HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 03-02Meridian City Council Meeting March 2, 2004.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05
P.M., Tuesday, February 24, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd,William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree and Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Bill
Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Kenny Bowers, Doug Strong, Bill Musser, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
_X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the regular meeting for City
Council to order. It's Tuesday, March 2nd, and it's 7:20. I appreciate you all joining us here tonight and I will begin the meeting with roll call.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De
Weerd: Thank you. Two new changes that we have to our agenda is the addition of the Pledge of Allegiance and a community invocation. If you do not pray with us, if you will take a moment
to yourself and -- it's just an opportunity reflect and put some things in perspective and it's something that we appreciate as well. So, we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance
and I have Craig Elder with Troop 17 that will lead us.
(The Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Gordon Slyter Pastor at Treasure Valley Worship Center:
De
Weerd: Thank you, Craig. Tonight we have Gordon Slyter, who is the pastor at Treasure Valley Worship Center leading us in our community invocation.
Slyter: Let's pray. Dear God in
Heaven, as we gather tonight to conduct the business of our city, we thank you for your guidance and your wisdom. Thank you also for the blessings we enjoy in this community, blessings
of peace, safety, and the meeting of our material needs. Thank you for the liberty we enjoy as citizens to conduct the affairs of our own government. Tonight as this Council convenes,
please, grant wisdom and understanding. We pray that the decisions that are reached here would, under your sovereign guidance, contribute to the welfare and prosperity of our community.
May both justice and righteousness be served. Thank you, Lord, for your blessing upon this
Council, our city, and all who live here. These things I pray through Christ, our Lord, Amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Pastor Slyter, I would like to give you a
water tower pin and thank for joining us. And thanks to Troop 17 for joining us tonight as well. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird:
We have had a couple requests on the regular agenda. Item No. 8 and 9, Lochsa Falls Subdivision 9 and 10 has been requested to be tabled to 3/9/04, both items, and I believe that's all
and with that I would move that we adopt the agenda as revised.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Council, we would like to get a short report from the Planning and Zoning director, if
you would not mind adding as 6-B.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: On the Item 20, Executive Session, on mine it doesn't identify what particular code section it is.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. That's Item B.
Nary: I think it's 67-2345(1)(b), but --
Bird: If the second approves now, with the re-revised agenda, I move that we pass it.
Rountree: Second
agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 10, 2004 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of February 17, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 03-012 Request for a Rezone of .85 acre from R-15
to O-T for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland – 1225 Main Street:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP 03-006 Request for Preliminary Final
Plat approval of 2 building lots on .85 acre in a proposed O-T zone for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland – 1225 Main Street:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: CUP 03-063 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a medical office building in a proposed O-T zone for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland –
1225 Main Street:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-064 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for two buildings on one lot
in a L-O zone for Capital Christian Center by Capital Christian Church – 2760 East Fairview Avenue:
G. Short Term Reporting Services Standard Life Insurance – Janice Smith:
H. Louisiana
Pacific Business Expansion ICDB Grant / City Sponsorship:
I. Approve Bills:
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Are there any changes? Hearing none, I would accept a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree:
Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Any discussion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Does that include Item G?
Bird: The short-term?
Nary: I thought we had taken that under advisement at the pre-Council session,
so I didn't know if we had had enough time to think about that.
Bird: How did it wind up on the Consent Agenda? I'll pull my motion, if the second agrees.
Rountree: I'll agree with
that.
Bird: And I would restate my motion, Mayor, and remove Item G to March 16th, 2004. With that, then, I would move that we approve all Consent Agenda items and for the Mayor to
sign and the Clerk attest on all papers.
Rountree: I will second one more time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. The Consent Agenda has been moved to adopt with the removal of Item G.
Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Mayor’s
Office
1. City Hall Site Selection Process:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6 is the Department Reports. I will start with thanks to the city prosecuting attorneys. They gave us our first
quarterly report. It was very informational and appreciate the communication. We had asked last fall for a proposal for service regarding the next steps for a new City Hall. I had that
in front of you last week. Keith and I met with a group to start talking about next steps for the space study to wrap that up. We did meet with Ada county to further explore their space
needs and we do have some items that we need to bring back to this group, but I did want to get some perspective from Council on a cite selection process. It will have heavy emphasis
on public participation within this process and so I would look to receive your comments, if you have any.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. I did -- I did look at that and I think, you know, we were the ones that asked for it, because we did want to kind of keep both
the project going, as well as I think we had asked the Hudson company, because we were very impressed with the work that they had done in the study for downtown, so I guess I -- you
know, I'm willing to go forward on this proposal that we asked for, but I don't know what the rest of the Council's feelings are.
De Weerd: Have our two newest Council members had
a chance to look at the proposal?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary -- I mean Wardle. I'm sorry. You don't look the same.
Wardle: I have had a chance to review it briefly
and agree with Mr. Nary that I think it's the right direction. I'm not sure if I'm ready to move forward with it tonight, but in the very -- if the rest of the Council would agree, I
think we could -- I would be ready to act on it potentially next week.
De Weerd: Any further discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would agree
with Council President Nary and I have no problem with moving forward at this point, but if Councilman Wardle needs another week, I'm okay with that as well.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr.
Rountree.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would state like you did that the sooner the better on it, because we want to move forward. Ada county is very receptive
to being with us and, as everybody knows, we need to get a -- so we can be more efficient, get a new deal, so I think one week will be more than enough for everybody to look at it and
make up their minds.
Parks and Recreation Commission Appointment:
De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will put this, then, on the agenda next week for your perusal. Item No. 2, I have my nomination or my appointment
for the Parks and Recreation Commission and he is with us here tonight, if you have any questions for him. I told him he would not have to talk unless you asked him questions. We did
advertise an opening for the Parks and Recreation Commission. In December we filled a position. In January this position came open this last month and the selection committee that was
put together at that time felt comfortable with moving forward without it opening. This position that we are filling has not had someone active on the commission for over four months
and so they were anxious to have someone that -- I won't call them just a warm body, but having another person there to add value to the commission is certainly what they are looking
for. Jim has -- can bring a different perspective to the commission, as you can see from his resume, and I would be willing to answer any questions if you have any. And, certainly, if
you want to put him on the hot seat, that's fine, too.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, is this Jim in the back here?
De Weerd: Yes. Jim, if you would stand up. This is Jim Deboer.
Deboer:
Madam Mayor, Council Members, I'm Jim Deboer and I'm the warm body that Tammy's talking about this evening. I just want to be a positive influence on the community. I think that's one
thing that makes the community a great place to live is people who are willing to take the time and invest in the place that they live, so I will do what I can to make that happen.
De
Weerd: Thank you, Jim.
Rountree: Thank you.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. So, what's your pleasure, Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move
that we approve Jim Deboer as a recommendation -- excuse me -- as an appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded
to approve the appointment of Jim Deboer on the Parks and Recreation Commission. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B: Planning and Zoning Director – Troutner Park Subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you very much and thanks for joining us, Jim. Item 6-B is the Planning
and Zoning Administrator.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you may recall we talked about the findings for the Troutner Park Subdivision and vacation and, unfortunately,
there was a mix up in the findings that all signed, so we have caught that and we need to give you the new findings to sign. That's all. The correct findings consistent with what you
approved. This was the one that had the stub street to the south over toward the intersection -- toward the -- I'm just tongue tied today. Shall I start over again? I'm sorry.
De Weerd:
Well, what we gleaned from that is we have findings we need to --
Powell: You have new findings and I'm not sure of the process. I think we just need to get them to you and I don't
know if --
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, a motion to approve the adoption of the corrected -- the correct findings. It's merely a scrivener's
error. The wrong findings got submitted. You will recall we had to make some changes in them and we had already had the previous ones over and those just simply got signed when they
should have been -- well, they really can't be destroyed, because the clerk has to keep everything, but these are just simply correcting the scrivener's error that occurred when those
got signed. So, a motion to approve these would be in order, with a roll-call vote.
De Weerd: What project is this?
Powell: Troutner Business Park. I believe you have the corrected
findings on your table And thank you, Mr. Nichols, for saying what I couldn't say before, so --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we approve the corrected
findings for the Troutner Business -- Troutner Park Subdivision No. 2, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. The one I'm looking at has a revised date of 2/9 or '04. Is that the
correct one?
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the new findings as presented in front of you. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea;
Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Item 8: Tabled from February 24, 2004: FP 04-008 Request for Final Plat approval of
56 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 17.8 acres in an R-4 PD zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 9 by Lochsa Falls, LLC – west of North Linder Road and south
of West Chinden Road:
Item 9: Tabled from February 24, 2004: FP 04-007 Request for Final Plat approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 11.96 acres
in an R-4 PD zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 10 by Lochsa Falls, LLC – west of North Linder Road and south of West Chinden Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 9 -- or 8 and
9 have been requested to be continued or tabled until March 9th, 2004. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table Lochsa Falls Subdivision
No. 9 and Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 10, FP 04-007 and FP 04-008, until March 9th, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Items 8 and 9 until
March 9th, 2004. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: FP 04-013 Request for Final Plat approval
of 74 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 23.59 acres in an R-4 zone for Cobre Basin Subdivision No. 3 by Havasu Creek, LLC – west of North Locust Grove road
and south of East McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Item No. 10 is FP 04-013 for Cobre Basin Subdivision No. 3. I will open with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat for 74 single family residential building lots and one common lot. The area that is undergoing the final plat is shown
in red. It was done as part of the Havasu Creek preliminary plat. The developer started from two different ends and, therefore, it has the Cobre Basin name on the subdivision, but this
is the final plat and it substantially complies with the preliminary plat and the applicant has provided a letter stating that they are in agreement with the conditions of the approval,
so staff recommends approval of this plat.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council?
Watson: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Watson: I apologize. There was a public works issue on
this one as well. As this sits, Lots 19 through 23, Block 17, will not have water service. They need to take water service from Quenzer Commons Subdivision immediately to the south.
So, there will -- there is going to need to be a note on the plat referencing a non-build agreement applicable to those five lots prior to plat signature. And that's all I have.
De
Weerd: Brad, did you talk with the applicant about that?
Watson: No, we didn't, but they are the ones that made us aware that they cannot get water service to those five lots, so this
is just to make sure that when this is recorded that those lots that can't be sold not be served. This just came up late this afternoon. The applicant is here and maybe he'd like to
speak to that.
De Weerd: Would the applicant like to come forward? If you will state your name and address.
Martin: Justin Martin, 5606 North Ten Mile Road. Madam Mayor, Members
of the Council, yeah, I'm fine with the note that Brad was referencing on the plat, as long as there is a clear way to take that back once water service is available, which I'm not familiar
with. I'm sure it's fairly simple. And that's it. I'm in agreement with everything else.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Brad, do you
need anything further?
Watson: Madam Mayor, no. And we can certainly give him a copy of that standard form. It's one we have used on some other subdivisions. It's pretty simple and
straight forward.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 10 for Cobre Basin Subdivision No. 3, FP 04-013, with
the appropriate comments on the plat as pointed out by staff as it relates to Block 17 and those lots that cannot be serviced for water. For the attorney to prepare appropriate papers.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve item No. 10 for Cobre Basin Subdivision No. 3 with the additions as noted. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from February 24, 2004:
Idaho Community Development Block Grant – Meridian Senior Citizen Center:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 11. Continued Public Hearing from February 24th, 2004, Idaho Community
Development Block Grant for the Meridian Senior Center. This was continued from last week for any additional public comment on this application. Is there anyone in the audience who would
like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Hearing none, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing for Item No. 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd:
Any questions by Council on this item?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Do we need a motion, Madam Mayor?
Bird: Don't we have to approve it?
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk?
Berg: Madam Mayor, I'm not familiar with the grant process,
but we just continued it to accept any written comment after the regular noticed Public Hearing and all information will be going to our -- to Sage that's presenting the block grant
application to the Idaho Department of Commerce. So, I think we don't have to take any further action.
De Weerd: No. It was a requirement to have two public hearings. This is the first
of two. The second one will be further on into the process once details are known, if we receive it or not. So no action by Council.
De Weerd: Okay. We are in the Public Hearing process
of our agenda. We do have a city ordinance that requires anyone wishing to testify to be sworn in and so we will do that all as a group, so you don't have to sit through each of us individually
being sworn in. So, if those of you who would like to or might consider giving testimony tonight will raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
(Affirmative answers)
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 03-021 Request for reconsideration for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres
from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road:
Item
13: Public Hearing: PP 03-024 Request for reconsideration for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for
proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road:
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-041 Request
for reconsideration for revised Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased
block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Okay. I will go ahead and open Item No. 12, Public Hearing AZ 03-021 for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 and we will begin with staff comments. I'm
sorry. I will open up 13 and 14 as well. Anna.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as you will recall, you saw this item before and, then, have allowed it to come back as
a reconsideration and this is the property in the annexation of the property. The preliminary plat includes these two areas here. The annexation, though, I did want to remind you, includes
this piece of property, which at this time they are requesting a C-G zoning, although they have not provided a development plan for that area. And just as a reminder, these were some
of the photos taken along Duane Drive and I will point out Duane Drive as we go along. The applicant -- I'm going to go over this briefly. Knowing the applicant's representative, I'm
sure she will go over it in great detail for you, so I'm just going to hit some of the highlights. And they have opened up -- they -- one of the concerns at the previous hearing was
the size of the lots bordering this property and they have increased those. Another one, there was a -- more of a gridded pattern in this area, they have kind of looped this street and
made a cul-de-sac there. This street used to be a cul-de-sac and there was concern about how kids would get over to the school or particularly this access -- access to the school for
children that might live along this area. They have opened this road up, which goes along this out parcel and, then, the pedestrian path to the school is just south of that. Also, a
pedestrian path here. They have also opened up the open space corridor. There is open space here. They can get over to here a little more easier. There is a connection here as well.
So, they have tried to open up that corridor to the school in this kind of easterly migration. And, then, the -- there is additional open space along this -- the main street here, so
that they can come northerly as well. This is the second half of the plat and they did open this one up a little bit, made more openings onto it, although it is, I believe, smaller than
the original one was. They lost some lots in the northern portion -- or northeast portion and they did make up, I believe, for those lots generally in the southern areas. Again, there
is the canal here and they have proposed a multi-use path along there and this would be the stub into that C-G commercial area that's -- that is proposed with the annexation. I have
the original plats here as well. You can see it there. Page one. Page two. And I have their landscape plans. I think where it really shows up is that they did try and focus more on the
kind of -- the community center, the central open space on the property. And more landscape. So, I think with that -- Brad Hawkins-Clark did a very detailed memo to you dated February
25th and it does note several revisions that need to be done to the original Planning and Zoning recommendation and the reasoning or the thought -- staff's thoughts on that were -- we
didn't go back and change the P&Z recommendation, because it wasn't coming from them. So, we kept the original recommendation and if you decide to approve this plat, there are several
changes to that P&Z recommendation that need to be addressed and those are listed in that memo. And I believe that that will end staff's testimony for now, unless you have questions.
De Weerd: Are there any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. The process that we follow tonight is we allow a maximum of 15 minutes for the staff -- or for the applicant and, then, take public testimony. Those are three minutes
in length. And, then, the applicant is allowed a rebuttal to answer to any of the questions or comments that are made during the testimony. So, we will start with the applicant.
Nary:
Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: While Mrs. McKay is getting set up, I wondered if I could just ask Mr. Nichols a question and he doesn't necessarily have to answer it at the
moment, but since -- what we have done processwise is move to reconsider and reset this for hearing and we still have these pending denial findings. Would we need -- I guess if -- if
we were to agree with these changes and revisions to this plat, would we need to send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to review again? This is a new staff report that we
have received from Mr. Hawkins-Clark, so I guess I was just curious -- and, again, you don't have to answer at this moment, maybe we can hear that, but it was something I think at some
point we need to know from a process standpoint what we do, because I think we still have these pending before us for denial, so --
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols:
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't mind telling you what my opinion is now.
Nary: Oh. Sure. I was trying to give you time to think about it.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members
of the Council -- well, it's going to be one of those half a loaf answers. I think you will get a better appreciation for whether the change is substantial enough to require a rehearing
by Planning and Zoning after we see what the applicant has got to say and whether those issues that were addressed in the first set of hearings have been adequately addressed by this
revised plat. And so I think we just need to hear from the applicant and anybody else that needs to testify or feels compelled to testify and, then, we can answer that more adequately.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. So, we will get an answer afterwards. Were you here when we swore in people? Okay. State your name and address and, please, spell your
last name.
McKay: Becky McKay, M-c-K-a-y, with Engineering Solutions. Business address 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. And I'm representing the applicant in this matter. I'd like to start off,
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for this opportunity to come back before you this evening. It's nice to be here early in the evening, not late. I feel better. I'm sure
the neighbors do, too. I'd like to kind of address some of the criticisms of the previous plan and, then, obviously, demonstrate or show you what we have tried to accomplish as far as
to mitigate or modify the plan in order to meet the problems that were brought forth at the last Public Hearing. This -- the original plan --
De Weerd: Becky, if you could, please,
put it where everyone can see it, I'd appreciate that.
McKay: This was the original plan that came before the Council. Some of the criticisms of the plan were the fact that some of
our smallest lots lie within this area here and along the Perkins Brown perimeter at that location. Those lots ranged from 5,500 to 6,600 square feet. The other criticism was -- I think
the problem that Council had, there was some concerns about just the esthetics of the subdivision and I believe I identified what the problem is, the fact that we have such a short block
here with the collector roadway coming in in alignment with Grenadier and coming down like this, we have a very short block which consists only approximately six lots and, then, we have
this long street here, which, therefore, makes it look like there is an excessive amount of street. One of the other criticisms was the pedestrian path that was added over to Ustick
Elementary in this location, Councilman Nary asked the question how will these kids get over there and what's the most convenient way to get those children from different parts of this,
because it appears that it's kind of a circuitous route or inconvenient for those children to get over there. One of the other comments was the centrally located club house, pool, parking
area, is that area large enough and the fact that it appeared to the Council that they would like to see additional open space meeting or exceeding that ten percent, because with this
particular plan we were not at ten percent, we were at like approximately eight percent. The other concern was along this perimeter of Perkins Brown, these lot sizes range from about
64 feet here to 70 feet and is there anything that could be done -- I believe the question was asked by Councilman Nary, to try to increase those lot sizes. The overall density was not
found to be offensive, but the distribution of that density within the development, it was thought to be a little bit better when you took into consideration that the adjoining parcels
next to us are large in size and more rural residential in nature, ranging from two and a half acres to five. This is the new plan that we'd like to present this evening. We did submit
this to your staff weeks ago, so they did have opportunity to review it. As Anna indicated, Brad Hawkins-Clark reviewed the plan in very detail. We also submitted a new landscape plan
for them to look at. We increased the landscaping along Ustick to 35 feet and we took that very long stretch of street here out and what we did is took this and created a loop -- anytime
we have a 90 degree turn or a cul-de-sac, that allows us to kind of fan out the backs of those lots. I have approximately 22 lots along this eastern boundary abutting Perkins Brown.
Those were modified to 17 lots. So, we removed five. Those lots range from about 90 feet wide to approximately 100 feet wide or more in size and they went from 6,600 square feet to --
excuse me. Let me grab my little plan. They went from 6,600
square feet to the smallest being 9,460 and all the way up to 11,000 and 14,000 square feet. So, I minimized the lot sizes and I also increased the lot sizes substantially. I opened
up this area here. We will be piping the Milks Lateral. It historically runs through here, so that will be in pipe. I have got to allocate an easement for that and access, so we opened
this area up and created pathways, bringing the children here. We have pedestrian crossings, like stamped concrete here, bringing them in pathways through the open space up through here
and, then, out to the elementary school. We took the cul-de-sac out here, shot this street through, so, then, the kids from both of these blocks can come on through and go directly over
to the school. We added another open space here and put a pathway through here to bring the kids up from the southern portion and bring them up to the detached sidewalks and up this
way and toward the school. We also opened up another open space area right in here. If you're asking where the density went, because we had 302 buildable single family lots, the density
was moved -- we added some lots right in this area in the center, while decreasing our density here. We also dropped our density down through here and these lots, which were 64 and 70
feet wide, went to 80 feet wide and 96 feet wide, I took a lot out here, I added open space here, I took a lot out here and, then, rotated around. We did add some lots in here to try
to balance what we lost as far as on those perimeters. We have dropped some cul-de-sacs down here and, then, brought a pathway up through that area there. I also have a blowup right
here of the pool area. Councilman Nary was concerned about the size of this area here and it being able to, one, accommodate a pool. We show a pool, a parking area, a club house, restroom
facility, we have got pathways swinging through there. We have picnic tables, children's play structures, and a volleyball court and still we have a substantial amount of open space.
That central main location is two and a half acres and, as I indicated, we jumped our open space up above ten percent, therefore, not only providing the two required amenities, but also
meeting the ten percent open space amenity. One good thing about the new plan is we did drop over an acre in roadway and that acre that we lost in roadway was gained in increasing the
lot sizes along Perkins Brown and increasing the open space by over an acre in itself. One of the other questions that was brought forth was the issue of Duane Drive. The Council asked
for clarification from ACHD commission. ACHD staff did write a revised staff report. They did get a copy of our plan weeks and weeks ago. They indicated that they have reviewed the plan,
that their comments remained the same. They clarified the Duane Drive issue. Duane Drive is a public street. This connection will be a public street connection. We will be improving
this. It will have a choker that takes us down to about 24 feet here and they have asked that we have some type of an obstruction there. Their recommendation was that that be a gate.
That gate would be -- have to meet Meridian fire department requirements. We did get the fire department requirements from Joe Silva and I have got them here and it gives us a criteria
of what fire gate apparatuses are allowed and what we have to design to. The gate will be owned and maintained by Ada County Highway District. The staff indicated in their clarification
that that gate would remain there, pedestrian and bicycle traffic has to be allowed through, so, typically, what we will do is we will have a gate in the middle and, then, open on each
side, so that people can go through with bicycles and walk passed there. And they stated that an interested party, which they clarified in their motion, anyone that may want to open,
including emergency services, garbage, postal service, delivery companies, utility
companies, residents, school busses, et cetera, they will have to petition to the ACHD commission. A public hearing would have to be held in order to determine if it was appropriate
to open that at such time. We had two public hearings at ACHD's commission, they lasted a couple hours apiece, discussion on that. Their decision was based on the fact that Duane Drive
is almost one half mile long and it is a straight street. It is a substandard roadway. It's public, but it is what we call a rural section with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk, it ranges
from approximately 22 to 24 feet wide. We are taking that opportunity to make that connection, but, yet, restricting that access to pedestrians and bicycles and emergency vehicles, because
there is only one way into Duane Drive and one way out. It does have a turnaround at the end of Duane Drive at this time. That was determine by the ACHD commission, based on the fact
that they were trying to find a compromise and they admitted that this is a unique situation. They are a proponent of making these vehicular connections, but they believed that in this
instance that we had to look at some creative mechanism of making that connection and providing for it possibly in the future, based on certain circumstances, but, yet, restricting it,
so that we did not create any undue burden on this neighbor, because it is a low density development. The other questions that arose were the fact that our pathway of annexation is from
Eagle Road. We have two parcels that adjoin Eagle Road, as staff has shown on the map, and those are our only points of annexation. Right here. These two properties -- one is the Shramick,
the other is the Bryson, they are also participating in granting the City of Meridian an easement in order to get the sewer over to the middle of this section into the subject property.
It is like mixed use development on your Comprehensive Plan. They do not have a buyer, they do not have a plan, and the staff set forth in our staff report a criteria that the Comprehensive
Plan lays out as far as what they want to see in that development along that Eagle Road corridor in those mixed use regional type zones and it asks for creative land planning, it asks
for mixed use, it asks for combining access points in conjunction with ITD and their wishes on the Eagle Road corridor study and it is stated that those two property owners will have
to sign a development agreement that they will have to come back with a plan before they can develop those properties. And so that was, basically, the only option that was available
to us in order to be contiguous with the city limits and convince these property owners to participate in this application. I believe with the development agreements -- I mean Mr. Nichols
has a wonderful writing style and I think he can write -- I believe he can write language which will make sure that those properties cannot be developed until a master plan is brought
in on both of them and that they do meet the intent of your Comprehensive Plan and the vision that the Council has along Eagle Road. We think we have -- we got a wakeup call from the
Council at the last meeting and I appreciate that, because there are times that we do become complacent, there are times that we have a hard time thinking out of the box and when the
Council started to bring up these issues, we were surprised, but, then, the more we thought about them, the more we thought they have some points and I have met with the neighbors, I
took the plan out to them, we don't agree on everything one hundred percent, but we are closer than we have been before and I think there are some people that are pleased with the effort
that's been made and we spent a lot of time and a lot of effort and we think that we have a really good plan and I believe we meet the criteria. When I look at the densities around us,
as far as the urban densities, Mr. Nary had concerns about that, Dawson
Meadows, which is located in Boise city, it is to our east, it is 4.6 dwelling units to the acre. Across the street we have Providence No. 4, it's 3.61. Heather Meadows is to the north
of us on Ustick, it's 4.34. We are 3.33 dwelling units per acre on this site here. We believe that that is a good reasonable density. We are trying to provide a mixed use development
that has varying lot sizes. Obviously, we have increased the number of the larger lots, but, yet, the yield was the same and I think we have got a good project.
De Weerd: Becky, you
will need to summarize.
McKay: Okay. Summarize. One thing that was asked of me was to bring some examples of what our vision is as far as this development is concerned. The Council
asked on 50 foot lots, you know, what kind structure can you build. These homes here have been built out at Woodbridge and other developments on --
De Weerd: Becky, if you want to put
those on the --
McKay: Excuse me. Fifty to 55 foot lots. The value just on a 50 foot lot, or 50 by approximately 110 and 115, the value of the homes and the lots will be approximately
150,000 to 220,000. That's a single story plan that you see right there. That fits on a 50 foot lot. And we believe that these are going to be of benefit to the city.
De Weerd: Your
time is up.
McKay: I'm concluded.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Council? No, not at this
time. Thank you. Okay. I do have a few people who have signed up. Is F.A. Belcher here? And I did see your hand up. If you will just state your name and address.
Belcher: Fitsroy A.
Blecher, 2920 Duane Drive. Madam Mayor, Council Members, we are pleased with what the developer has come up with. Reducing lot size on the perimeters was one of our main objections --
or objective and they have done that for us. We pretty much agree with what Becky has said. We, evidently, don't like the density, since we are a rural area. However, I think that's
not in our purview to say whether we like it or not. The main thing that we have to worry about is Duane Drive and keeping it -- keeping the traffic off of it, however it's done, as
long as we don't lose and gain all the traffic that this development will generate. I think some of the neighbors have expressed some other concerns. One is about the access to the school
yard. The
access to the school yard is going to -- it's going to be a problem, in that it's going to open up the school yard for anybody. During the recess they are going to have to put somebody
there where that gate or whatever entrance to the school yard is in order to keep out unwelcome guests or visitors. It looks good. However, it does present some problems. I think those
are the two things that I'd like to state. Thank you
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Blecher. Is there any questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. I have next Mark or Trish Stokes.
Stokes:
I concur with Mr. Belcher.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Marshall and Carla Williams. Please do state your name and address.
C.Williams: Carla Williams. 4830 Duane Drive.
De Weerd:
Thank you.
C.Williams: Madam Mayor and City Council Members, I'd just like to say that I think that Becky and her team have done a really good job to address a lot of the concerns
that we have and I really like the new layout. It is reduces the density along all of our properties, which was one of our goals. My main concern is still Duane Drive with that gate
there and if it was to ever be opened up, how would Duane Drive be improved and who would pay for it. That's still kind of an issue. We are saying that we are going to close it and have
that gate, but everybody that I have talked to says, you know, if that gate is there, someday Duane Drive will be opened up for some reason and at that point will the homeowners on Duane
Drive be required to make the payments or the -- incur the cost of the improvements on Duane Drive. I don't know what the process for that would be.
De Weerd: Were you part of the
public hearings at the commission meeting at ACHD?
C.Williams: No.
De Weerd: Okay. We do have a representative here, so we might ask him. I wouldn't know. You know, we don't have
the road authority, so I don't think we could answer that question. I could understand why you would have that question and, as I understand when Mrs. Bowcutt presented that portion
of ACHD's conditions that they put on it, there would be a public hearing and that certainly would be something that would come up, but we will ask the representative from ACHD to come
up and maybe he can help answer that.
C.Williams: Okay. Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Bruce, we won't ask you yet. We just wanted to see if there was any other questions
you might have to answer. Is there anyone else -- that's -- those are
the people who have signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? And did you raise your hand when we swore you in? Okay. If you
will state your name and address and, then, spell your last name.
Broadhead: Okay. I'm Michelle Broadhead. My address is 2875 Duane Drive and my last name is B-r-o-a-d-h-e-a-d.
De
Weerd: Thank you.
Broadhead: I just -- I just wanted to make sure -- at the ACHD meetings they had talked about not letting any construction traffic through there, so that gate is
not up there, I would like to make sure that we don't have big trucks hauling eaves and beams and all that stuff coming down our road as well. So, I don't know if that's what we do with
that, but until that gate's up, I still don't want all that other traffic, too, if we can avoid that, so --
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: If I could just make a statement.
We don't want construction trucks going down it either.
Broadhead: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Any kind of construction.
Broadhead: Yeah. Okay.
De Weerd: Otherwise, it would be deja
vue or something on other projects. Thank you. Okay. Is there any other testimony? Okay. Mr. Mills, would you like to join us. I didn't see hand your up. Do I need to swear you in?
Bird:
Madam Mayor, my hand was up.
De Weerd: All right. Good job. Well, thank you very much.
Mills: I'm Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District, Garden City. I have half a voice, so,
hopefully, I can give at least half an answer, but to answer the woman's question, if Duane Drive was opened in the future who would pay for improvements if Duane Drive needed those
improvements. I guess it's a little bit of a half a loaf answer as well, in that it would depend on the circumstances. For instance, if a majority of owners along Duane Drive were redeveloping
their properties at that time, there may be requirements for that road to be opened and for them, as part of their redevelopment, to do improvements to the road. However, if it was a
situation where it was just being opened with the same existing residents out there, I would not anticipate that we would require any improvements from the people that live along Duane
Drive.
De Weerd: So, based on who the request would come from, if the request came from the residents on Duane Drive, they would be asked to be participants in the cost. If it didn't come from
them, they would not be asked to, is that -- as I understand your answer.
Mills: Not quite. If the residents along Duane Drive in the present condition asked for the road to be opened
-- I doubt that would happen, probably, but -- but if for some reason it became too onerous for them to get out onto Ustick -- and that could happen, I guess. At that point Duane Drive
would most likely be opened up -- well, I can't say that. It would go through public hearing. But if it was opened up, I doubt if additional improvements would be required at that time.
However, if -- again, I can't remember -- what are the size of lots on Duane Drive? Two and a half acre lots. If they at some point in the future decide that they want higher densities
and they want to redevelop their properties -- if that was to happen -- maybe we are talking 75 years from now. I don't know. At that point there would probably be some requirement put
on those people that were doing that redevelopment to improve the road.
De Weerd: Okay.
Mills: I hope I made some sense.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, do you have a question?
Nichols:
Bruce, just -- if I understand the hearing process in front of your commission correctly, if someone asked to have that gate removed and the road opened up, the commission would have
to address the issue of Duane Drive and the standards and width and sidewalks and that would all have to be addressed as part of that hearing, would it not? And, therefore, they would
have to address who was going to pay for what in that process.
Mills: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nichols, that is correct.
Nichols: So, the protection to the neighbors in Perkins Brown Subdivision
is the requirement that there be a public hearing if anyone asked to remove the gate and open up that connection.
Mills: That's correct.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And I don't know, Bruce, if you would know this, but we have kicked this gate thing around to death, but I guess I'm curious just -- a gate -- and I think I understand the reasoning
from the residents. A gate has a tendency to look like it could move and be gone. We have lots of other stub streets that are basically blocked by barricades and
fences and other things to show that these are someday going to be improved, but aren't now. Is the reason there is a gate here and not a barricade of some other sort that doesn't look
like it's so moveable is because it's two streets together? Is that the reason that it's a gate, not a fence?
Mills: Madam Mayor and Councilman Nary, part of the reason was so that
there would be emergency access. With a barricade it's a lot harder to move everything out of the way.
Nary: Okay. Well, we put bollards before. I know there is some issue about some
of those. I mean is that, again, another reason we didn't use bollards here and we used a gate?
Mills: Mr. Nary, I know that they chose the gate. I don't know that they were married
to the gate, if they felt that -- it was really meant to be something for the Meridian fire department, what they would approve. It was some type of barrier and the gate was what was
chosen in our public hearing, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be something else if the fire department felt it was more appropriate.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thank you. Kenny, did you have anything that you wanted to add to the gate or what -- your department comments?
Bowers: Madam Mayor and City Council Members, I believe it's in the
new code that it has to be gates now. I don't think there is bollards in our new code, but as I have testified before, is at nighttime it's hard to decide what these -- the bollards
are, are they pull out or do you come up and hit them and knock them over. We realize the gates do somehow get opened, so we will have to be -- we will have to keep an eye on that and
make sure Bruce is in -- keep him informed, get his cell phone number at night, so -- but that's one of the reasons we did go to the gate is because bollards are so hard to decipher
and get through.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief. Okay. Any other testimony? Would the applicant like to comment? You have five minutes.
McKay: Only need two.
Bird: Only need two? Let's get timing that. That would be a first.
McKay: Time me. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to answer Mr. Belcher's concern about the pathway, we
did send our pathway connection and specifications over to the Meridian School District and it was reviewed by them and we were faxed back it says this appears to be a workable solution
for the walk path. They do have to
do some more monitoring, because you are providing another point of ingress and egress into a school site, but that's pretty normal when we have the pathways coming out of the residential
developments, so it's not an unusual situation. But I do think it's important that we make the connection. Secondly, the construction traffic. I believe Council should ask the staff
to add a condition that no construction traffic at any point in time ever be allowed down Duane Drive. There is a fence currently that's up there now, an agricultural fence. I think
it should stay there and be left there until such time as that southern portion develops into the residential and, then, obviously, we would put up some other type of barrier to keep
people from coming through there until the gate is installed when that street section is built. As far as the distribution of traffic, we have maintained that collector system and try
to distribute the traffic out to the arterials, because it does go out to Cloverdale and it does go on out to Ustick Road. It does add a considerable amount of expense to a particular
project, but it is preferable, because it creates an easy outlet to these arterials that are in alignment with other streets on the north and the east side. We appreciate your time.
We thank you. I would like to mention for the record that we did pay for the renoticing at the clerk's office. If there are any other fees, please, have Will's office let us know, but
we were told that we have paid all those fees and nothing else was owed. Thank you. We believe we have a good project and we ask for your support. We are happy that the neighbors like
it. It pleased me that we got such complimentary comments tonight. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Becky. I guess I do have a question. What is an agricultural fence?
McKay: Pardon?
De Weerd: I just want the definition of an agricultural fence.
McKay: It's barbed wire at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. But I mean is it standing? I have seen agricultural fences
and --
McKay: It's got a little bit of a lean to it. The cows sometimes jump through it, according to the neighbor that lives next door.
De Weerd: You may want to put something there
in addition to that.
McKay: Yes, ma'am.
Bird: Hang some flags, so the cows can see the flags. Madam Mayor, I have got a question for Becky.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Becky, first
of all, I want to compliment you on redoing it and making the neighbors happier, but I have got one question. One of the reasons we turned it down was that
western most portion. We asked for some kind of a development plan or something for over there. It's not a real big hang up with me, but it is -- we need to know -- I mean we know what
it -- we know what it's zoned and what's allowed in the zoning, but we also know that zonings get changed when you come in and ask for them. I just -- I don't know how the rest of the
Council feels, I just would like -- I'd like to have seen some kind of a development plan or some kind of a footprint for that, if we are annexing it and bringing it in. That's my personal
feeling.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, that's a valid comment. The problem that I have with doing a development or a concept on that is those people are not my clients. If I
come up with a concept that -- since they don't have any idea of what they are going to do, I don't have -- one, I don't have any direction. And, two, I'm not sure that if that -- that
would scare them or what. I guess I'd have to rely on Mr. Nichols to help me out here on how do you deal with a situation like that. If it's a condition that a planned development --
overall plan has to be brought in before those properties could ever develop and come back before this Council, I guess at that time I think the Council would have that leverage of that
regardless of what the zone is, if it doesn't meet the criteria of the Comp Plan and your staff is not happy with it and it doesn't meet this Council's vision, you have every right to
say that's not what we are looking for, go back to the drawing board. I think you should put a very restrictive condition that that's -- a plan has got to come back to you guys. It can't
be developed unless that happens. I guess that's all I can offer up to you.
Bird: And I agree with you, Becky, and I think it's got to be very strong in there and I realize that is
not part of -- but it is -- the problem it is -- it's the ground that's getting you annexed for your development, so we do have to have something very strong in there and I'm sure Mr.
Nichols can figure out the language for that.
McKay: He's a word wizard.
Bird: He's a word wizard.
De Weerd: We wouldn't even try to --
Bird: Thank you very much.
De Weerd:
Is there any further questions? We will ask for additional testimony, so we may see you for further rebuttal if we need to.
McKay: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay.
Is there any further testimony?
Cole: I didn't plan on speaking, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Cole: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name
and address and spell your last name.
Cole: Susan Cole. 16660 Franklin Boulevard in Nampa. C-o-l-e. I represent my parents Jim and Irma Mittleider. They are the main out parcel on
the -- right there. It's the five acre parcel. This is the first chance we have had to see the plan as they have redrawn it. As one of the neighbors, it would have been nice if we would
have been shown the plan, because they still have yet to do my parents' property correctly. There has been some dispute on the land size that my parents own and I'm seeing in their plan
that they still shorted my parents a lot of frontage on Granger, therefore, their access into this parcel here is still in question. So, I just -- I'd like some clarification as to how
they plan on accessing this, giving the dimensions that my parents' property is, because that was, I know, one of your guy's concerns in a previous meeting was the access to that property.
So, I just -- I haven't heard any testimony as to how they plan on doing that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much.
McKay: Becky McKay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as was
testified, this is an out parcel right here. The discrepancy that arose was the fact that this parcel and this parcel was part of like a plat that was done in 1909. On that particular
plat there were dimensions that did not match the scale and so the question arose of this old right of way that's here, Granger, runs straight and it's already existing, but not built,
it's just a driveway that goes down to the Mittleider's home. Where did that right of way lie? When we originally submitted the application we put that right of way where the land surveyor
indicated it was located, based on his analysis. Then, the -- this dimension here or the depth dimension was brought into question, they re-analyzed it and they stood by their position
on where that right of way was located. What I did was I moved that right of way further north to compensate for what they believed their right -- or their dimension was, because it
was important to them that this dimension stay at I believe it was 660 and they wanted to make sure that we did not encroach on their property. So, I moved that up there and, then, I
have been working with Altmans, because they have got existing right of way down their south boundary and their east boundary also, based on their plat, which was done in the '70s, to
work with them to drop that roadway down through their property and I had their property corner staked, we had their right of way staked, and I have been working with them on fencing
issues, on dollar value issues for that little right of way, even though that's existing right of way, they have been paying taxes on it I found out. So, I have been working with them
on dropping that street through there. We went through this at the ACHD commission and the commission determined at that time that was between property the owners to work out and we
also have to work with the Mittleiders on the piping of ditches, because I have already piped some of the ditches that take water to their property, so I will be glad to sit down and
meet with them. There was a time where they weren't -- there was no conversing going
on between my clients and them. Hopefully, we are passed that and I would be glad to sit down with them and go through this and work it out. But I adjusted my plan for what they believed
their -- what they owned, because I wanted to error on the side of caution. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. McKay,
there was also the question they said they didn't receive notice and I thought you folks had renoticed all of the surrounding property owners, so I didn't know how they didn't get noticed.
McKay: The staff -- Councilman Nary, the staff did renotice. I met with Mr. Belcher on Duane Drive and Mr. Altman and I gave a bunch of plans to them. I did not met with the Altmans,
because it was my understanding at the time that they didn't want to discuss it, they just wanted to be left alone. So, I did not make an overture to go meet with them, but they were
notified of the hearing. They are within 300 feet. We surround them.
Nary: I got it. Okay.
McKay: Yeah. They just didn't get a copy of the plan, but I would be glad to give them
a copy of the plan and sit down and go through it with them.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
De Weerd. Okay. Council? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird:
Hearing no further public testimony or Council, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 03-21, PP 03-024, CUP 03-041.
Nary: Second.
Bird: All for Redfeather Estates.
De
Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 12, 13 and 14 for Redfeather Estates. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would renew my question again now for Mr. Nichols on this. I think it's a significant change. I
think it's a good change. In fact, I did want to say to Mr. Groves and Mrs. McKay how much I think this is a great improvement. I think this is really a much nicer plan and a much --
a more cohesive plan from what we have seen, but it's a significantly different plan as well and I don't have the same concerns that Councilmember Bird has about the properties that
are along Eagle Road. I think we had that discussion last week as well. It is our responsibility to review rezone requests, when these folks are simply asking to be zoned at what we
anticipated or planned it to be and are willing to have a development agreement, so that we would see all changes that would come forward again, I don't -- it doesn't concern me that
we are opening the door to something that we are going to be sorry for. I think we will have -- we have the control over what that is, but since I do think it is some significant change,
although positive, that they have noticed up all the surrounding neighbors, they have a new staff report, it actually was recommended to be approved under the other plan, I guess I'm
a little stuck from a process standpoint as to whether or not we are required by our ordinance or state code to send that back for review to the Planning and Zoning Commission or we
can simply take action on it as it is.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nary: We are well protected if we have his -- and Mrs. McKay certainly thinks the world of Mr. Nichols' opinions.
Nichols:
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, be careful who offers you praise. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to the process, it starts with a determination by the Council
whether you believe there is a significant change or not. If the Council believes that it's a significant change from the prior submittal, taking into account the use as -- is the use
the same as what was proposed before or is it different. Is the density approximately the same or not. Taking all those various factors into account, if the Council determines it's a
significant change, then, it would need to go back in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. If the Council determines it's not a significant change, then, you would
direct -- you would make your decision on this revised plan and if your decision is favorable, you would direct us to prepare new findings reflecting your current decision.
De Weerd:
Thank you, Mr. Nichols.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I, for one, don't believe -- I think there is a change and it's very positive, but I don't believe it's big enough that we need to send it back down through.
They haven't changed the density of it. They have enlarged the lots where we asked them to. In fact, they went back and did everything that we asked them to do in the denial. So, I believe
that I would prefer to move onto it, have it out of here.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard from Mr. Bird. Anyone else care to comment?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary:
That was a really good lawyer-like answer from Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'm going to get the lawyer's answer now.
Nary: No. I would -- I guess what I would say is I do think it's a significant
change, but from a legal standpoint, as Mr. Nichols has pointed out, what a significant change from a legal perspective is change in use, change in density, not necessarily moving some
lots, not necessarily just adjusting some lot sizes, not necessarily making a little more green space or putting a pathway in a different spot. So, although from -- for appearance sake
it may be significant for the better, from a legal perspective I would agree with you, that I don't think it's a significant change to the degree that it requires another hearing at
the Planning and Zoning level and also because we have had the opportunity for the neighbors to have comment and to participate. So, I think it is -- I think it is adequate that the
changes that have been made are for the better and can go forward.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I also agree that the changes are positive. I
like the new design. I agree with both Councilman Nary and Bird that we don't need to remand this back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will agree with Mr. Nary that the path
of annexation through the commercial property, with the proper constraints, is something that we had a discussion about last week and will restate that that is within our best interest
to do.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any further comment?
Rountree: Thank you for the opportunity. I'll pass.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree.
Nary: He likes the short meetings.
De Weerd: Well --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no discussion, I will attempt to make sure I make this motion right. I would move -- and I will do it the long
-- the old long style, so that I get everything in there. I would move that we approve revised annexation and zoning AZ 03-021, of 114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 PD and C-G zones for the
proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates and for -- to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public testimony and for the attorney draw up new Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order showing such.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-021 for Redfeather Estates Subdivision
No. 2. Is there any further discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And just for the purpose of clarity of the record, I note in the staff report from Mr. Hawkins-Clark
of February 25th, 2004, that this is actually now an R-4 zone as well. So, it's not an R-8.
Bird: That's right. It's going to an R-4. I'm sorry. I know that, too. I just --
De Weerd:
Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item
No. 13.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we would also approve PP 03-024, the revised preliminary plat approve of 302 building lots and 28 other lots
on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-4 PD zone for the proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public testimony
and also to make
sure that Duane Drive has no construction or extra travel regarding this division of any kind and for the attorney to draw up revised Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
of Order.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Mr. Bird, would you, then -- does that include some extra barrier other than the agricultural fence?
Bird:
Yes. It's -- it's all the public testimony.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: And Mr. Word over here can write it up right. We know that.
Nary: We have heard it.
De Weerd: Because he is
so good.
Bird: We know he can.
Nary: We will be hearing this back in July when we do the budget over.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been -- is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will
you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird:
I would move that we approve the revised CUP 03-041, request for a CUP on Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 and to incorporate staff, applicant, and public testimony and for the attorney
to draw up the revised Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-041, Item
14. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you very much.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, and applicant, just so --
I'm going to need at least an extra week on these findings to get them straight. Okay? Not because I'm so wonderful, but my assistant, who is, is going to be on vacation next week.
Item
15: Public Hearing: PP 03-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 11 commercial building lots 1 common lot on 15.8 acres in a C-G zone for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron
– northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road:
Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 03-066 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a modification to the existing Conditional
Use Permit (Planned Development) for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron – northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Nichols.
And you do have a lot to live up to. Okay. Items 15 and 16, if the Council doesn't object, I will open up those two items for Public Hearing, PP 03-043 and CUP 03-066, for Sparrowhawk
Subdivision. I'll open this with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this property is along Franklin Road in what could now be called the demilitarized zone,
if anybody has tried to drive down it recently. Take your truck. It was the subject of a previous application for a Conditional Use Permit that included the Foothills Apartment Complex,
which development has begun on and that's in this portion there, so it's kind of a revised Conditional Use Permit for the remainder of the property. The apartments were done as the use
exception of the original planned development. This is the preliminary plat, which doesn't tell you much, so we are going to move onto this, because I think the site plan really shows
the development of this property much more and I'm going to be a bit effusive, because I have to admit that this, I think, is one of the nicer commercial designs that we have had come
through the office. The applicant has provided three buildings along the Franklin frontage and, then, three buildings behind. The parking is kind of tucked about in a nice pattern where
as you drive down Franklin you won't see a sea of parking. As you come down, these are the Foothill Apartments, this is the first part, and it connects over here right here. And, then,
you have three larger commercial places and, then, there is a grade break here, as you're aware. This is Nola Street and so -- then, this is kind of a stand-alone site that would take
access from Nola. These are the proposed building elevations for the offices. Oops. Wrong way. And I did want to point out one thing
regarding the eventual development here. As you know, they are going to open up the Locust Grove right of way through here and at that time when they do that, Nola will no longer have
an at-grade crossing across the railroad track. They are going to put a cul-de-sac I believe in this area here and, then, similarly, on the north they will cul-de-sac it there and remove
that at-grade crossing. So, our Comp Plan calls for a pathway along here, but there is some question as to, you know, it might be more appropriate to have it where they can actually
cross the street at an at-grade crossing. So, at the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant David Waldron did testify in favor of the application. There were two members of the
public who testified, expressing concerns about the proposed development. Those issues concerned largely the irrigation water and future delivery of water to and through this site. And,
then, the other item of discussion was deferral of some of the landscaping requirements until construction was a little bit more complete along Franklin Road and, then, the fencing requirements.
The key changes to staff modification done by the Commission -- there wasn't a major one. There was a minor modification made to the preliminary plat regarding mitigation of the trees
that will be removed on the site. The city arborist has gone out there and there are 62 inches of trees that need to be mitigated. And go back to the site plan. I forgot to mention one
thing. I pointed out the six buildings here. The applicant has provided a mini storage tucked at the northern end of the site that would provide a buffer from the office uses to the
more intense industrial uses that adjoin this property to the north. One of those property owners did submit a letter after the Planning and Zoning Commission, expressing concern about
the residential properties that may be coming. Craig Hood from our staff did talk to them -- I think it just -- when they saw subdivision, a lot of people I think automatically assume
it's a residential subdivision. So, I don't think they understood that it was a commercial application. So, I think he was able to discuss those concerns with the applicant and assure
them that this proposal did not include new residential, but there were the apartments as part of the original Conditional Use Permit, but there was no new residential associated with
this project. And with that I will end staff's testimony.
De Weerd: Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant or representative here? Come on forward. Were you sworn in?
Waldron:
I was.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will just state your name and address.
Waldron: My name is David Waldron, 100 9th Street in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Waldron: Madam Mayor and
Council Members, I will be very very brief here. There you go. I should have Becky here to make my presentation. I just would like to emphasize that I feel this is the new and improved
plan. There is a new development entity involved here and the philosophy that we follow is to do very presentable projects. This one represents quite a bit less density than the other
ones. I feel a lot more harmony in the
overall organization. So, I -- we have paid a lot of attention to the appearance of the project from Franklin and we feel that it's not only an asset to the community, but it will be
an asset to us in the marketing of the property. So, I think with that I will just answer questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: Madam
Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm just curious as to the transition between this piece, which is -- I guess this is Nola; right? So, this is the western part.
Waldron: That's
correct.
Nary: And, then, this piece -- because here you got these smaller little buildings in sort of a blending of the landscaping right into the buildings and the parking behind
that, I really think -- I agree with Mrs. Powell, this is very -- a different looking design, a very positive looking design, but this doesn't quite look like that. So, I'm curious as
to what was the rationale you had here, because this looks like two different people, so --
Waldron: There is, actually, two reasons for it. One is the concern with continuing with
the same pattern all the way down. It's quite a lengthy piece of property and I just -- I didn't want to be counterproductive with the appearance by having more repetition. The site
also drops off as it heads north and so the three buildings that I'm showing there are larger buildings, but they are going to be sitting down lower, so they will -- the profile from
Franklin will be much lower.
Nary: I thought the grade was here. So, the grade is here?
Waldron: Well, there is actually --
Nary: Or there is two?
Waldron: If I can figure this
out. There is actually a grade drop that runs along here and continues on about there. It drops off to the north. The self-storage units right in here are, actually, set down about six
to eight feet below the rest of it, so there will be a retaining wall right along there.
Nary: But this piece here going westbound, is this where the crest of the hill is?
Waldron:
There is a crest right exactly -- and then -- correct.
Nary: Okay. So, that makes sense.
Bird: You go north and you go west?
Waldron: Exactly.
Nary: I got it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who
would like to provide testimony? I believe I have a Rod Cullip. Would you like to provide testimony?
Cullip: And I did swear.
De Weerd: I did see you.
Cullip: Yes.
De Weerd:
If you will just state your name and address.
Cullip: Rod Cullip. 1821 East Franklin Road. I live directly across from the -- can I show you here?
De Weerd: Yes. You can take the
--
Cullip: Okay. I believe John Anderson lives right here in the unplatted area and, actually, right here is where this drops off down to this section here. I just wanted to clarify
that, because this all is pretty much the same grade up through here, all the way across this. This used to be the old Barker place. And he is correct that right here is where it drops
off -- about halfway through this lot it drops straight off down to what is now known as the industrial park area. So, that was just my clarification there.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Cullip:
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony?
Anderson: I swore earlier.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will just state your name and
address.
Anderson: My name is John Anderson and I live at 120 North Nola Road, which is the unplatted property there on the northwest side of this project. I have a few concerns, mainly
with the irrigation, and I guess I'm just -- you know, I also work for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, so I guess it's just -- I don't want nothing to happen on my own property.
Currently, our existing irrigation district comes through -- our irrigation
ditch right now currently crosses through this area right here and comes on back and I haven't seen the irrigation plans. I have put in writing. I have testified earlier. I would like
to be a big part of that. I am the water master for that section of ditch and represent several hundred homes in Greenhill Estates, as well as our own property, and Rod's and the other
property, that that needs to be insured that that's kept in good working order. It needs to supply water for about 250 miner inches of water or five cubic feet per second. I'd like to
review the irrigation plan. I'd hope that the City Council would make that part of the conditions on these people and as the irrigation district representative -- I will switch hats
here for a minute -- it is not a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District facility. The Nampa-Meridian ends with the -- what's known as the Barker Lateral up on Eagle Road, this is a continuation
of it, and to my knowledge now currently is the only way for this lateral to continue through and back into the Five Mile Drain to the west. It has to be left open. If this thing's interfered
with in the summertime during water flow, it would shut the entire lateral down. We would have nowhere to go with the wastewater without making a whole bunch of new ditches, which I
don't think we should have to as homeowners. The new design -- I will skip hats here again. The new design with the -- putting the storage units down, the only concern I have there as
a homeowner is what are they going to do with the drainage water. If it's being retained on site, I have no problem. Typically, they are going to have a lot of asphalt there and I would
be concerned on my own property that that water come down and possibly put pollutants down on my own property, leaving me with a problem to deal with. Hopefully, that's addressed and
I didn't know if the drainage plan had changed since they developed this and that's all I had. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, John. Any questions for John? Thank you. Okay.
Is there any further testimony? Would the applicant like to come up and respond?
Waldron: Certainly. I'm very respectful of the --
De Weerd: Just restate your name.
Waldron: David
Waldron. 100 9th Street in Boise. Respectful of the concerns of Mr. Anderson and we are fully aware of the requirements of the irrigation system and it's our intent to pipe that system
and we completely understand that we are not going to be able to exercise any construction during the summer season until next October. So, I'm very happy to share our irrigation plan
when it's completed with him and we review it, so --
De Weerd: Okay. And in terms of drainage?
Waldron: The drainage will be on site completely, so --
De Weerd: Is there any questions
for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Council?
Rountree: Hearing no further comments, Madam Mayor, I'd move to close the hearing.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Is that close 15 and 16?
Rountree: Fifteen and sixteen.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close 15 and 16. All those in favor say
aye. Thank you. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would move that we approve the conditional use
request for Item No. 16, CUP 03-066 for Sparrowhawk Subdivision, have the attorney prepare the appropriate documents and include staff comments and the testimony that we have heard tonight.
Bird: Madam Mayor, before I second that, we have to do 15 first, the preliminary plat.
Rountree: Oh, I'm -- excuse me.
De Weerd: He just likes to be unorthodox.
Rountree: I'm
one ahead of myself here.
Nary: So much for short meetings.
Bird: I like that, Charlie.
Rountree: Can we do them both at the same?
Nary: Sure.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I respectfully
request that you disregard that previous motion and move that we approve the preliminary plat for Sparrowhawk Subdivision, PP 03-043, and have the attorney prepare appropriate documentation
and including staff comments and the comments heard this evening.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-043 for Sparrowhawk Subdivision. Is
there any further discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: No, I just wanted -- I know Mr. Nichols will catch this, but just so the folks that are here know, I mean as part of this and probably
the next one, we will make sure to put in the conditions regarding the drainage -- the drainage plan, irrigation plan, all of those things. I know Mr. Nichols would catch that, because
I know he's really great at this, but so they know, since they are here, we will -- that's what we mean when we talk about all staff comments and all public comments, so --
Nichols:
Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, I intend to include a condition that would require not necessarily as a condition of approval that Mr. Anderson approve
the plans, but, certainly, that the developer provide the plans to him, so that he can make sure that his water rights are protected and he can work that -- I mean if there is a problem,
state code requires that they not interfere with your water right and you can certainly notify us if you think those plans are inadequate and you're not able to resolve that with the
developer.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nichols: That's the way we usually do them.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion by Council?
Nary: No.
De Weerd: You can get further clarification
from our staff or attorney afterwards. Okay. Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd:
Thank you. When the Public Hearing is closed we can't entertain any -- okay. Item 16. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for Item
No. 16, CUP 03-066 for Sparrowhawk Subdivision, include staff comments and comments received as testimony, and have the attorney prepare appropriate documentation, including those comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-066 for Sparrowhawk Subdivision. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle,
yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 03-068 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional office and retail use in a C-G zone as required
by the Final Plat for Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams – south of North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 17 is a Public
Hearing for CUP 03-069, Mallane Professional Offices. I will open with Brad.
Watson: Madam Mayor, this is a little unusual. Anna has excused herself from this one, because of who is
involved in the project. I think the civil engineer on this is B&A Engineers, if that sheds any light on it. So, this is my first ever staff report on a land use application and I was
briefed briefly by Steve Siddoway this afternoon, so I'll stumble through this. This is a conditional use application for one of the undeveloped lots in Mallane Subdivision off of Fairview
and Hickory. There is the aerial. Specifically, this project includes an office building, professional office and retail use in a C-G zone. This shows the proposed office building on
the north side of the lot. There is a little bit of landscaping. This was the slide that Steve was showing me mostly this afternoon. The darkly shaded area is what they are proposing
to build immediately. There is a mirror part -- a mirrored image of that showing -- shown on the southeast part of the lot that they would propose at some point in the future. The reason
this is even here as a Conditional Use Permit is because when the original plat was approved Council had a condition that anything that came in on this subdivision would go through the
CUP process and, evidently, there is a note on that plat so indicating. Evidently, that was required because of Council wanted to consider impacts on Dove Meadows Subdivision in each
of these projects. A summary of the P&Z recommendation showed that the applicant testified, no other testimony from the public was given. The one thing to note is the commission did
change several of the staff comments and those are noted in special considerations and I don't know that they are of any great magnitude and Steve said that he has met with the consultant
-- or applicant and worked out most of those. The one thing that he did want me to note on the landscaping special consideration is page four of the staff report, was that surety for
landscaping on Mallane Subdivision has expired and that he felt that needed to be provided again. Maybe the applicant can work -- or help me out on this one. It sounds like he and Steve
had had a conversation on it. And the one -- one other thing that Steve noted to me is that -- that easel might be in the way for some of you -- down on the south part of this project
the staff required that a temporary extruded curb be placed along -- well, actually, I think down here along this drive aisle prior to certificate of occupancy on this main building,
but the applicant indicated that they thought they might be in the process of getting a tenant for this and,
thus construct it at the same time. So, Steve's suggestion was that at -- prior to CO on this building, that either this curb be in place or that the applicant provide documentation
in the form of an agreement between the applicant and the tenant that this was underway. So, it was kind of an either/or condition on that. And I think those are the only points that
Steve asked me to point out. And if you have any questions, I will sluggishly try to answer those.
De Weerd: Well, thank you so much, Brad. That was a wonderful attempt. First and
greatest presentation I have heard. Okay. Any questions for Brad?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant here? We will struggle to come up with some questions just
because of you, Brad.
Watson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Tom, were you sworn in --
Williams: Yes, I was.
De Weerd: -- in the group process?
Williams: You couldn't see me. I was
back there behind the crowd.
De Weerd: Okay. Just state your name and address, please.
Williams: Tom Williams. 2127 Overland, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Williams: Thank
you. And he did quite well for a complicated little project here. The owner of this piece of land has asked to build an office for himself and some lease space at the current time as
we speak and maybe within the next month he may have a tenant for the remainder of the building, but he was not wanting to put that building up until he had a confirmed lease for it
and that's, therefore, you know, is why the project is coming in, you know, half of the lot being developed and there is, you know, a question of this area -- what's been going on there.
At the last meeting it was agreed to that at the time that he's ready for an occupancy permit of his building here, if he does not have a tenant and we are not underway with plans and
construction here, that he would seed that and irrigate it and plant it in grass and maintain it, so -- some of the other comments -- the original plan we submitted we have modified
the trash enclosure, we have provided a lane for the garbage trucks, we have added landscape islands, for which there will be, you know, trees in each of the landscape islands. The parking
development for this phase of the project, the parking -- tracing the line of the parking there and this parking up here, is what would be developed at this time. In the future
when this is developed, the remainder of the paths developed, they would, you know, finish this along here, build their sidewalk to connect it back to the street front and finish these
parking spots here and, then, the site retainage -- runoff retainage area currently is here and at the time that this is developed our civil engineer has assured us that he has a way
to, you know, redirect that, reroute it, possibly move it over into this area, but that our -- you know, our runoff retainage would always be on site. You know, some other comments were
the parking lot dimensions. We had 20 foot parking stalls and 24 foot lanes and the City of Meridian wants 25 and 19, so it's just a matter of a foot of paint, you know, however we arrange
that. This revised plan indicates that has been done. The landscaping, as I spoke of, you know, on the site to city standards, with -- and the extruded curb would be along this area
here and the request for extruded curb at this time would be intended to be a temporary solution until the remainder of this lot develops. At that time, then, a sidewalk and curb and
gutter would be put in permanently there. There was some discussion about signage and that the tenant that's moving in already has his sign bought. The 18 percent of the face of building
would allow 103 square feet and he is proposing to put a 36 foot -- 36 square foot sign on the front of his building. We are well within that. One of the -- I think the biggest challenge
that we ran into on this is that the original developer of this property -- it may be a question of whether they have followed through with their obligation to be able to sell the land.
We found out that there was a bunch of landscaping along this whole -- from -- there is a dashed line along there to the back of the sidewalk that's a requirement of the subdivision
for landscaping. As you look at the development, the entire site plan, that landscaping border pretty well surrounds the entire site and there is a -- I think it's about a 250 or 300
foot block screening wall that's yet to be built on the northwest edge of this lot right next to it. One of the conditions that was put upon us was that we could not pull a building
permit until the bond for that is renewed. Apparently the bond has expired with the city and we stumbled across it and found that when we were in last time. One of the conditions --
another condition would be that all the landscaping and all the improvements from the original developer have to be in place before our client can get an occupancy permit and that puts
him in kind of precarious situation at this time and I would ask the current staff to, you know, help expedite that. You know, we are not in here to do that, but, you know, I have a
client that's getting caught up in this thing and I think the City of Meridian has an obligation to go back and review what was required in the bonds and to help get it accomplished.
And with that I would welcome questions.
De Weerd: Any questions for the applicant's representative?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No, there is no questions. Thank you, Tom.
Williams:
Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on this item?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Hearing none -- Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do have a question now that the bond thing was brought up. Brad -- and you might not know. The bond expired, but do we still have the bond?
If we have got the bond, we can have the service done and the bond can pay for it.
Watson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I suppose Will and I could both team up on this one, since
we are the ones that handle this most of the time. They have expiration dates on them. I believe they were notified that they need to provide a renewed letter of credit. I had a strange
voicemail several weeks ago from somebody with some bank claiming it was on its way, but I have yet to see it. There are several items wrapped up in that surety. There is landscape.
A wall. Water. And I believe even streetlights. I think. I'm not -- I'm not sure. But if you recall, there is three unactivated street lights along there that need to be hooked up. I
don't know if one of them is on this property or not. But all of those things do need to be done and that's why we had put a hold on building permits on any lot within that subdivision,
because the bond -- or the surety had expired. At that point, even if we asked for a new one, the only other mechanism we have is to withhold building permits.
De Weerd: Okay. Yes.
Williams: Tom Williams. This last week, you know, we were told that the -- it's D.L. Evans, I believe it is, that's -- yeah. Right there. D.L. Evans. They posted a bond on behalf of
the previous owner -- or the developer, I should say, and it's also our understanding that the water line and sewer lines have yet to even be final inspected into this project. So, that's
also a question we need to find out for our client. But the -- and I understand that the bond that was posted is for, you know, a fraction of what it would really cost to get this work
done. So, you know, help my client out here if you can, so --
Watson: Madam Mayor, just a clarification. The water system is undergoing tests and I just heard that this morning all
of the bacteria tests have passed, except one, so they had one fail, so that that is underway. The letter of credit is not just a fraction of what it would cost to complete it. We insure
that whatever they post is sufficient to complete the improvements. He may have had partial completions on some of those things. So, we don't make them post for those, for the part that's
completed. We could go back -- and I don't know if it affects this application, but we can go back and research as a whole whether some surety came into the city somewhere and Will and
I just don't have it. If D.L. Evans said they issued one, then, I would believe that they probably did. It's a matter of finding it now.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Madam Mayor,
Members of the Council. Brad, let me make sure I'm understanding what the issue is. The property, apparently, has already been sold to the
developer's -- or the applicant's person. The property is closed. This subdivision lot is sold; is that correct? Does the developer have any remaining property in that subdivision that's
unsold that you know of?
Watson: Mr. Nichols, I don't know if that -- if I can answer that absolutely sure. D.L. Evans Bank owns one lot and Louie's Restaurant owns another lot. I
don't recall an application on this lot, but maybe it did -- no, there was one. There was an application probably four or five months ago on this lot. So, I just don't know for sure.
Nichols: But you believe that there is -- if the surety has been renewed or is renewed, that there is adequate basis there to pay for the landscaping, the block wall, and any other
improvements that were required as part of the initial development?
Watson: Yes.
Nichols: And it seems to me in a prior application one of the reasons for the delay in some of those
improvements is because the lots hadn't been completely sold and there wasn't reason to have, for example, the landscaping completed along that Hickory, because there wasn't anything
out there yet, it was better to leave it as a vacant lot. That seems to be my recollection. Is that what you remember?
Watson: Mr. Nichols, I'm certainly not the landscape expert here.
All I can go by is what Steve had in his staff report that said the street buffer landscape along North Hickory Way was previously approved and required as part of the subdivision improvements
with the final plat. However, it has not yet been constructed and the bond, which is, actually, a letter of credit for the landscaping, has expired. So, he recommends that either that
be renewed or they be completed prior to issuance of a building permit.
De Weerd: Is there any further questions? Council, what would you like to do? We could continue this to get
more information on the bonding letter of credit or you can take action and let staff do that and report back during the finding, let you know if there is any issues remaining. What
would you like to do? We still have an open Public Hearing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: My preference would be to -- seeing how the Planning and Zoning and engineering
staff recommended to going on, I would like to go it on, but I think there has to be some stipulations that before the findings are approved that these gray areas are answered, you know,
what's left in the subdivision that has -- that hasn't been bought out and what kind of deal, but I, for one, would just as soon move on with it -- with the conditions.
De Weerd: Okay.
Any further discussion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would agree with Mr. Bird and feel that we could move forward and address these issues at the staff level.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, if there is no further
discussion, we certainly can close the Public Hearing.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd:
Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried:
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De
Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve CUP 03-068, Conditional Use Permit for Mallane Professional Offices and to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public comments.
Rountree: I'll second that.
De Weerd: Okay. And I'm sure to draw up the appropriate paperwork. Okay. Any further discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor? And that is to include to workout
the questions within the staff; right?
Wardle: Yes.
Bird: Okay. I thought it did.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols, is that clear as mud?
Nichols: Clear.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary thinks that this another opportunity to comment on how great you are. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-68. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18: Ordinance No. : AZ 03-033 Request for annexation and zoning of 10.05 acres
from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development – north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 18 is Ordinance
04-1068 on AZ 03-033 for Baldwin Park Addition. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1068, an
Ordinance finding that John L. Kennedy, the owner of certain real property generally located approximately one half mile north of Ustick Road and one half mile west of Meridian Road,
within Section 36 of Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Baldwin Park Addition 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 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 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, Mr. Clerk. Well, you have heard this
ordinance by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? It could be exciting. Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion on this item.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De
Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move we approve Ordinance No. 04-1068 with suspension of rules.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 04-1068. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle,
yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19: Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 19 is the 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, March 2nd, 2004, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to
be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on March
3rd, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Okay. They are hereby informed that they
may appeal and 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 $20,251.67. Council, I would entertain a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the delinquency turnoff list
for March 3rd, 2004, in the amount of $20,251.67.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the delinquency turnoff list for March 3rd, 2004. Any further
discussion? Anyone on the list? Your last chance. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd:
Thank you. You know, I really have a question why they have a right to a pre-termination hearing at 7:30 when it's always at the end of our agenda.
Bird: That's what I have always wondered.
Why do we say 7:30 when, you know --
Berg: It should say 7:00.
Bird: It should say 7:00?
Berg: That's when the City Council meeting starts.
De Weerd: Do we have to have the time in this?
Berg: I think, Madam Mayor, it should say 7:00 o'clock and that's when our meeting
starts. So, you would have to put when our meeting starts for them to have their hearing before the Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Chief, as you notice, tomorrow is turnoff day -- or, yes,
tomorrow. If you could, please, ask your officers to swing through here on occasion. Thank you so much.
Item 20: Executive Session:
De Weerd: Okay. We can move to Item No. 20. Do
I have a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move we go into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-2345(1)(b).
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's
been moved and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session pursuant
to state code 67-2345(1)(b). Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
_______________________________ ______/______/______
MAYOR TAMMEY
DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK