going to have to be addressed regardless of what ultimately goes here, because if it's a nuisance and it's annoying, you know, I would say on the contrary that with residential, if people are made aware of that and can go out there and make the decision of whether or not they want to buy a house there. That seems to make more sense than for me to go build a business and an office there and, then, expect clients to come in and have to deal with that. I mean if you are going to have a massage parlor, I mean would you want to go get a massage out in an area that had a foul odor? I mean probably not. So, it's not just about the residential, if that really is something that's going on, which I don't personally feel it is, but it's a concern that staff keeps having, but that's going to have to be addressed regardless. The other thing is with this is, you know, like Jon said, we have come up with mechanisms to try and make potential buyers aware of what the surrounding areas are and I think by doing that, it's not much different than allowing residential development up against the interstate. The interstate is very noisy. I'm sure it doesn't smell all that great with all the emissions and cars going by, you know, lights, I mean there is car lights going on all the time and yet, you know, residential has been allowed to develop up against the interstate, you know, Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 45 of 68 particularly like between Linder and the overpass there on Meridian-Kuna Road. You know, I -- Mr. Nary made the comment that, you know, it won't really work if people call in and complain, you know, but, I don't know, I mean how far can you take this, you know, to try and protect people. I mean it's -- we are all grown adults and we are all -- you know, if you're competent enough to be buying a house, I think you ought to be, you know, looking at what's around you and looking into what's on the deed and, you know, what's it -- something that didn't get mentioned is it's actually going to be a specific line item in the CC and R’s, it's going to be a note on the face of the plat, and we are going to have a separate document that they will have to sign. When I sell the lots, I'm going to have whoever buys the lots from me sign a specific document. I mean there is not going to be any question as to what is surrounding this development and we have come up with some of these other instruments, because, yeah, once I sell it, then, who's to say that that person when they sell it, the next person in won't know. But that's why the CC and R's -- you know, everybody can get a copy of those. The plat, everybody can get a copy of that, and it will be a specific line item on the deed, so -- I mean I don't know what else more, you know, could be done, so -- and the other thing, you know, I mean we say kind of wait it out and let's see what happens. You know, I mean what if it was your mother or grandmother that owned the property next door and it was 30 acres and you put it up for sale and that was their retirement and nobody wants to buy it, so you can't do much with it. I mean as Mr. Wardle said, that commercial brokers aren't interested it, because they are over by the freeway or they are off Eagle Road or they are in El Dorado or Silverstone -- I mean that's where those guys want to and it's hard enough to get those places leased in those locations. So, I don't know, I mean I can definitely empathize with everybody's concerns, but I think it ought to be an allowed use and I think it ought to be kind of a case-by-case scenario. De Weerd: I think what we are concerned about is when we -- when we allow a new use, that it's well thought through and we know what we are setting ourselves up for. We already realize that plat notes go unnoticed and some of the safeguards are good for maybe the first home buyer, but after that it's -- it kind of dilutes and this is a little bit different than building next to a freeway. The freeway is very obvious. This oftentimes isn't and I think that's what other communities have learned in having residential around their sewer treatment plants. So, before we add a new use into an area that is designated to not accept that use, I think it would be good planning for the city to make sure if that use is allowed, what kind of restrictions and play out a scenario for an exercise like a Charette that can maybe examine those things and look at them in greater detail, work with the surrounding neighbors and the property owners and try and make this more of a process that anticipates, rather than, well, you know, at the moment this seems to be the best use for this for this piece of property, so let's just do it. We know that this area is going to have issues and so it will better serve not only the property owners, the owners that also surround the area, and potential complaints that we plan this well. Centers: Well -- and I can understand that. We know what the neighbors want. I mean they want to see some residential. I mean that's pretty obvious. And the fact that there is no neighbors -- well, there is a few neighbors, but we had a neighborhood meeting Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 46 of 68 and everybody that came to that was, for the most part, in favor of the residential. So, I mean we know where that lies. But, you know, I can guarantee you that if, you know, this goes away now, and whatever, there is going to be people that make applications to come back asking for residential, because nobody -- they can't find another use for their property and I think it's just a matter of time. I mean that's my opinion on it, so -- De Weerd: Any other questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think it's partly a -- I do agree a lot with what Mr. Centers said, you know, but I guess the one thing -- I think what we envisioned the difference between the commercial growth versus residential growth is most commercial growth is not 24 hours a day. Most of it it's inside an enclosed building. Most houses aren't. You know, a lot of houses aren't going to be, they are going to open their windows and they are going to be out in their backyard and they are going to be doing, you know, that type of activity versus a business, which, really, is, generally, going to be in an enclosed building that's airconditioned and doesn't have the windows open and the like. But I agree with a lot of what you said. You know, one of the ways that Boise has had to deal with the airport issue -- and recognize there is federal funds for that -- but they have had to buy those properties to insure that buffer to alleviate those concerns, they have the ability to purchase the properties around the airport, so they don't have to deal with that and I guess what I'm struggling with here is, you know, if it is that burning of a concern to the city, then, we should be buying this property, then, that's what we should be doing. If we think it's that important, then, we should buy it. If we are not going to buy it, then, it doesn't -- it doesn't seem very reasonable to simply say that Mr. Centers or anybody else can't do anything with their property, because we can't figure out what belongs there. You know, we don't know that residential doesn't belong there, we just kind of think that maybe that doesn't seem to fit what we think, but, you know, that may not really have any basis -- and I agree with what you're saying, that most of the residents would prefer residence -- in fact, when I read the minutes, it seemed like the only comments was on the design of the subdivision and the density and the road -- all the same stuff. Nobody seemed to be concerned that houses would be there, they just were concerned as how it was going to be designed and how that might impact them. So, I guess it's -- this is a tough call, but, like I said, we haven't figured out what's better to do with it, so I guess I'm not totally sold that we can't do this. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Mr. Nary on some of the things. I believe Mr. Centers, you know, he's got some property there and I'm sure he's going to move out there and live out there, too. Being raised in Nampa, Idaho, around the sugar beet factory, I'm used to the smell Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 47 of 68 at different times of the year, so -- and it probably wouldn't probably offend me, but -- and I think that as a city we are not going to go out and buy up all that ground, we got 47 or 48 acres there now that will be sufficient to mirror that. I think that's a lot of -- a lot of people don't realize that that sewer plant is going to twice the size when we are done. We are going to mirror that, so you are going to have more odor to deal with as it gets larger -- and, don't get me wrong, we are getting better and stuff on that. What we do out there is a real question. I'm sure residential, where you're at off of Ustick, I can't see you getting much more odor than the southern subdivisions of Ustick Road. My biggest -- my biggest concern on this is the changing of the Comprehensive Plan. It seems like we worked for three years to get a Comprehensive Plan and we are changing the thing about every month at different areas. Maybe we didn't do a good enough job of planning ahead, but I don't know how you could have done much more. It sure wasn't a lack of effort on the city's part, so -- but I have no -- I have no problem with residential and stuff out there. In fact, I don't -- I don't see -- the only thing you might get out there would be some industrial, some wood cabinet shops, something like that. I don't see -- you're not going to get anybody that wants any traffic, because we don't have the traffic. I mean we have the traffic out there, but it's destination traffic, it's not stopping traffic. So, I can -- I just have a real problem with the changing of the Comprehensive Plan on a monthly basis on this, but I do agree, I think that residential, particularly in the area of yours, is probably the best thing to do out there. Centers: Believe me, if there was any other way to approach this besides amending the Comp Plan, we would have taken that route. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Leighton: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Leighton: My name is Rhonda Leighton. My address is 3610 West Ustick Road and I am right next door to the proposed development. I have the little one acre piece that's right next door to it. It's a small, narrow, 110 feet wide and it goes back the distance will border their property -- I don't remember the footage, maybe 600 feet or something on that side. In regards to the Comprehensive Plan, my first thought is one year is probably not long enough to see if the Comprehensive Plan is going to work. I agree with some of the comments that have been here tonight. A couple of issues that I'd like to say is maybe there haven't so many complaints, because maybe there isn't that much residential out there. There has been a big dairy that has just recently closed up. The people in that area were kind of used to the dairy there and were kind of thankful it's gone, so now the smell is a little bit less. I have lived there for one year. There was a comment that said maybe we smelled it two or four times a year. I would have to say that I have smelled it probably 80 to 100 times in the year that I have been there. So, is Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 48 of 68 it long term, is it long going, is it totally offensive? I'm a horse gal. It's not totally offensive to me, but it is there. The surprise to me that was more offensive than knowing that there was a smell of a water sewer treatment plant is the fact of the lights and the noise. The noise never quits. You open your windows at night and my -- the back of my property faces to the sewer treatment plant. The lights shine in -- I do have trees and stuff and that, but the lights do shine in, they are on all the time, and the noise is a constant vibrating hum and, honestly, I find that more offensive than the actual smell is. It just -- you know, there is traffic in the front, I understand that from Ustick, but at the back of my house it's this constant hum. So, if that's going to double in the next, you know, period of time, that's an interesting thought for me as far as what I want to do with my place. It's more at night that I hear it than during the day, of course, with the traffic and such as it goes on. I do appreciate your consideration in listening, you know, to us and to what they have to offer. I know you put a lot of work into the Comprehensive Plan and I hate to see it just kind of thrown out in a small period of time when that can't be thought of. We did voice our opinion in regards to what we thought as far as residential. If it's just the answer of residential and, then, it goes by piece by piece, that's what they are talking about. So, maybe residential is good, but maybe on a -- you know, a larger scale. I don't know if that, you know, works into your plan that way. I think that's all. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Crane: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Crane: My name is Charles Crane at 3600 West Ustick Road. De Weerd: Thank you. Crane: My comment is on the residential. There are different type of residents and different type of residential. As Rhonda stated, she's a horse person and I guess I'm a little bit of a country boy myself. I also have a horse. And the smell isn't too bothersome to me. My horse produces a little methane herself. In fact, the newest resident of that area -- years ago I had applied to this Council and was granted an R-2 zoning and I finally built that house I had talked about for all those years and I really enjoy my place. I know the smells. I know the noises. I have actually talked to the waste treatment plant and they have worked on the lights, trying to reduce some of the lights and they are talking about working on some of the noise with some sound barriers on the building that produces the noise. So, I see some possibilities of residential, but I don't really see a prim city boy sitting there in his subdivision house next to that, but I could see other people -- other horse people, other people that are used to the country one, two, three acre lots being quite happy there and that might be something that a developer could consider. If they brought something to the city that the city really thought was an improvement, they really had an opportunity to make it a better Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 49 of 68 neighborhood, a better city, I think you would have a reason to amend comprehensive plans, make ordinance, whatever was necessary for the betterment of the city, but this particular plan is just an urban development at the edge of town and that's not the type of residences that I think would be worth changing a Comprehensive Plan for. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Crane. Is there any further testimony? Nary: Madam President, could I ask Mr. Watson a question before Mr. Wardle comes back? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nary: This is the property; right? This piece? Watson: To the east. Nary: East. This piece. This one here? Bird: 6.39 acres. Nary: So if -- where is the outfall from the treatment plant? Is it somewhere along here or is it further up? Watson: Councilman Nary, it was in the first place. Five Mile Creek is the one that runs more east-west. Somewhere in that general vicinity. Probably a little more east. I would guess right in there. Nary: Right about here? Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. Regarding the issue of what's going to happen out in this area, BridgeTower has been approved and will develop at urban densities. Dakota Ridge and the other Wilkins Ranch over here developed at urban densities. You just approved a final plat right here, urban densities. I think Lochsa Falls is right here. There is going to be other large developments that occur up here and it will be just a matter of time these properties here could be all R-8 -- an R-8 designation. This is shown to be an R-4. There is a little bit of country here, but it looks -- it depends on which way you're looking. If you're looking from Ustick north, you're going to see nice pasture land. The cows appear to be gone, but it's going to be pretty much open. If you look south you're going to see houses. If you look west, eventually will be houses, east will be houses. This area here -- around here is all going to be urbanized. That's the city's plan. And I guess the question that I have is the city said we don't want you to put a park there. We don't want residential there. We don't want that employment office center to go there either. And we definitely don't want heavy industrial uses. So, Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 50 of 68 the question we have is if none of those things are allowed, we are told not to be here, because the odor is too strong, then, what goes here? We have put the request forward to you today, put a lot of time and effort. We are -- we are not making light of the process. I have probably spent as much time as anybody reviewing that document and all the work that went into it and this was a big question, what do we do here and I think we are just providing the city with an opportunity to do something here. I'm not sure where you go, what the next step is. We feel that residential is -- is a good use here along Ustick Road. So, I -- I don't have -- I don't have an answer, except what we put forth. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Jon, that piece of ground that looks landlocked up there above -- north of yours, is that part of 6.39 acres? Wardle: It is not. That was part of Utility Sub. If you remember, they, I think, proposed a little park area back here, because they had a couple pathways going around it and there is a sewer line that goes through. I think it was an area that they really weren't going to develop, but they had shown as I think open space on their plan. Bird: And their entry would be from Ten Mile, not from Ustick to that ground back there? Wardle: I believe so. De Weerd: Any other questions? Wardle: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Staff, any comments? Questions? Watson: Madam President, if I might just make a couple clarifications. All the residential subdivisions that exist east and south were approved with the old Comprehensive Plan that didn't have this language in it. When the new Comp Plan was being developed and we attended some of those workshops, we felt pretty strongly about this particular section and, granted, we don't have -- public works doesn't have a good idea what should be in there. But I think the distinction needs to be made why all those others exist east and south. We didn't have this tool to even comment on residential uses. The second thing to talk about is -- there seems to be a wide variety whether there are odors out there or not, but I think there are and Council member McCandless can probably help me out with that. As we were exiting the building after a staff meeting several weeks ago we did notice that. But what it is today may not be even close to what it is 20 years from now with the new requirements being issued by EPA, we may have -- not completely different processes, but a lot of different types of processes to meet different treatment requirements. I guess I just don't want anyone to Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 51 of 68 have the misconception that what's out there today is what will always be out there. We will always make an effort to minimize odors, but I think my primary duties, the city's primary duties, are to meet permit and to do it in a cost-effective manner and when we start doing esthetics and odor control and that sort of thing, that's not to meet permit. It may be being a good neighbor, but it's costly. The third thing, the easement, which really hasn't had much discussion and maybe that's for the preliminary plat discussion. Council member Nary touched on it, but I will get the calls and even though I have that piece of paper in my hand, I think a very good attorney could keep me running for quite awhile on that sort of thing. There is always a standard of care and that seems to be somewhat subjective. When I think we are doing a good job, I'm not sure another attorney would think the same thing. The fourth and final editorial comment from a public works standpoint, we would like it to be rural, light industrial, or maybe parks and athletic fields. But that doesn't coincide with what the neighbors want out there, so that is just my opinion. That's all I have. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols: Nichols: Madam President, if Mrs. Powell could explain what a Charette is, so the record has that, please. Powell: My non-official Webster's dictionary definition, a Charette is generally when a group of design individuals get around and basically brainstorm on a project. It usually includes a plan view, as well as some architectural renderings. It's generally two to three days in process. The other type of involvement that I had talked about earlier would be perhaps a longer process where students over the course of the quarter or semester -- having not gone to Idaho schools, I'm not sure what it is, but over the course of study they would develop a plan for that area and perhaps a -- some ideas of how to lay it out and what type of architecture might be appropriate. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess -- I think we are still sort of pondering this. I mean that sounds like a great idea, but unless you have the people with the money that are going to do it, that's not going to really do much. I mean whether it's Smart Growth or whether it's somebody else putting on this type of thing, unless those people that own those properties are participants in it, which that's not what I'm hearing today, it's not going to really go anywhere. You can't really design something that's in a vacuum and so I'm not sure that that's really going to work. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 52 of 68 De Weerd: And that wasn't the idea that was offered during the Comprehensive Plan and I think even some of the testimony that was collected during the north Meridian plan open house. I think there was some comment on it, then, and, yes, the property owners would have to be participants in this exercise and I guess that's how I envisioned it, why we were discussing it and I know Anna wasn't present at -- during that process, so she wouldn't have knowledge on it. But it was brought up. I think the offer was even placed out there by Elaine Clegg or John Barnes that -- and Sherry McKibben that this would be something that they could pull together among the property owners and surrounding residences, so -- Nary: Well, I know a week ago we had an application at Ustick and Eagle that we were struggling with probably similar to this. I mean -- and with the similar concerns I think that we have raised tonight, you know, we didn't necessarily have a specific vision for that area either, but we were very concerned about piecemeal development and how that was going to be developed, how that was going to look in the future and, you know, I think this one somewhat is in the same category for me as -- trying to figure out what's the best way to deal with this. I guess there is a lot of me, after listening to the testimony, that I don't have -- I guess I don't have the same concern I had at the outset about the residential uses as a permitted use with a Conditional Use Permit as being requested, because, again, it still allows the level of flexibility for us to evaluate what can be there. I think Mr. Centers and Mr. Wardle have brought some pretty fair testimony to at least allow us to consider that as a potential use in this area. You know, in looking -- and that's not before us yet. I'm not sure that the level of what they are proposing necessarily fits into what I think is appropriate, but right now all we are doing is deciding whether or not to allow the discussion further of residential uses and I guess I'm not as adverse to it as I was at the outset after listening to the testimony. De Weerd: We already had the summary. Council, do you want more testimony? Nary: I don't care. De Weerd: Okay. Centers: Quick comment. Jake Centers. As far as the -- you know, trying to come up with another plan for this area -- I mean what else is there to come up with? I mean all the uses are already allowed, except residential. So I mean I'm just not sure what good that would do. I mean it's -- everything is there. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Centers, the difference is yours is already in the city limits and so the city has to -- you know, and although we are not -- I mean looking at the Comprehensive Plan. The other parcels are not annexed and so it gives the Council flexibility in deciding whether to take them in or not and under what circumstances and what the Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 53 of 68 development would be. Yours is a little different picture and so to say that because they were denied before, because people didn't want a bus barn on that corner with a bunch of diesel buses running in and out twice a day, doesn't mean that there isn't some potential industrial uses somebody is going to want to put there, with a potential for an interstate interchange just a few miles down the road. So, there is a distinction there and to say I don't think it's fair for the -- to say to the Council there is nothing left. Your parcel needs some special attention. And, Madam President, if I could ask staff a question. If the amendment were allowed as proposed, are there enough conditions or criteria to evaluate a request for zoning for residential uses that take into account some of these things like the noise and the odor or how much buffer area is left toward the treatment plant side or -- I mean that's my question. It would seem that if that amendment was going to be made, would it not be prudent to say these are factors that we will go into considering whether residential uses would be allowed and you would have some criteria, so that someone like Mr. Centers, who approaches another parcel and is considering perhaps residential, would know what things to look at in developing a site plan and a layout and all of those things. Powell: No, the applicant has not proposed those with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Because it was an applicant-initiated amendment we did not add to it. Our -- as I said, our initial recommendation was for denial, so we did not add language to it at that time. At the Planning and Zone Commission I asked for even some clarity on the density issue and was not able to gather any from them. So, at this point there are no standards to evaluate what type of residential development would be appropriate. It is left up -- it is left wide open. De Weerd: And I guess that's my concern, is, you know, you could have lower densities towards the center and allow a little bit more density towards the outer rim. Without specification and without giving it some thought, you know, I'm not one that rushes into it head first without trying to look at pros and cons and with all the thought that went into our Comprehensive Plan. It just seems that we are rushing into a decision to amend it, without having some of these more finer details really thought through. And I agree that residential uses make sense. Your figures really drove those home and what we really are setting up and limiting the property owners out there, but I don't see why we need to rush into making some allowances without thinking through the pros and the cons and how best to transition in these areas and that's why I think is there an exercise might help? Maybe avoid that exercise and spend staff time looking at it, out source it, I don't know, but it is an area that is designated within our Comprehensive Plan. We need to further define it. That's obvious here. And how we want to go about that exercise, that's the next question. But I agree that -- we just did this Comprehensive Plan, it was given a lot of thought, we had a lot of discussion on this particular area, I don't think that we are going to solve it in one night. Centers: Well, I'd like to say if you're thinking about heading that route, I'd rather have a professional do it, instead of some lady and her class of students doing it. You know, I mean this is a piece property, it's an expensive piece of property and, you know, if you're going to go to that extent, I'd like to see some professional planning involved with Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 54 of 68 it and now just turned over to a bunch of students thinking of it as, you know, a home ec art project, because this is serious business. And if you're going to hire a professional, that costs money and, you know, personally, I think you, as a Council, are completely competent in making the decisions on -- I mean, you know, you do it all the time with property. Why is this that much different? You know, or maybe put a -- well, I don't know. I mean that's just kind of my thoughts on it. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I think the only problem, Mr. Centers, I think is what Council President de Weerd's raised is, you know, we had already made a decision not to have any residential, so now we don't have any standards in which to gauge what you're asking for. If we approve this request, then, we move on to your other requests for rezoning and the plat and all of those things and we don't have a standard -- we don't have a standard as to how far away from that treatment plant should houses be allowed, because we had originally decided not to allow any. So, you know, I think she's raised a very valid point that before we can concur with your text amendment, we have to have some idea of how would we fit zoning for houses into an area now that we had previously had no zone at all -- or no houses at all and I don't necessarily feel -- although it's nice of you to say that, but I don't necessarily feel that we are particularly equipped to decide whether 150 feet or 200 feet or 300 feet is appropriate from that treatment plant, what type of setbacks are appropriate and is there height requirements and what type of compatible zoning. If I was looking just at compatible zoning right now, your adjacent zoning is R-2 and you want an R-8. I don't know that those are compatible. Centers: We are currently zoned commercial. Nary: I understand. Centers: So, tell me how commercial and R-2 is less compatible than R-8 and R-2. Nary: I agree. So -- but we don't have any of those standards set as to how to do that and I think what the staff is asking is pretty reasonable in saying we need some guidance as to how to do that. I mean what is it you want. I don't know how long that process would take. I don't know how we would do that, because we haven't had to do that yet. We can certainly, you know, direct staff to come back and give us a proposal on how we can get this accomplished and how it would long take and who we would hire to do it and what that would cost and, then, we could decide to do that. But I think that's what -- at least that's where the discussion is at the moment is how do we get that further, but you got to understand, I mean that's partly the reason, is you're asking us to add something that wasn't included at all and does require some thought before we just add it in. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 55 of 68 Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: In Mr. Centers' defense, you know, we got CUP's coming on all this stuff and the deal. I agree with him, I mean I realize it probably wouldn't cost us anything to have McKibben and her classes do it, but I have some real problems with that. It might be 18 to -- 18 months to two years before we got any results. I -- but in the same token, I'm like Councilwoman de Weerd and Councilman Nary, we have no standards set out there, so how do you -- you know, how do you say you can build right up to the creek and -- or you have to be -- have a 35 foot buffer or you can't have a house over 24 foot tall or -- without knowing that, we can go back to staff and get it done. I realize you have got an awful expensive piece of property out there for a horse farm, like was suggested earlier, or put some cows on it. Centers: I can't even do that. Bird: You'd have to sell a lot of cattle to pay for the -- Centers: It's zoned commercial. I can't do that. Bird: And I think that area -- and looking back, yeah, I don't see that area being commercial. You might get a corner lot there of retail, but I doubt it. That's something that we got to go back and look at. But I assure you that we worked hard and long on that property out there. Whether we made the right recommendations, I don't know. I think we did, but time will tell. Centers: Well, just a suggestion that maybe, you know, if this text amendment were approved, then, everything still comes up comes through the conditional use process, so you still have, you know, flexibility to say yea or nay and, you know, maybe we approve this and, then, you know, direct staff to start working towards coming up with some of the guidelines to address residential uses. You know, I don't know, because I can see that process taking quite awhile and to my knowledge there is not anything in the works with other applications coming in, besides mine. You know, I mean this is a little selfish, but maybe address mine and, then, you know, try and -- and, then, now that you know this is a potential that could be coming, then, to work on standards for any future ones. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Centers, the only problem is I'm not -- I would have no problem for a Comprehensive Plan deal if we had the standards in place at that time, but I'm not going to pass something without having standards within the program that we are passing and, then, your other project can go. I don't think it would take that long to set Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 56 of 68 some standards. I wouldn't think it would. I would think staff could set some standards, you know, like buffer zones and stuff like that and I would feel comfortable with that, but as it sits right now, without any standards or anything for residential, I'm not for it. Now, whether it takes us two weeks, a month, two months, it's going to be a lot faster than if we go out and hire somebody to give us these standards or we go to the University of Idaho's planning department with Mrs. McKibben's students and it takes two years, but I believe that -- and I could back something like that. If they can come back with some standards to do that, I could back it. But I'm not going to pass anything that don't have standards set up for it when it comes forward and I know it's when -- your piece of property, but I'll guarantee you're not the only piece of property that's going to come in for residential. That whole Ustick thing is going to be residential corridor, so -- but until we get some standards for the residential, I can't go for it. Once we get the standards, which I think staff can probably do, like buffer zones, setbacks, whatever we need, then, I can take a hard look at it and probably pass it and go for it. Centers: A couple things. One, you know, staff has already told you they don't want any residential, so maybe if the direction was given that they have to include some residential, you know, and make it work, figure it out. And the other is I assume a question for Attorney Nichols as to what the process would be if some guidelines came back from staff, would it have to go through the hearing process or what -- how would that work? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, would you like to explain that process? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council. A great question, Mr. Centers, and I'm not sure of the answer. I'm not sure if it becomes the type of text amendment that is so extensive that it has to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission or not. Powell: Madam President? De Weerd: Anna. Powell: Members of the Council. Just backtracking a little bit. It would seem, since the applicant has brought forth this Comprehensive Plan amendment, it would not be inappropriate for him to suggest the standards. In fact, it would be normal for him to suggest the standards that, then, staff could have comment on or reply to. That keeps his application open and, then, there would seem to be the question of whether or not it would need to be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Given that they approved it with no standards, I would think that maybe we could forego that. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 57 of 68 Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, we could certainly look at it, particularly where the Commission is a recommending body, as opposed to a deciding body on the issue and so if -- since the Council holds final say in any event, perhaps in that fashion it would be appropriate. I would say, though, it's a little difficult for Mr. Centers to come up with what those standards and so forth would be when what -- without some direction from staff as to -- or the Council as to what it is you're looking for and maybe there has been enough in the discussion that Mr. Wardle can put something together. But just to say bring some conditions to us to look at comment and upon, I'm not sure gets us there as quickly as everybody seems to want to get some resolution of it, because you'd hate for him to bring something up and, then, well, that's not enough and -- I mean that doesn't seem appropriate. Centers: I'd do that. I mean, you know, this is an issue and it's going to, you know, affect everybody here and a lot of property owners and, you know, I don't think it would be as difficult as -- you know, as long as you direct staff that residential is going to be something that we are interested in seeing in this area. I think we can -- both Jon and I have a good relationship with staff and as long as we were working towards that common goal, I feel we could at least come up with the first draft of something to present to you, you know, because, really, it's staff that is going to need to deal with the issues, so -- De Weerd: Well, staff certainly knows more about this area than I would even pretend to, but it seems a little bit more complex than that to me, but I don't know. In terms of giving it some thought -- because what we do here will be allowed in that whole area. We will set precedence and we want to make sure that whatever we allow or do is going to be consistent throughout that whole area and so, you know, I guess since you opened that door, I would look to you to comment on this. Powell: Well, there are several problems I see. One is that we have got three applications immediately following this. With the suggestions I have heard tonight, the standards that staff would deem appropriate would basically deny -- or would exclude that project from being able to gain approval. So, I'm torn with this -- this dichotomy of all these active applications, which we know the applicant is moving toward, I don't know how we are going to come to any agreement on suitable standards just between the applicant and I or my staff, but -- De Weerd: Well, I guess that's why I was a little bit astonished that you opened that door. Powell: Well, it's his application -- it's his application and if he wants to -- he's complaining that there is not going to be professional staff working on it, he's got professional staff. So, if he wants to suggest something that would -- if I were in Mr. Wardle's shoes I would looking at the rest of the Comp Plan, look at the issues that they were trying to deal with, look -- address the concerns that the Council was looking at tonight, look at some of our landscaping standards and separation standards, do some research on nationwide how people have dealt with this, if they have got suitable Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 58 of 68 standards -- I mean he knows how to do the research. He knows how to develop standards. If this is part of his application, then, he could propose those and we could review those, but given that there is these other applications attached to this, I'm not quite sure how realistic that is. De Weerd: Well, I guess I appreciate you being sensitive to that and I might suggest that we continue this for a week, let the applicant talk with his planner, let you look at it from a staff perspective, and bring back a recommendation next week. I don't know what the rest of the Council thinks, but, you know, we can sit here for the next hour and really discuss this or ask that the people who know more about this bring recommendations next week. Centers: Could I just ask a question, just to kind of get your response? With like the neighborhood commercial zoning or -- yeah. There are -- it's a percentage, like so much of a percentage of that neighborhood commercial can be in office and, then, no more will be allowed and, then, you have to utilize some other uses with that. So, just kind of brainstorming real quick, I mean is that a potential, maybe, in this area? Say, you know, if you got whatever, 280 usable acres, 20 percent of that could be allowed for residential uses and, you know, kind of a first come first serve deal, just not unlike the neighborhood commercial with like the light office space. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't know the answer to your question. I guess what I'm thinking -- what I think in listening to what you have said, Mr. Centers, and what Mrs. Powell has said, I guess, to me, I think both of you are right to a degree. I think Mrs. Powell is correct that normally when people make application for these types of things, they are also providing those standards and the like. You folks didn't ask for that and the Planning and Zoning Commission didn't feel compelled to come up with that. I think you should have some input. My assumption -- and I could be wrong, but my assumption is the standards that you're going to come up with for residential are going to look a lot like these three applications that are right behind us. I'm just guessing, but that's what I think, so -- but that may not necessarily be the best thing. I think the planning staff, although I know they have opposed this application, certainly if the direction of this Council is to say go figure something out for us, because we are not opposed to it, they will do that. What we do a lot of times -- and I think Mrs. Powell can make this call on this, is hiring consultants and other people to assist in that process. Sometimes that -- that still doesn't take very long to do that. We don't have to go through a very extensive process to get some idea on what's appropriate and I think more than anything, I guess to me, as a lay person, more than anything, it's the setback from the treatment plant that's probably the most significant factor. I don't know what that should be. I don't know if it should be 100 or 200 or 50 feet. I don't have any idea. So, someone else that has that expertise needs to tell us that. There is probably other standards that they have had to deal with in other communities in trying to create that and both Mrs. Powell Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 59 of 68 and -- either through her staff or through a consultant can help come up with that. I look at that as somewhat of a marriage between what you folks think as appropriate for your application, as well as what maybe some objective third person may believe has worked in other areas, as well as what our staff believes works in our area. So, I look at that as that's where the meeting of the minds has to occur and, you know, it's not going to help anybody -- I mean I have already missed the World Series tonight, I don't want to spend another hour here. Centers: The Yankees won. Nary: What's that? Centers: The Yankees won. Nary: All right. That's good. They were wining -- they were winning in the bottom of the eighth, so -- but, anyway, I don't want to spend another hour here, because I don't think we could solve it. I don't think we can solve that tonight. I think between your input, Mrs. Powell's staff's input, and if there is a necessity, because there is such a disagreement between what you folks think should be the standards and what the staff thinks should be the standards, there is plenty of other people in this community that can probably provide us some good, professional, expertise on that, that I think we can solve this problem fairly quickly, but I think -- I think President de Weerd's correct, that probably the best way to do that is figure out in a week what's the game plan and I don't think we can figure out that game plan now without just having this same discussion for a half an hour. Centers: Right. Anna, how is your week workload? De Weerd: Oh, we can have you guys get together after this hearing and -- Centers: Well, I was just asking her to see if we can -- if she can do it within this week or two weeks -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Powell: Friday is, really, the only day I have a whole lot of free time, so that would only give us one day. If they want anything in advance -- we could probably get it done by next week. Yeah. De Weerd: Or plan it -- continue this until November 5th and -- Powell: Yeah. Get an extra day. Centers: Let's see. Can we go two weeks? De Weerd: That is two weeks. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 60 of 68 Centers: Oh. Okay. Sorry. Right. De Weerd: That works for you? Centers: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Centers: Okay. Appreciate all your time. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Chairman? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With that I would move that we continue the Public Hearing CPA 03-003, Stapleton Subdivision, to November 5th, 2003. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 16, CPA 03-003, to November 5th. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Nary: Madam President, we need to -- do we need to table the other items, then? Bird: We need to open it and, then, continue it. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 61 of 68 Nary: Oh, open and continue. De Weerd: Do we need to open and continue? Nichols: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open Item 17, Public Hearing RZ 03-009, request for a rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for the proposed Stapleton Subdivision. Item 18, Public Hearing PP 03-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 14 building lots and seven other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision. And Item 19, Public Hearing CUP 03-034, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a 41 lot subdivision, to include the reduction in the minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: The public hearings are open. Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that continue RZ 03-009, the request for a rezone for Stapleton Subdivision to November 5th, 2003. De Weerd: Can you do them all? Bird: Do you want me to do them all? Okay. Also PP 03-019, the request for a preliminary plat approval for Stapleton Subdivision and also CUP 03-034, the Conditional Use Permit for Stapleton Subdivision to November 3rd, 2003. De Weerd: How about November 5th. Bird: 5th. I'm sorry. Nary: Second. Bird: I'm two days off. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items 17, 18 and 19 to November 5th, 2003. All those in favor say aye. Nary: Madam President before we vote. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 62 of 68 Nary: I just want to -- it's probably not necessary tonight. Mr. Crane is here, Mrs. Leighton was here. Part of the benefit of setting -- of opening the Public Hearing and setting them over is we don't have to renotice them again, which is fine, but this may be a fairly lengthy process and although it may not be necessary tonight, I do think in the future we do need to make sure that, you know, these affected property owners that are immediately adjacent and have an interest in this property and development of it, receive notice, because they are not going to otherwise, because we have continued these hearings and so I'm not going to ask for it tonight, but on November 5th, if we continue this again, I will ask that we send Mr. Crane and Mrs. Leighton notice of the hearing, so they don't have to every week look to see if we put it on there, because I don't think that's very fair. But other than that, that was my only comment. De Weerd: And we can ask staff to specifically contact them as well. Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of continuing these items to November 5th, 2003, please, say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: We will move to Item 20. Sewer, trash -- water, sewer and trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a pre-termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 21st, 2003, before the Mayor and City before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on October 22nd, and/or October 29th, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Okay. Seeing 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 they appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $33,544.45. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we accept the delinquency for turn off and turn off dates will be October 22nd, 2003, or -- and/or October 29th, 2003. The total sum is $33,544.45. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 63 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the turn off dates of October 22nd and 29th for the turn off list amount of $33,544.45. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, will you call roll? Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I just thought it was important before we leave is one item to discuss. At Compass on Monday, the Ten Mile interchange was discussed, gave a presentation to the board on the local and regional significance of the Ten Mile interchange and proceeding with the environmental impact study. The private developer did offer their commitment of five million dollars to fund the EIS and that was discussed and on the table. ITD came back with something that was different from what the ITD board suggested and that is to have further study done to have a long-term look at the north- south connection to the interchanges that are being proposed in the I-84 corridor study and Clair Bowman at that meeting also raised his concern of certain deficiencies in the I-84 corridor study that would warrant more study and work being done and would put in question even the -- Nary: Validity? De Weerd: -- validity. Yes. Thank you very much. -- in the Ten Mile as the site for an interchange. So, I did talk with Mr. Bird, I have left a message for the Mayor and did talk to the private entities afterwards and I think it would be on the best behalf of our community if we respond to the Compass board with some concerns. One, that an 800,000 dollar document on the I-84 corridor study that recommended Ten Mile as the next priority for interchanges being built, if it has deficiencies, what those deficiencies would be. Two, that if -- that since the board did vote to proceed with further study, that they could use the on-call that ITD has for consultants to eliminate some of the bidding and award process. Three. To explain more in the criteria what specifically this would do to further delay the Ten Mile interchange EIS, how this study would really correlate with that and so we can understand this. This was to be -- was to consider amendment to the Boise Urbanize TIP and the full board voted on it, so that, too, should have question as to why Canyon County was voting on a TIP item for the Boise Urbanized Area. So, those are my concerns and I believe they are also Mr. Bird's concerns and just wanted to update the Council as to that board action and any other suggestions that our letter should incorporate, if you have any ideas. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I share the same concerns. You know, it's incredible to me that in one breath Compass can say that we have a significant area, a significant type of need for this interchange, but let's study whether or not it actually goes there at all and it Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 64 of 68 absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to me. Obviously, there is other people driving this train that we can't seem to get an interchange built that makes sense to everybody that's immediately affected by it, but is being somehow slowed by people who have some long-term issues about it that aren't going to immediately impacted. I think that's - - that's just ridiculous to me. So I agree with you that we need to respond in writing. I think as our representative on the Compass board currently would -- I would appreciate if you would be able to pen a letter, maybe with Mr. Smith's assistance as well or some of the other information that we have and Mr. Bird's input, too, that I think we do need to make a very strong statement that we disagree that and we strongly want this done and we don't need another ten years of study that at the end of the day we find out that it wasn't really valid. De Weerd: Well -- and I guess to further explain the concern here, is Ten Mile interchange has been on our planning document since 1978. It's been on the Compass board priorities since 1996. The I-84 corridor says it's needed by 2010, because we would have a population 44,000 people, which we almost have now. So, we are seven years ahead of their projections. I think that shows warrant and consideration that they cannot blink at this five million dollars that is on the table. If they don't do it now, don't come looking for private funds from this community, that it is supposed to be built by 2010, and, you know, can we afford to continue to delay it, because every year we delay it it's additional cost. The minimum -- or the soonest we could get it would be 2007. Those private dollars are still on the table and may still be there for 2008. But I think our community, whether this private interest is present or not, we need the Ten Mile interchange. Nary: And I think our residents need to know that. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Mr. Nary on a letter, but I believe it's -- we should have a letter drafted by yourself and our attorney Mr. Nichols and signed by the Mayor and all four Council people. I think that will carry more weight. I agree with Tammy, she put on a very good presentation. We had four people stand with us. Nancy Merrill and Dave Bivens -- oh, and Judy Pevey-Derr, five of us, and Tammy and I with nay votes. The thing that amazed me -- it's like Tammy said, why Canyon County was voting on something like this, I don't know, they are real worried, you know, they have got themselves in a pickle -- and this is editorializing and I don't care if you publish it, Frank. They got themselves -- Nary: We are glad you're here. Bird: They got themselves in a pickle at the Idaho Center and they are trying to get out of it. They want to see the off ramp closer over to the Idaho Center, so they can do stuff like that. Well, the only thing I have heard for 20 some years is that we are going to Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 65 of 68 have it at Ten Mile and it's in the plan. Now, all of a sudden we are not even sure it's going to be at Ten Mile. And Eastborn has stepped forward with five million dollars -- Micron did five million dollars out at Isaac Canyon and, you know, that thing got done immediately. De Weerd: And it didn't even have the traffic, the trips that -- Bird: And it didn't have the traffic that we had. And they are trying to tie -- what they are trying to do, ITD -- which aren't my favorite people right now anyway because of what they have done to us on the Locust Grove overpass, delaying it there -- is they are trying to put this whole project into the 56 million dollars. Well, you have got to build the interchange on Ten Mile before you do Meridian Road's expansion and, then, you got to get it done before you can do the lane additions. So, they are phased, I agree, but why should the cost be -- you know, because they are saying, well, five million is nothing, it's a drop in the bucket to 56 million. But five million to 16 million, which the interchange is basically going to cost, is a nice chunk of money at a good percent, but they are trying to do this other thing. And we have got to write a strong letter and it's got to be in Compass's number one priority TIP as far as I'm concerned and we have got to see that it happens. De Weerd: Well -- and what also was a part of my presentation that shows through their engineering studies and this was by Earth Tech, is by opening the Ten Mile interchange you can reduce the trips on Eagle by ten percent. I mean that's a huge impact to not only our population, but the mobile population that goes through there and our safety services. So, Anna, I don't know if you have any suggestions as well, but certainly would appreciate any input that you would have to put in such a letter. Powell: I think you know the issues far better than I do at this point. I wanted to actually raise a related topic. The TIP that they were approving the other night is the 2004 to 2008 TIP? De Weerd: Eight. Uh-huh. Powell: And their -- the transportation task force is required to get the 2005-2009 TIP to you by the end of I believe next month or maybe this month. It's coming up very quickly. Right now the Ten Mile interchange is listed as number 13 and the reason that's done is because of that whole chicken and egg thing that we were talking about the other day, is that if you -- if you put it in a number one priority, then, it probably -- it lessens the likelihood of your other priorities getting done, because there is no funding for it, but you can't get the funding until ITD does the funding and back and forth, back and forth. But, given tonight's conversation -- I'm just double-checking. I'm assuming that you're going to want the transportation task force to put that as the number one priority, followed by Locust Grove? De Weerd: I haven't -- Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 66 of 68 Bird: Wait a minute. Locust Grove is done. That shouldn't even be a priority. That is in the plans. Boy, let's don't get started on that. That's the same thing that those people are -- Locust Grove is a done project. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Excuse me. It's a done project. But I'm just -- I mean it's been through plans -- we have bought right of way. We have spent city money. Right of way. Powell: I'm not a member of that task force. Bird: I know you're not. Powell: I just saw their results, but all I know is it's still on the list, so -- De Weerd: We haven't seen it yet. Powell: Well -- and I'm just wondering if you want them to change it before it comes up to you or do you just want to see it as they have got it now or -- De Weerd: Let's -- Powell: I just know it's coming and I didn't know if you wanted it changed before you got here or -- Bird: No. Let's see what they have got. De Weerd: I appreciate that. Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I am on that committee and I have it on computer, the draft version of it, and I'm to send in suggestions to Gary. If you want me to send in that -- what Mr. Bird was talking about as a suggestion to take Locust Grove off of there, I sure can. Bird: Why would that -- why would that even be on the list? Because supposedly it got shoved back two years, because we got the federal money -- when ITD went to the federal it shoved us back. That thing was supposed to open this year. That's why this Council, all four us, put 1.8 million of city money towards that, because of the safety factor that we felt was necessary. De Weerd: Cherie -- I'm sorry, Keith. I guess maybe what you can asked Gary is if he could contact ACHD and make sure by removing it we are not going to take it out of a priority and a planned year basis. It is on the TIP. It is in the funded year. So, it may not be compromised, but he may want to check on that first. You know, I agree that if it doesn't need to be on there, we don't want it on there, but before we take it off, we better make sure we are not compromising anything. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 67 of 68 McCandless: And am I to understand that you guys would like to see Ten Mile number one and take it off of the end of the list, so to speak? De Weerd: I think we need to see the list. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I don't know about the number. I certainly know it is a priority. You know, the one thing I guess I'm sitting here and thinking is we don't control as many things as people think we do. We aren't really in charge of everything that you may think we are. But we can be at least -- when people ask us what are we going to do or what did we do to get that Ten Mile interchange built, this is what we can do and we need to do, because -- and whether or not we need to move it up on the list, I think we -- I think we are going to need to move it up, but I don't know where that belongs, you know, whether it's one, two, three, or whatever. But it certainly is a high priority and, you know, we don't want to lose -- we don't want other people as we have seen in other entities lose sight of the prize, because we moved it around or took it off and they thought we didn't want it anymore and that was the assumption they made to move forward and we don't want that to happen. But this is something we -- that is very important that we need to do. De Weerd: Yeah. So, if he can touch base and try and find out, I think they definitely have some ideas that we could probably utilize. Nary: And Frank's just glad he stayed until the end of the meeting. De Weerd: And, Frank, certainly we will -- we will get you a copy of that letter. I think our citizens need to know and it's not that I don't think we should work regionally with this group, but I do know that there is some pressure needed at ITD to start looking at that Ten Mile interchange and maybe -- my concern was is, what, is transportation going to start telling us our land use? We have put six million dollars on our sewer, we have already spent 100,000 dollars on the design, on the conceptual designs, 34,000 on preliminary sewer study, and, then, you have 1.8 million -- or 1.1 million dollars in total well and water issues and so we have a substantial investment here that we need to protect and I don't see any other options as viable, other than Ten Mile. That's what we have been planning for for 25 years and for them to come and tell us now, after that -- that was adopted -- that I-84 corridor study was adopted in 2001 by not only the Compass board, but by ITD board as well. So, this is a little late in the game to start questioning the -- okay. You say it. The validity. And, you know, it's just beyond belief. McCandless: I agree with you. Bird: Madam President? Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 68 of 68 De Weerd: So, anyway -- Mr. Bird. Bird: On another subject before we do. This is for Anna. On the landscaping deal, I've had two phone calls, maybe you have had them, because I have told them to call you. We took out a ten inch caliper tree out here in front of the city hall. Our landscaping ordinance says that anytime you take out over four inch caliper trees you replace it back with a like about of caliper and they are two in calipers. Where are we going to -- these people want to know where are we going to put the five two inch caliper trees. De Weerd: Who do you mean these people? He's calling himself. Bird: No. No. It's not me. Not me. I can give you the name. I agree with it. I will say that up front. Powell: With all the landscape provisions -- is this in an Old Town area? Bird: It's right out here. Powell: Yeah. In the Old Town I think you have seen a lot of alternative compliance as far as the landscape ordinance, because it really isn't -- it doesn't mesh well with the Old Town area and so I think that alternative compliance provision comes into play quite a bit. I don't know, did the -- we also encourage people to really get with Elroy Huff before they take out one, because if it's diseased or dying or dead -- Bird: This was ours we took out, because we are taking the cement up, because it's unsafe, is why they are taking it out and redoing it. But the one guy in particular is doing a remodel down at the NAPA deal and he's having to adhere to this ordinance, which is in Old Town, part of the old urban renewal right down here on Meridian Street. Wants to know if we are going to do it here. Would you check on that, Anna? I have been chewed out too many times. Powell: I would be happy to. And the answer is if we are going with the alternative compliance, then, fortunately, usually, it comes before you also, so I can get your feel as to how you want to go. If it's just a permitted use that's coming in for a building permit, we can look at it. We need to know what his alternative is, so -- Bird: My basic idea of our landscape is you don't -- I don't care what the building looks like, because in ten years you won't be able to see it through the trees anyway. De Weerd: Could I have a motion to adjourn? Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. McCandless: Second. Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 69 of 68 De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) _______________________________ ______/______/______ ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK