HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 06-08CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: Dave McKinnon
3. Community Invocation by Pastor Steve Moore, with Cherry Lane
Christian Church: Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes May 11, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04-
003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 16.73 acres from RUT
to R-8 zones for proposed Javdan Village Subdivision by
Packard Estates, LLC — 5325 West Ustick Road: Approve
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 75 residential building
lots and 8 common lots on 16.73 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Javdan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC —
5325 West Ustick Road: Approve
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks
for side entry garages for proposed Javdan Village Subdivision
by Packard Estates, LLC — 5325 West Ustick Road: Approve
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04-
004 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.6 acres from RUT to
Meridian City Council Agenda— June 8, 2004 Page I of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
I -L, L -O, and C -G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by
Falcon Creek, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and
West Ustick Road: Approve
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 commercial
building lots and 5 common lots on 34.6 acres in proposed I -L, L -O,
and C -G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon
Creek, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West
Ustick Road: Approve
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.7
acres in an I -L zone for Cafarelli Subdivision No. 2 by Shawn
Fickes — 1950 West Franklin Road: Approve
H. Water Main Easement for Citigroup 1 Idaho (Project Hercules)
by KDC-Idaho Investments: Approve
Streetlight Agreement for Fulfer Subdivision No. 1: Approve
Streetlight Agreement for Lochsa Falls #7: Approve
K. Agreement with Aspire On: Approve
L. Finch Lateral Crossing with 12" Water Main: Approve
M. Award of Bid to Star Construction. LLC for Well No. 20
Pressure Zone Separation at Ustick Road: Approve
N. Waterline Latecomer's Agreement — Well 20 PRV: Approve
O. Broker Recommendation: Approve
P. BPA Agreement: Approve
6. Department Reports
A. Mayor's Office
Mayor's Report:
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Nothing
Meridian City Council Agenda — June 8, 2004 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
8. Request for Reconsideration: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47
acres from R-4 to L -O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: Deny
9. Request for Reconsideration: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval for 15 building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot
on 9.47 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods
Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian
Road: Deny
10. Request for Reconsideration: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in
proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: Deny
11. TE 04-002 Request for a one year Time Extension on the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP 03-002) for Meridian Academy for an additional public
school classroom building by LKV Architects — 2311 East Lanark Street:
Approve
12. Public Hearing: Idaho Community Development E
Louisiana Pacific: Continue to June 15, 2004 Meeting
13. Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C -G zones for
proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. —
northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Continue to July 6, 2004 Meeting
14. Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request
for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38
acres in a proposed C -G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision
by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — northeast corner of East Victory Road and
South Meridian Kuna Highway: Continue to July 6, 2004 Meeting
15. Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
construction of a combination feed store and gas station / convenience
store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and
residential uses to remain and the property for proposed Mussell Corner
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East
Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Continue to July 6,
2004 Meeting
16. Public Hearing: MI 04-004 Request for a Miscellaneous request for an
amendment to the Development Agreement for Resolution Subdivision
Meridian City Council Agenda —June 8, 2014 Page 3 of 4
Al I materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
No. 1 by Aspen Grove Development, LLC — south of East Overland Road
at Celebration Avenue and Gala Street: Attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
17. Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4
to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm,
Inc. — east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road:
Continue to July 15, 2004 Meeting
18. Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79
single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in
proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by
Sutherland Farm, Inc. — east of South Eagle Road and north of east
Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 15, 2004 Meeting
19. Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in
addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79
single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 with request for
reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. — east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 15,
2004 Meeting
20. Public Hearing: PFP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
of 2 building lots on 2.3 acres in an I -L zone for Haztech Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 475 North Linder Road: Attorney to Prepare
Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
21. Public Hearing: AZ 04-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.22
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake —
2855 Magic View Drive: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
22. Tabled from June 1, 2004: Ordinance No. Parks and
Recreation Commission Ordinance: Table to June 15, 2004 Meeting
23. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c): No Decision
Meridian City Council Agenda —June 8, 2004 Page 4 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PRE -COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Roll -call Attendance:
Shaun Wardle Bill Nary
Charlie Rountree Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Discussion of Open Burning Amended Ordinance:
(*10 minutes)
4. Discussion of Fireworks Amended Ordinance:
(*10 minutes)
5. Every 15 minutes Tape:
(* 20 minutes)
6. Valley Ride — Kelly Fairless:
(*20 minutes)
*Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on
discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only.
Meridian City Pre -Council Agenda — June 8, 2004 Page 1 of 1
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meetina June 8, 2004.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:25 P.M.,
Tuesday, June 8, 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, Steve Siddoway, Brad Watson, Captain
Overton, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Doug Strong, 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: I will go ahead and start the regular meeting for City Council. It's Tuesday,
June 8th. I'd like to welcome you all here. Appreciate your patience. We are still not
online, but I think we can get through as much business as we can until we need our
computers. So, I appreciate your patience and please bear with us. Technology is
great, but it's not infallible. So, we will begin with -- I will call roll, since the city clerk is
on the phone.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the pledge of allegiance and since we don't have Boy Scouts,
we will use our Boy Scout alternate and that's Dave McKinnon. If you will, please, lead
us in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Steve Moore, with Cherry Lane
Christian Church:
De Weerd: Thank you, David. I think the pledge really has extra significance with us
having the largest deployment in the history of our state and I guess it's very appropriate
to pledge allegiance to our flag and to keep in mind those men and women who will be
leaving this week for Texas. And with that I will introduce Item No. 3 and that is our
community invocation by Pastor Steve Moore with the Cherry Lane Christian Church.
Moore: Would you bow your heads with me, please. Our Father in Heaven, we have
been reminded these last couple of weeks what a wonderful nation we live in and the
price that's been paid by people on D -Day and World War II and through the season of
Memorial weekend and we are grateful for that, God, that we can worship you and
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 2 of 58
move about freely and choose to own a business or get an education or whatever it is,
we really have so many rights here, it's unprecedented in the history of the world and
we thank you for that and we give credit to you for directing us and our forefathers in
that regard. And as our Mayor has mentioned this evening, we also with that think of
men and women in this community and our city who are going to be separated from
their families, who are just regular people that have jobs and our next door neighbors
and they are going to go put their lives on the line in harm's way to make the world a
better place to live and we ask that you, God, would go with them and protect them. For
us here in Meridian tonight, God, we live in a wonderful city and, as usual, we have
tensions facing us and issues about traffic and our schools are full and pressure about
subdivisions and we want to maintain our rights and limit our laws and people that own
lands don't want to be told altogether how to use their land and when they can sell and
when they can't, others want to preserve their lifestyle and I think most of us in this room
wouldn't really want to trade places with these leaders in our community that are seated
in front of me and so I ask you to bless them and give them wisdom in the awesome
responsibility that they have chosen and have accepted on our behalf. None of us have
all the answers. I pray that we would be civil in the treatment of each other and
listeners and workers and we just -- you said ask for wisdom, so that's what we are
doing tonight is asking for wisdom and, God, we just will praise you for the goodness
that's in our life and give you the glory and I ask your blessing and direction on this
meeting, in Jesus name, Amen.
De Weerd: Thank you. I hope that it bought us some time, too, Mr. Clerk.
Moore: I should have prayed for God to send somebody to fix the computers.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: It would be a nice extra request. We do appreciate the faith community that
-- this new partnership that we have enjoyed. We have had all of the faith community
join us during this part of our meeting to become community partners with us and we
appreciate that and for those who don't wish to pray, you know, this is a good moment
to reflect and we appreciate you all being here tonight. No. 4 is the adoption of the
agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We need to add a couple things to our agenda. Under Consent Agenda we need
an Item P, which is the BPA contract between the city and BPA. And also the Mayor
has asked if, with permission of the Council, on Item No. 23, an Executive Session, as
per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c). And with that I would move that we adopt the
revised agenda as noted.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 3 of 58
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as revised. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes May 11, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04-
003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 16.73 acres from RUT
to R-8 zones for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by
Packard Estates, LLC — 5325 West Ustick Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 75 residential building
lots and 8 common lots on 16.73 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC —
5325 West Ustick Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks
for side entry garages for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision
by Packard Estates, LLC — 5325 West Ustick Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04-
004 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.6 acres from RUT to
I -L, L-0, and C -G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by
Falcon Creek, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and
West Ustick Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 commercial
building lots and 5 common lots on 34.6 acres in proposed I -L, L-0,
and C -G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon
Creek, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West
Ustick Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.7
acres in an I -L zone for Cafarelli Subdivision No. 2 by Shawn
Fickes — 1950 West Franklin Road:
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 4 of 58
H. Water Main Easement for Citigroup 1 Idaho (Project Hercules)
by KDC-Idaho Investments:
I. Streetlight Agreement for Fulfer Subdivision No. 1:
J. Streetlight Agreement for Lochsa Falls #7:
K. Agreement with Aspire On:
L. Finch Lateral Crossing with 12" Water Main:
M. Award of Bid to Star Construction, LLC for Well No. 20
Pressure Zone Separation at Ustick Road:
N. Waterline Latecomer's Agreement — Well 20 PRV:
O. Broker Recommendation:
P.
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the revised Consent Agenda, adding Item P, the
BPA contract, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk attest to all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda
as amended. Any further discussion? 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. Mayor's Report:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 6 has been taken care of on the Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 5 of 58
Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
De Weerd: So, we have no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8: Request for Reconsideration: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47
acres from R-4 to L -O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road:
Item 9: Request for Reconsideration: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval for 15 building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot
on 9.47 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods
Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian
Road:
Item 10: Request for Reconsideration: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in
proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: We will move onto Item 8 -- 8, 9 and 10 are all related, so I will -- whose is
this?
Nary: I think --
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Just to introduce this to Council, what the circumstance were, we all recall
Southwood Development was on last week, it was denied by us and the reason we
articulated denial was that there were -- it was not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Part of this development was an office portion, an L -O portion, that would not be
consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. I received a call the next day from the
planning director for the city. Mrs. Powell indicated that that provision that we had had
concerns with and that we had already expressed a desire for the planning department
to bring about a Comprehensive Plan change, was intended to be before us within the
next couple of weeks. What she had indicated was that she had spoken with the
developer of this project and felt it was appropriate at least for us, if we wished to
consider this matter, if the only determination for denial at this juncture was the
condition regarding the Comprehensive Plan, that since we may be eliminating that in
the next few weeks at our direction, that we would consider putting this back on our
agenda for discussion on whether or not there are other things that we want to consider
about this project, without it going back through the whole process all over, since it
would be the same project we would see again. I told her I had no objection to that.
That was the articulated reason for denial at this juncture. It doesn't mean that would be
the only issue before us, there certainly may be a number of issues. We didn't get to
those, because we didn't need to get to those at the denial stage, so that was -- I guess
was my doing that it was on our agenda. I told her I would move to reconsider this
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 6 of 58
matter. We simply would be resetting this to a later date, probably 45 or 60 days from
now, to make -- to see if the other process gets completed and at least the
Comprehensive Plan portion was not the issue any longer and I bring that before you
and if -- have I missed anything, Mr. Siddoway?
Siddoway: I could provide some further details on the timeline for that Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Nary: Oh, that would be great.
Siddoway: I went back after the last City Council meeting with the direction from the
Mayor and Council and stated that we did need to get working on that right away.
Wendy Kirkpatrick, who had been originally working on the consistency matrix, has
taken the relevant items related to the L -O zoning issues and a couple of other things.
This is still a rough draft, but I do have, in rough draft form, from her still to be reviewed
by Anna, that text amendment. So, it's very much -- it is underway. It would need -- as
a Comprehensive Plan amendment; it would need to go through the Planning and
Zoning Commission first. So, we could get this completed and in the process before our
next deadline day, which is a week from today, on the 15th of June. Typically, that
deadline day would be for the August 5th hearing date with Planning and Zoning. If we
wanted to try and expedite this, we could potentially get it on one of the later meetings
in July. The Planning and Zoning Commission has so many applications before them
that they have added a third meeting in July already on the 29th, but possibly the 15th
or the 29th or if we were to stick with the standard timeline, it would go to August 5th.
But -- and, then, following that to Council approximately one month out. But we do have
it ready in draft form. It will be finalized within the next week.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: There is no guarantee that this is going to be passed when it does come through,
as stated by the deal. I, for one -- I don't know, I can't speak for the other three
Councilmen. I, for one -- that wasn't my big reason for turning the project down. I had
more reason than that. I mean I'd sooner see offices along Meridian Road, than see the
Alzheimer's unit back where it's at. I think it was Councilman Rountree that suggested it
come down in the middle on the edge. I could probably live with that. The guy -- the
gentleman -- the applicant was stating that it was going to be one attendant to two or
three patients and, then, he tells us for 12 hours during the night it's going to be two to
16, two attendants to 16 people. Well, Alzheimer's people that have that disease don't
always have their days and nights coordinated, so it was more than just the zoning for
me than that on that project. I would have to see a lot more on the preliminary plat
change than what there is.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 7 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would voice my concern over the annexation and the changes
that need to be made and commend the staff for bringing those changes forward within
our process to go to the Public Hearing and so for that, certainly, we needed to make
those changes and need to see all of those things come within our process, but for this
specific project that was not my only concern and I'll agree with Mr. Bird, that I had other
concerns than the specific zoning of the project and so that's my opinion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm just confused on the process. If we did take action on reconsideration,
does that mean the hearing held would, then, become open again and would remain
open until such time as there was some action taken on the rezoning or the amendment
of the Comp Plan, at which time, if it was favorable, that this request would move
forward again in through the hearing process? What does the reconsideration mean and
how does it fit with the normal process?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, since the decision is not final until
written findings have been adopted by the Council, the Council has the ability to
reconsider its decision. If it moves to reconsider, what that requires, then, would be a
reopening of the issue. If additional testimony and the information is going to be
received, which in this case it would be this change to the Comp Plan, so, yes, there
would need to be a reopening of the Public Hearing, a noticing, mailing, all of those
things to folks, so that they have the opportunity to come back and speak to the issue in
light of the revised Comp Plan language or any other amendments that the applicant
might want to make to the project. But it would require a reopening of the record and a
new Public Hearing for that.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, does that answer your question?
Rountree: That answers my question.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: And with that we still have discussion. If all the planets line up with that
explanation, it's still in a Public Hearing process, I don't have any difficulty with the
reconsideration thought, but I'm not sure what that buys anybody.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 8 of 58
Nary: Yeah. And I don't know that it buys anybody a whole lot, other than simply the -- I
guess not having the develop -- the developer simply resubmit the same project over 60
to 90 days from now. If we are going to be readdressing this at some juncture within 90
days to 120 days, it doesn't make a lot of sense to resubmit it and I think that was -- and
that was, really, my only reason. It wasn't because I think -- and I think I made it clear to
Mrs. Powell, I think there wasn't any -- there wasn't -- it wasn't that everyone only
focused on one issue, it's just that that was the only necessity that we needed to focus
on a week ago. If that necessity may be changed at that particular point, we could
certainly reconsider the rest of it, but it makes really no difference to me if we want to
not reconsider it, they would just simply resubmit it and we will have it back in front of us
anyway, the same folks that have had concerns will express them to us again, it will go
back through the planning and zoning process and it will come back to us. It's simply
the -- I guess the one advantage to doing this from the applicant's standpoint is they
don't have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and probably for the
people that are opposed to it, they don't have to go back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission again to express their same concerns, they are going to have to come
here, because this is really, ultimately, where the final decision is going to get made.
So, I guess if you're looking from that perspective, then, I guess from that I think there is
some value to that.
Rountree: Yes, I do.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Nary, I would ask -- and Mr. Nichols, if the reason for denial was
just that, you don't get the basis for the applicant on what they need to change, if they
wish to resubmit it, or if those things were offered, if they wish to resubmit it for your
reconsideration, those would be a significant change that it would probably necessitate
going back to Planning and Zoning. So, I would just offer those observations as well.
And, Mr. Nichols, I guess when it was denied, was it denied based on just that reason or
were there additional incompatibility issues also stated, since none of us can pull any of
that up? I would go by your memory.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, let me look at my notes for just a
minute. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would like to look at the minutes,
which I don't have, but the -- my notes indicate the primary reason was the lack of
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
De Weerd: Which is still a valid reason, since that has not changed.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a question. I'm kind of like Charlie. If we pass this for reconsideration, they
can come back to us with, basically, the same thing, as I understand. How -- how major
of a change can they make or -- I know we can -- we can, in a preliminary plat or a
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 9 of 58
CUP, we can make some changes ourselves. How much -- how much can they make
without having to go back through Planning and Zoning? I'd like that answered by the
attorney.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think I have said this before. It
depends on -- it's one of those things that you will -- I hate to say this, but you'll know
when you see it, to quote Potter Stewart. When you see -- you will know if it's a
significant enough change to -- it involves enough issues that you want planning staff to
be able to evaluate it further, the Planning and Zoning Commission to have the benefit
of their recommendation -- there is no definitive standard. I would say if you believe it's
substantial enough to warrant going back, that's the definition.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess so we can move on from this point, I would move to reconsider Items 8, 9
and 10, the Southwood Subdivision rezone, preliminary plat, and CUP for
reconsideration by this Council -- I guess after -- I think we are looking at least 90 days
out. I don't know that we need to set a date certain, since we are going to have to
provide notice, but at least beyond 90 days from now. So, beyond the 1 st of September
for another Public Hearing.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to reconsider Items 8, 9, and 10, to
bring it back after a 90 -day period. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you
call roll?
Roll -Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Nary, yea.
Berg: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Nay.
MOTION DENIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR NAY.
Item 11: TE 04-002 Request for a one year Time Extension on the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP 03-002) for Meridian Academy for an additional public
school classroom building by LKV Architects — 2311 East Lanark Street:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is TE 04-002. Okay. We can go ahead and do Item 11.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 10 of 58
Siddoway: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for a time
extension for a Conditional Use Permit, which was CUP 03-002 for Meridian Academy.
They received a Conditional Use Permit for an additional public school classroom
building that is in jeopardy of expiring before they begin construction. They have
requested this time extension to extend the Conditional Use Permit for one year. The
original findings for this were approved on April 18th of '03. This extension would
appear to extend that approval to October 18th of '04 and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: They wanted an extension for one year and they want it until October'04?
Siddoway: Well, I just calculated it. They actually in the letter --
Bird: That's a little longer than a year.
Siddoway: Well, it's a year from 18 months. It doesn't expire until October of this year.
Bird: Oh, I thought you said April of 2003 --
Siddoway: That's when it was approved. But the CUPs are good for 18 months.
Bird: Okay.
Siddoway: Unlike the plats, which are good for 12.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: I think, Steve, it's so unusual we get a request this far ahead.
Bird: Ahead of time. Yeah.
De Weerd: Usually they are behind the ball.
Siddoway: Yes.
De Weerd: So, any further questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 11 of 58
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the time extension for the Meridian Academy, CUP 03-002, to
October 1st, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Is that October 2005?
Bird: Yeah. 2005. I'm sorry. We are in 2004 now.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the extension to October
1st, 2005. Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12. Public Hearing: Idaho Community Development Block Grant for
Louisiana Pacific:
De Weerd: Item 12 is a Public Hearing for the Idaho Community Block Grants for
Louisiana Pacific. We are in the Public Hearing portion of our agenda. For anyone
wishing to provide testimony during this next phase of our agenda, Items 12 through 21,
we do require by ordinance that those wishing to testify are sworn in. So, if you will all
raise your right hand. Although staff doesn't have to. Sorry, we have to do that all the
time.
Bird: Yeah, they do.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God? If so, answer I will.
(Affirmative answers.)
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I guess Steve can't present this. I would ask Leslie
Toombs from Sage to present this application. I did open the Public Hearing for Item
12.
Toombs: Thank you, Mayor de Weerd, Members of the City Council. My name is Leslie
Toombs with Sage Community Resources. I believe you have in your Council packets
an outline of the -- this project. It's an application for Idaho Community Development
Block Grant funding on behalf of public infrastructure improvements to allow for the
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 12 of 58
expansion and creation of jobs for the Louisiana Pacific LP polymer plant in Meridian
and also here this evening is Mr. Ken Robke, who is the plant manager of the Meridian
facility. There is this information provided on the back table for those who are
interested, but to go through the purpose of this Public Hearing is to allow the citizens of
Meridian to have input on the development of Idaho Department of Commerce
Community Development Block Grant application in accordance with the Meridian
citizen participation plan. The community development block grant program was
enacted by the Community Development Act of 1974, which authorized HUD to operate
the program. This is a federal program that distributes funds to Idaho cities and
counties directly through the Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor. Cities and
counties are the only eligible applicants to this program. Grant dollars available to the
state of Idaho this year are approximately five million dollars in public improvement
grant funding for business assistance where a national objective to serve a low to
moderate income population is met. This application meets the national CDBG program
objective through the creation of a minimum of 39 new positions, of which not less than
51 percent will be held by individuals meeting LMI criteria. The grant application
deadline is June 21st, 2004. The. application handbook is available for review at city
hall and also here this evening. The description of the project is the City of Meridian is
proposing a project, which will provide public electrical power infrastructure
improvements to assist the Louisiana Pacific Corporation's Meridian LP polymer plant in
a planned 14.6 million dollar expansion. The expansion will create a minimum of 39
new manufacturing positions, of which a minimum of 51 percent will be held by
individuals meeting LMI criteria. Subject to the available funding, the project will consist
of the following: Construct a ten mega watt utility feeder line from the Idaho Power
Meridian substation to the LP polymer plant located at 420 West Franklin Road,
Meridian. Also provide upgrade improvements to the Meridian substation required for
the provision of the proposed utility service expansion. The cost estimates for the
project were provided by Idaho Power. These figures are estimates only and in
discussions today it's within about 10,000 dollars of the costs that are listed here. There
is funding for planning and administrative costs and, then, construction costs. The
sources of the funding are currently estimated at 405,022 dollars. Private cash amount
has been committed to the project by Louisiana Pacific. The grant application for the
CDBG funding would be for approximately 209,426 dollars, with private cash
contribution of 125,596, for a total of approximately 405,022 dollars. The draft
application document is available for review until Tuesday, June 15th, 2004, at 5:00
p.m. The draft application will be available at city hall during regular business hours of
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Comments regarding the project should be made in writing for
those who do not choose to speak verbally this evening for the next five days.
Following satisfactory resolution of any comments or questions, the hearing will be
closed. We ask that you send your comments directly to my attention; Leslie Toombs at
Sage Community Resources and my address is listed on the information in the back.
We also asked that the Council agree to sponsor this application, to authorize the
Mayor, if you choose to, sign the application to submit to the Idaho Department of
Commerce.
De Weerd: Thank you, Leslie. Are there any questions by Council?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 13 of 58
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a quick question about -- the grant requires to create not less than 51
percent of jobs held by individuals meeting the LMI criteria, not that the project lies in
the LMI census track; right? Is that --
Toombs: This is correct. And it does not mean that it's a low paying position. It's a very
good paying position with full benefits, but those individuals hired, minimum 51 percent
will have to meet LMI criteria.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Nothing to add? Okay. We will be traveling to present this application as
well in July. I believe it's on the 22nd -- 21st or 22nd. It's a moving target, but -- and I
will be there to present, in addition to Ms. Toombs and one of the LP representatives.
Are there any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: This does need to be continued to June 15th for any further written
comments.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the Public Hearing for Idaho Community Development Block
Grant for Louisiana Pacific until June 5th, 2004.
De Weerd: June 15th?
Bird: 15th. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue this Public Hearing on
Item 12 to June 15th, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C -G zones for
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 14 of 58
proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. —
Northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request for
Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38
acres in a proposed C -G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision
by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — Northeast corner of East Victory Road and
South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
construction of a combination feed store and gas station / convenience
store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and
residential uses to remain and the property for proposed Mussell Corner
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - Northeast corner of East
Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 13, 14 and 15, it would be very helpful to have our
-- the applications in front of us. We can ask staff to give an overview and -- and I
guess hear from the applicant and, then, after that you will have to decide on how you
want to proceed. So, Steve, I will go ahead and open Items 13, 14 and 15, the
continued Public Hearing.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a continued
Public Hearing for Mussell Corner Subdivision. It's an annexation and zoning
application, as well as a preliminary/final plat and Conditional Use Permit. Before going
into too much detail, has the Council had the details of this project presented in any
form yet? I know it's been continued twice, but I was under the impression that it had not
had a presentation yet.
De Weerd: That's correct. We haven't.
Siddoway: Okay. The location of the project is at the intersection of Meridian Road and
Victory Road south of the interstate. The annexation request is for the full 21.38 acres.
They are currently zoned C-2 in Ada County and would be looking to annex to the city
as a C -G zone. You can see the aerial photo here and the preliminary plat. The
preliminary plat is for four commercial building lots on the same 21 acres. It's a little a
difficult to see the lots on here. I'm going to step forward to this one. You can see one,
two, three, four lots. The corner lot is proposed to have a new feed store -- feed and
seed store, Double D, as well as a gas station. The lot above it is proposed just for
future commercial at this time and would remain vacant. The other two currently house
the existing businesses of Victory Greens Nursery, the associated retail business that
they have there, and the sprinkler business and their office and there is a residence on
the same lot, I believe. The Conditional Use Permit is proposed to allow that -- the
remaining -- the existing commercial and residential uses to remain on the property, and
this is a site plan of the one site which they have a detailed proposal for with the
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 15 of 58
proposed Double D supply store and gas station facility right on the corner. Meridian
Road is along the south here and Victory Road is there. The recommendation before
you from the Planning and Zoning Commission is for denial. It was heard by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on March 4th and 15th. The reasons for denial are
spelled out in the recommendation. They have eleven points in the CUP, ten in the
preliminary final plat and seven in the annexation and zoning. It's been on two past City
Council agendas on May 11th and May 25th. Both were continued ahead of time to
give the applicant a chance to work out some of their access issues with ITD. I believe
that those were acted on by ITD last week, but I'll let the applicant address that. And
there are no findings in the staff report or in the recommendation for approval, because
the recommendation is for denial, and so if the Council chooses to approve the project
tonight, it would need to be remanded back to staff to prepare findings for approval,
because there are none at this time. But with that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Steve, if you could, please, list off the reasons for denial, since we do not
have our computers on in front of us. Would Council like those listed off or --
Bird: Yes, I would.
De Weerd: Okay.
Siddoway: I believe the Conditional Use Permit recommendation has them all. First, the
site currently lies outside the five-minute response zone goal for the fire department.
Next, there are not -- why don't I put this up on the board up there, then we can all see
it. Would you like me to go ahead and read them into the record?
De Weerd: Yes.
Siddoway: Okay. So, the second item was there are not any developments in the area
that have developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone, i.e., commercial. The
third is the proposed amenities are not appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed
development. Fourth, the proposal to operate a gas station, convenience, feed store
may be disturbing to the neighborhood. Fifth, the proposed gas station, convenience
store, may involve inactivity's, processes, materials, equipment, and/or conditions that
will produce additional traffic noise, fumes, and odors, as well as negative -- other
negative public impacts. A proposed use that is to remain the single-family home is not
principally permitted in the proposed zone. The applicant is not proposing to bring the
existing uses that are to remain, signage, landscaping, public infrastructure, sidewalk,
bike lanes, screening, drive aisles, or parking into compliance with current city code.
The proposed access points to Kuna-Meridian Road, State Highway 69, do not meet the
location requirements of ITD or action item two in Chapter 7, Goal 4, Objective D of the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed building setbacks, landscape waivers, and lack of
a frontage road are accounting for additional right of way on Kuna-Meridian Road does
not meet policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian City Code. Existing
violations to Ada County Code, Title 8, on this property and without annexation the city
does not have jurisdiction to approve the development, which they had already
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 16 of 58
recommended denial of. I'm not able to speak in any detail of these, but I know that
there -- when I was at Planning and Zoning Commission, there were existing
noncompliance issues with Ada County. They had continued them once to give them a
chance to bring those items into compliance before and annexing it and it is my
understanding that they -- that one item was done with the removal of a light, but of the
other items that were code enforcement issues for Ada County had not been taken care
of. There is a noncompliance issue with ACHD regarding an existing driveway off of
Victory Road and, then, the ITD access issues off of Meridian Road were probably one
of the most significant issues that they have been trying to workout with ITD. At the
time they were proposing no frontage improvements along the existing business. We
made -- I believe the applicant may be proposing to have agreed to make those
improvements, but I'll let him speak to that and I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. Is the
applicant -- Dave, if you could put that on -- up on the stand, so everyone can see that.
McKinnon: Be happy to. Well, we can see it, but I don't know if the people on that side
of the room can see it.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Dave McKinnon, 735 S.
Crosstimber. I think everybody on this side of the room has already seen it.
De Weerd: Oh, They are all --
McKinnon: They are all here in favor of the program tonight. So, I think the people I
want to impress are sitting in front of me tonight, so -- instead of off to my left. Mayor,
Members of the Council, this is kind of an interesting situation to be in. I'm, actually,
pretty lucky to be in this situation. I have been lucky to have some good clients on this
project. We have got a developer, Layne Yost, has had developed in this town before
and they are willing to do what it takes to make this a nice project and I have got a
client, Double D Feed and Seed, who has an old building in downtown that would like to
move into a new building, into a different portion of town that would better suit their
needs. Currently right now Double D Feed and Seed is located in downtown Meridian.
It's not very often that you find a feed store in the middle of a downtown area, but that's
what we have. They are trying to move further out from the downtown and that would
open up some space within the downtown area. Obviously, as you can see from this
picture that I have put up on the tripod that you can see, is that this is a much prettier
building than we currently have downtown for the Double D Feed and Seed store and I
just point that out based on status quo, this is a much nicer thing than what we have
previously got. I mention that this is an interesting situation. It gets further complicated
by the fact that we are trying to do what the Comprehensive Plan has asked us to do.
They have -- the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2002, set this area aside as
commercially zoned property. We are designated for a commercial use and we have
proposed a commercial use and the staff -- that list that you saw in front of you, had
taken the Comprehensive Plan and taken the text of the Comprehensive Plan and said
this doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan, because it's commercial and it might
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 17 of 58
disturb the neighborhood and there is no neighborhood surrounding it. And I will get to
those bullet points and we can go through each one of those bullet points. Previously in
the past I had written memos that went through and hit each one of those items, but I
want to ask you to read through those, as we can go through those in a few moments.
The Comprehensive Plan shows this as commercial and we want it to go commercial.
Unfortunately, we have run into a problem. The biggest problem we have run into, as
you will see in the staff report, is access. It's access, access, access. In August of
2002 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, it wasn't envisioned at that time that
all access on the type four roadways would be limited to half mile and mile intersections.
Even in the past six months the City of Meridian has approved projects on State
Highway 69 with access in locations other than at the half -mile location. The problem
that Meridian's run into several times -- Steve, if you can go back to the Southwoods
proposal. Southern Springs just recently in the past four or five months, recently
approved by the city -- keep going if you could, Steve. One more to the -- there we go.
Southern Springs, a commercial development, was recently approved by the city with
multiple access points onto State Highway 69. At that time there is no letter of
recommendation written from ITD. Staff did not write anything in opposition to that and
now they have been working with ITD to get -- to have those accesses. Just like we
have been denied from ITD an access point, that project was denied access points as
well onto Highway 69. That project had three deeded accesses from ITD, just as this
project does from ITD and ITD has now granted them at least one of those accesses.
So, we will work with ITD to get this situation worked out. ITD has constantly worked on
trying to limit the amount of interruptions on state highways, State Highway 69, Chinden
Boulevard, Eagle Road, specifically, in the City of Meridian -- Meridian proper. As you
remember, those of you that were on Council and on Commission when Lochsa Falls
was approved, there was a great deal of discussion at that time to limit the access. This
isn't a new issue, it's just an issue that's become more prevalent as developments
happened on Highway 69. And ITD writes a letter to all applications and they actually
addressed it to the city, that goes ahead and states their request and I know you have
met with ITD, but I just want to read to you just a little bit out of this letter. It doesn't say
that they can't allow the access; it just says that they would like not to have the access
points at those locations. It just says that access to principal arterial type four roads will
be at intersections and spaced at one -mile intervals in rural areas and half -mile intervals
in urban areas. Approaches other than at intersections may be permitted in special
cases on a temporary basis as follows and it gives three different reasons. Allow until
state highway system improved by construction project, at which time an access will be
provided to the property, which may not directly access the state highway system, but
may be via frontage or back -age road. Shall be recorded at the county recorder's office
and temporary access restrictions will be noted on the permit. ITD's not exactly asking
for a denial, they are saying we'd like not to do this, but there are certain occasions
where we may permit this and I think we are running into a situation here where we
have a commercial designation on the Comp Plan for 22 acres and we are limiting the
access to that on the state highway to two locations on Victory Road, which require a
commercial development to move all the way a quarter mile to the north off of a county
road and, then, back out onto the county road before being able to access the highway,
that puts a large burden on this property. Steve, if you can go forward to the aerial just
Meridian City Council
June 8. 2004
Page 18 of 58
like that of this project. That will work great right there. If we want to limit this to the
half -mile intersection, we run into a couple of problems with this site. We currently have
a house and a small cul-de-sac development and to the north of this we have another
small cul-de-sac development. The opportunity for a half -mile collector road or a half -
mile frontage road to access this site being built in the near future is very limited, based
on the fact that we already have development north of this site. Granted two accesses
by ACHD off of Victory Road. There will be no access points located along ITD -- along
ITD's right of way, if ITD has their way. ITD has a process. We just received today
written denial of our request for the accesses from District Three. I have a copy of that
if you'd like to see it. We received a written denial. After there is a written denial from
District Three it goes to headquarters. Headquarters takes action and, then, they write
a letter denying or approving that requested access. At that point we have the
opportunity to appeal and that's what happened with the Southern Springs project to the
north of this site. They appealed it and ITD worked with them and we'd ask for the
same consideration, that we be given the opportunity to work with ITD to have those
accesses and be granted those accesses per ITD's requirements. Keep in mind we do
have three deeded accesses and those are accesses deeded from ITD to the property
owner Tim Mussell to have those three access points. We are not asking for something
we don't already have deeded to us, we are asking for some sort of mediation with ITD
and to be given the opportunity to work with ITD on that. So, that's the biggest issue
that we are running into on this that I see is the access, access, access issue. We'd like
to have all three. If ITD says we can have one or two or three, that at least gives us
access onto that and it would be something we would work out with ITD and that's
something that we would ask of you tonight to give us the opportunity to work with ITD
to be able to have that access from ITD, rather than a denial of this project based on not
having access at this time. It takes time and money to get through the ITD process and
we are in the middle of that process right now. A couple other issues that Steve hit on
that were in the bullet points and I'll hit on those and these are just some special things
that Craig Hood had pointed out in his April 15th memo. It was the last staff memo that
you should have received on this issue and one of the issues was dealing with
landscaping and we stated at the Planning and Zoning meeting that we would be willing
to do the landscaping that's needed. We don't have conditions of approval. There was
not a point where the staff said we'd like you to put landscaping across the whole
frontage of all these lots; we just said none has been proposed. This site's currently a
nursery. We have got the access to landscape material and we can go ahead and build
the landscape material. I know there has been discussions with Tim Mussell, the owner
of Victory Greens and the owner of this property, to go ahead and landscape that and
that can be worked out and we are willing to do that. As far as the issue regarding
building setbacks, in the staff memo there was some discussion about the Idaho
Transportation Department wanted to have the build out for this road to be 240 feet
wide or 120 feet from centerline. That's not the case. The letter states that they would
like 70 feet from centerline if there is a frontage or back -age road system provided. Not
that it has to be a public road or a private road, but a cross -access agreement between
all the properties along this road, as long as there is cross -access between the parking
lots, ITD considers that a frontage road or a back -age road. It doesn't have to be a
publicly dedicated road. And the idea that the buildings would sit on 120 -foot setbacks
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 19 of 58
was just a misunderstanding. Craig Hood and I have worked that out and have also
had a chance to talk with ITD concerning that issue. The issues regarding open space,
public parking, and drive aisles, we have -- we talked with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, we were willing to go ahead and pave all the drive aisles. In fact, we
would be closing one drive aisle that currently exists on Victory Road and those of you
that have gone to Victory Greens to purchase landscaping in the past, it's the middle
access, the one that goes right up to the house, we have agreed to close that and
agreed to go ahead and pave all the parking for that area and to pave the parking within
the subdivision and to make sure that those areas that are being driven on by vehicles
that don't rip up asphalt -- again, keep in mind this is an active nursery and there are
skid steers out there that can rip up asphalt, as we discussed with the Commission, and
they seemed to agree with that, that it would be okay to allow some area not to be
asphalted where the skid steers were driving and picking up rocks and plants. Public
services. The first item that you see on the bullet points was that this lies outside of the
fire department's five-minute response area. I have had numerous conversations with
Joe Silva, including one today about that. This currently lies outside of the five-minute
response area, but we are not annexing this into the Meridian Rural Fire District, this is
already part of the Meridian Rural Fire District. In talking with Joe, I said, now, Joe, if
we were to bring water to this site with fire hydrants and sprinkle this building, would
that be better or worse for the fire department, would that increase the fire safety of this
if we brought water and sprinkled the building and he said that's an obviously -- that's an
easy question to answer, Dave. Yes, it would be better to have fire services available at
the site. Currently there is not a fire hydrant available to this site and if this were to
catch on fire, alternative fire relief would be necessary. There is no sprinkling of the
existing buildings and no water currently available from the domestic system and so in
talking with Joe it's, actually, a better situation for them than currently exists under the
status quo. Steve, if you will go ahead and move forward to the plan now. Thanks. I
appreciate that. As you can see right now, we are currently asking for just four lots
within the subdivision. A basic subdivision. The owner of the property, Tim Mussell,
would like to be able to continue selling his rocks from this portion of the area and to
continue to run his nursery and the existing pipe business down in this location. The
gas station would be located on this lot and an additional building lot in the future to be
built at this location. As this is a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, the
additional buildings built on the site would be in compliance with -- that would match in
design of the building that you see in front of you with the wainscot, the metal roof, and
the small -- and the nice roofline that you see here. It would be built in compliance with
that. Steve, if you could go really quick to those conditions of denial they were asking,
just go real quick through those point by point. If you can just pull it down a little bit.
De Weerd: Dave, just to let you know, you have three minutes left.
McKinnon: Okay. I'll go fast. I'll lump everything together. Developments in the area
that haven't developed in a similar fashion. This is the only area on the Comprehensive
Plan in this area that's commercial. Obviously, we are not going to see other
commercial developments in this area develop in a similar fashion, because this is the
only commercial area. The proposed amenities are not appropriate for size and use.
Meddian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 20 of 58
It's a nursery; it's really hard to figure out what type of amenities make sense for a
Conditional Use Permit that's a nursery. The proposal to operate a gas station may be
disturbing to the neighborhood. It's not lying adjacent to any neighborhoods, it's laying
adjacent to a nursery right now. There is no neighborhood around this. There is some
small residential lots around this and those people have contacted me saying they
would like to see water and sewer brought down to this area, because they'd like to
hook onto that. The proposed gas station may involve activities, processes, materials,
and equipment that would produce additional traffic, noise, and fumes and odors. If a
gas station doesn't make sense on an arterial and on a collector where there is no
residential, where do they belong? That's the proper location for one, away from
residential, in commercial area. The proposed use is to remain on site. There is a
single family home that's used as the office for the station, that's why we are going
through the Conditional Use Permit. It's not principally permitted, but can be through a
Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is not proposing to abandon existing uses -- to
remain. We will do that. We haven't received any conditions of approval for this and we
are willing to meet those. Proposed access points on Kuna-Meridian. I have addressed
that. We'd like to work with ITD to have those access points. We don't want to give up
on ITD because they said no the first time, because they have in the past granted those
accesses for others. The proposed building setbacks, waivers, lack of frontage road,
there would be a frontage road. Like I said, in talking with ITD, a combined access for
the parking lot works. Steve, if you could slide it up. Existing violations of Ada County
code. There were several existing violations on site. Those have been addressed. I
have got a letter to that extent from Ada County Development Services. It was written
by Mike Williams, the code enforcement officer. There were several things that needed
to be taken care of that were in violation. All but two of those have been taken care of
and two of those hinge on whether or not this project gets approved. One was to do a
one-time split. If we are subdividing and annexing to the city, a one type split would not
be necessary. The other issued had to deal with screening of an existing use and the
county has stated that if the existing use is brought into the city, the screening
requirements for the city would come into play, rather than Ada County's, so that's why
it hasn't been addressed yet. As far as without annexation, the city does not have
jurisdiction to approve a development plan for this site. That's just your legislative
authority as the Council. You have the ability to annex this property and to put
conditions and approval onto this site. We think we have an improvement of what we
currently have on site right now. I believe this will improve the downtown area by
moving an inappropriate use out of the downtown into a gateway area. We will have a
beautiful building; it would be fronted by 35 feet of landscaping, as required by the
landscape ordinance. This is a good project with good developers. I'd ask for your
approval tonight and ask if you have any questions at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 21 of 58
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony
on this application? Okay. Please come forward. Please state your name and address
for the record.
Veneziano: My name is Jose Veneziano and I'm at 403 East Fairview.
De Weerd: Your time's up.
Veneziano: Already? All right. Bye-bye.
De Weerd: Will you, please, spell your last name?
Veneziano: V-e-n-e-z-ka-n-o.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Veneziano: And good evening, ladies and gentlemen and Madam Mayor, Councilmen.
Well, I would love to see this happen for two reasons. One, it takes away a lot of traffic
from this city. Two, it benefits my business and all the other businesses around. There
are five subdivisions around it and they all will benefit out of this project and, best yet,
where is a better place to put a gas station? Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Would anyone else like to provide testimony on this application?
Okay. Any last words from the applicant or any questions from Council for the
applicant?
McKinnon: I guess I don't need to offer rebuttal to no comment, but I just -- we think it's
a good project and makes sense for the area. There is a demand for that. There are
vehicles that utilize this area. We do realize we have an issue to workout with ITD and
we are willing to work with ITD to get that resolved and we'd like to have the opportunity
to do that. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for Dave? Okay. Any discussion or further
information that you need before I would accept a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I wondered -- Steve or the chief, on the issue on the response time and the
building being sprinkled and having a hydrant and that, I know Dave's testified to it, but I
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 22 of 58
don't know -- I mean was there -- did you have any comment or input about that?
Bowers: Madam Mayor, City Council, Councilman Nary, and several years ago the
Council and the rural wanted us to put that stipulation on all of our transmittals that was
coming through. I talked to Deputy Chief Silva this afternoon and he stated that there
would be water hydrants and sprinkler system at that building, so we would not be
concerned at that time.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I've got a question for Mr. McKinnon. David, why is ITD wanting us to take action
before they take action? Do you have any reason why they would want to do that and if
you go back to the layout, I think -- do you have -- on the north end do you have the old
lane of Rumples there that goes up behind? Is that part of your access right there on the
north? I think it is, if you --
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, let me address that last issue about the
Rum -- what did you call that? What was the name of that --
Bird: It was -- Rumples used to live up there on it, yeah.
McKinnon: Rumples. Okay. I don't want to mispronounce that. The Rumple --
Bird: I used to play with him. Had to go pick him up. That's why I know it.
McKinnon: Okay. That's -- I went and bought rock there, geez, about four or five weeks
ago and that's the access I used. I believe that's the access he'd like to continue using.
It's an access that's currently under existence from ITD for that use. When ITD widened
the highway, oh, three or four years ago, that was an access that was granted to them
to continue using for the use that's currently there, which is the rock quarry that he has
to sell rocks and that's an access point that's currently utilized for the business and I
believe that that's something that Mr. Mussell would like to see continued. As far as
other questions, why would ITD like to see us -- like to see you take action? It's been --
it's a different situation. In the past ITD had written letters saying this is what our
recommendation is and the city has taken action and it's gotten to the point now where if
we are dealing with -- I wouldn't say that this is ITD asking the city to take action first, it's
just the way things have worked. In the past people have gotten approval from the city
and, then, worked things out with ITD, just like Southern Springs and how that
happened. ITD's becoming a lot more aggressive in trying to protect their type four
roadways and they have come forward saying this is what our policy is and we want you
guys to do that and I think that there is going to be a paradigm shift really quick that
applicants are going to be going to ITD and working things out with ITD before they
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 23 of 58
come to the city and since we have been caught in that shift right now, whereas we
applied for this and, then, we found out that there was the issues with ITD and we are
trying to work through those. ITD is not the fleetest of governments. They don't move
extremely rapidly. We have applied for the permit over two months ago and just
received notification today that it was denied. We didn't have any opportunity to testify
at their commission meeting, it's just a committee meeting, then, it goes to headquarters
and, then, we get to go into the appeals process. I have had other projects where it's
taken nine months to get through the appeals process and so I think what's happened is
we are caught in the shift right now in ITD policy, where we have to work these sort of
issues out with ITD before you will do that. I know that you have had your meetings
with ITD and you want to support ITD and their policy and I understand the reasons for
that, but at the same time I can see how this site and other sites that can be locked by
not having access need to be able to have those accesses issued from ITD and they
have a process for that and we are working through that. In the future, the accesses,
we are trying to work through those before we come to the city. It's a cart -before -the -
horse issue or a chicken before the egg. If we go to ITD and ITD says no, then, we
don't bring this to you, but if ITD says yes and we bring it to you and the city says, no,
monies been spent for good and bad. If you get denied by ITD, then, you know that you
get approved and, then, you come to the city and get denied, you've spend good money
after bad. So, it's just a cart -before -the -horse issue.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: It would seem like to me, logically, that if you put a frontage road running north and
south along Meridian Road and made your entrance up there on the north, that you're
probably, what, a third of a mile from the corner? I don't think there was too many of us
on the Council that like to see entrances close to any of those major corners like that,
but something like that, if you put a frontage road in there, is that possible to do and
would ITD do you think be more favorable to something like that?
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird -- Steve, could you -- let me ask staff to
move forward to the -- there you go. The half mile location is right here, Councilman
Bird.
Bird: Yeah.
McKinnon: To go a third of a mile -- a third of the way up would put us -- half is there, so
a third would put us up where this access would be. ACHD were looking at this. Their
policy on a major arterial is 440 feet for a universal, 220 feet for a right in, right out. We
would go twice that to 660, which is what the deeded accesses are. That could work.
And, then, build a frontage road from 660 up and, then, down and that would provide
access for all of those and that's something that we would have to work out with ITD.
Like I say, we have got three granted accesses -- three granted deeds. We'd like to
keep those accesses, all three, but if we are limited to one, that's what we would have to
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 24 of 58
live with. But, yes, that is a possibility and we would build that frontage road and
provide access to those lots.
Bird: Thank you, David.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. Dave, one of the areas -- I guess I didn't really hear a very good answer to
is the amenity part of this planned development. What I thought I heard you say is, well,
it's a nursery, so, therefore, there is lots of landscaping and availability of landscaping,
but the report indicates -- it seems like what the staff focused on wasn't the fact that it's
a nursery, but the fact that there wasn't really any dedicated portion of this property to
remain as open space, it's simply where ever you move the trees around and the
bushes to is going to be your open space is what it sounded like.
McKinnon: Okay.
Nary: And you didn't really make that very clear and the other portion -- the other
second amenity is this sidewalk that the staff report indicates isn't very significant in
comparison to the size of this property. So, could you be a little more specific about the
amenities and what those are going to be?
Bird: Sure. I'd be happy to address those. Under Meridian Code 12-6-2, the planned
development ordinance, it requires the amenities to be appropriate with the type and
use of the site and this a commercial development that's largely inhabited right now by a
nursery and to figure out what types of amenities -- we sat down with staff on numerous
occasions, I worked with Craig Hood on this and Anna, saying what type of amenity do
you want to see here. Is it the ten percent? Is it the picnic ,benches? Is it the park
benches in front of the gas station? What type of amenities are appropriate? And one of
the amenities we came up with that would not be required would be a sidewalk on
Meridian Road. It's not required. It would be provided along that and that was one of
the issues. It wasn't one that was extremely applauded by staff, but it was one of the
amenities that we felt would be appropriate for a gas station. We have asked staff on
numerous occasions to offer suggestions as to what might be appropriate for a site that
would be a large nursery area and a gas station, essentially, at this time. And they said
that ten percent open space would be something that would be sought out and be
something that would be adequate, but the ten percent open space, when you have a
four lot subdivision, I guess would you like a dedicated lot that would be for that before
we know how it's going to develop in the future? In a development agreement -- and at
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting I believe there was some discussion as
to saying in the development agreement at some point ten percent would be dedicated
as it develops. If you've got suggestions we are willing to take those. Again, we didn't
have conditions of approval or suggestions from staff as to what would be needed to
approve this site. We are open to putting in amenities, such as picnic tables for the
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 25 of 58
eating areas provided with the C -Store or the gas station, that's something that we could
Work into the landscaping and provide an area for that, if you think that that would be
appropriate. That's something that we can do and bring that into the site. But you're
taking an existing nursery and trying to, I guess, shoehorn --just saying this area now is
forever dedicated as open space limits the ability to redevelop that area. So, we are
just asking for some flexibility on that, Councilman Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, just a follow up.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Nary: And I think this is more of a comment, Dave, but I guess you have been here
plenty, you have seen us try to redesign people's projects for them and, then, really say,
you know what, this is not really our job and I guess that's just my little concern over that
particular point is, you know, it's unfortunate that between you and the staff you weren't
able to come up with some appropriate type of commercial amenities for this particular
site, but it isn't our job to design it for you, it's your job to convince us that you have met
the standards of what the ordinance requires and so it's really your responsibility to
come up with those and I'm going to assume that there are commercial PUDs out there
that have amenities of some sort, so, you know, we don't have to invent the wheel for
you, but it is your responsibility to show us compliance and I guess my comment is is
I'm -- I don't think compliance is we will figure it out later and that's kind of what I'm
hearing you say in this, we will figure it out, trust us, and I don't think that's good enough
at least on that point.
McKinnon: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, It's a hard site. We have an
existing single family home and, like I said, adding some picnic area, some bench area
to the site is very easy, happy to design that. As far as the types of uses on this site,
amenities in the rock garden area, not appropriate. Amenities in the nursery itself, there
is not many appropriate areas for that. We are dealing with a single use on a single lot
for the gas station and the single use on that single lot is the gas station. That, in and of
itself, doesn't trigger the Conditional Use Permit. The area that triggers the Conditional
Use Permit for the planned development is the single family home located on the
nursery lot and the fact there is two -- there is two buildings on that additional lot. You
can see those buildings right here and the single family home located right here. Those
are the two buildings and that's what kicks this into a planned development. We asked
staff if we could just deal with those issues separately as a planned development and
they said we believe that this should be a planned development for the entire site, even
though there is a single use on a single lot within the subdivision for the gas station. So,
that's why we felt it would be appropriate to add the use of the sidewalk on that lot and
we can add an amenity to the gas station if you would like and we can do that as a
picnic table and eating area for that C -Station. We are happy to do that.
De Weerd: Dave, in the nursery, isn't there a landscaped area with a stream and a pond
and -- isn't that an amenity?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 26 of 58
McKinnon: It is, but it could go away -- it could go away. It's a nursery.
De Weerd: You don't want to commit to keeping that there?
McKinnon: The applicant would just like to make a comment if he could really quick.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Were you part of
the swearing in process?
Laney: I was not.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Laney: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Laney: My name is Steven H. Laney and my address is 2849 East Hardrock Drive in
Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Laney: And I guess just to address Madam Mayor and Council Members, there is a
pond -- and you correctly identified it. You can see it, actually -- let me go over here
and touch it.
Bird: Grab this mike. Mr. Laney, grab that mike
Laney: You can see there is a pond area right here that, actually -- Tim Mussell spent a
fair amount of money and time developing a waterfall here that flows into a pond, there
are trees around it, it's pretty good size. You can see by -- you know, relative to the
2.48 acres here, you know, we are talking about at least an acre, if not more, and we
are certainly willing to leave this as it is, you know, as a dedicated open area. And it's
beautiful and he's done some fabulous work. He had a guy that trained with
Disneyland.
De Weerd: Named Brain something.
Laney: Yeah. He's just brilliant. And he, basically, designed that waterfall and we are
willing to leave that dedicated as an open site and one other comment, if I may, is we
are not unfamiliar with the changing landscape of Meridian. We originally took the
downtown blocks at Generation Plaza over here and we bought that land and we put in
George's Cycle and the buildings there. That was basically our group that did that. So,
we are not unfamiliar with the changing landscape of downtown Meridian and we would
like to do the same thing with the old Double D site is to, you know, take down what's
Meddian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 27 of 58
there, even though it's a very nice operation, but it's a little bit ugly. Would like to take
that down and put something that kind of compliments the downtown in the way the
downtown is going, so -- and we have done that before, we have been successful at
that and we are certainly ready to do it again -- ready to commit to the city that within a
certain time frame of getting approval to go this direction, that within, you know,
whatever the time frame is, 90 days, 120 days, that we will demo that site, take
everything that's there down and, then, start working on, you know, trying to get a
professional complimentary use downtown. So, I guess long answer to what is the
pond, I guess that's my long answer back.
De Weerd: You said you would keep that as an amenity?
Laney: Absolutely.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant Mr. Laney? Okay.
Thank you.
Laney: Thank you.
McKinnon: I guess we got a pond. Do you have any other questions at this time?
De Weerd: No.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Okay. Council, anything further you need before we
close the Public Hearing?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd like to make a statement while we are on the Public Hearing. I think this is a
very very good development. I think it's an ideal place for a gas station. I might be the
only one that thinks that, but it does cover a lot of subdivisions out there and people
don't have to run into town to get gas. We all know that it's -- at the price of gas you
don't want to go any farther than you have to to get a gallon of it. I think it's -- and D&D
going out there I think probably helps their customers. They don't -- probably don't like
coming downtown any better than a lot of other people do at this point, because of the
traffic to get their feed and seed and all that. I think it's a very very nice development. I
have a -- I really would like to see a frontage road and just one entrance and exit off of
Highway 69 and I don't know if that's going to happen or not. I wish we had a ruling
from ITD already. So, I'm in a quandary of what we should do. I like -- I like the project
and I just really like it a lot better since the pond got stayed. So, I really like it now. And
I think it's an ideal place for a gas station and for the D&D deal, I really believe it is, so --
but we got to work out the -- with ITD the exits and entrances. That's my statement.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 28 of 58
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I'm also going to agree with Mr. Bird as far as the statements in the
recommendation that there aren't other areas that have rezoned similarly and agree
with the gas station. One of the things that I didn't hear -- and we have certainly a
neighborhood here that we didn't hear with one of the past commercial developments, is
a large outcry not to have that -- that convenience store or that gas station as part of the
development. I'm also concerned with access. I'm not sure, really, how to go about
that. I think in my mind a lot of the landscape questions have been answered and
setbacks and those sorts of things, understanding that it's part of a four parcel
development and not -- and we are dealing mostly with the landscape. Existing
business within Meridian, that's kind of triggering a lot of those, and so as far as a
planned development and amenities, I think those questions have been answered in my
mind. The access issue hasn't, but I'm not sure how we get beyond that.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think I'd agree with both Councilmember Wardle and Bird on this. I mean I do
think it is a great project. There is a lot more pluses. That single access on Highway 69
is really the only sticking point in my mind. I seem to recall the last time that we sort of
left it to ITD we have Krispy Kreme on the corner and we have an access point that we
all don't like, so -- no offense, Councilman Rountree. So, I guess I'm apprehensive in
simply approving it without making some statement about the access point along
Highway 69. 1 think -- I think the developer -- the applicant has made a good showing
on all the other concerns that were raised by the staff in regards to the buffers and the
amenities and the like, but that's probably the one point to me that I think that we need
to -- I guess since the Public Hearing is still open, if Mr. McKinnon wants to address
that, I think at least for me to support this project, I think the motion is going to include
that there be only a single access point on Highway 69 and if there is others along
Victory, that's fine.
De Weerd: I guess I would introduce for discussion -- you know, I, too, agree with
everything that's been said. This is going to be an excellent face lift to that whole
development and it's pretty exciting. I love that landscaped area and appreciate hearing
that we will keep the amenity that they have existing. I guess -- and I did talk to the
applicant. I don't -- I guess I should -- only -- not about the application, but about our
policy on -- in keeping with ITD's and I do believe that we have formed a relationship
with ITD to preserve these corridors, so we don't continue to have happen what we see
on Eagle and I think a lot of lessons were learned there. Until they have a connection to
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 29 of 58
a lighted intersection at the half mile or where ever ITD is going to place the light here, it
does make sense to ask that they have some kind of a back -age or frontage or
whatever the term of the week is on that thing, but that that be put in, but they have
some kind of right in, right out access to the corner until that connection is made to a
light and I guess that would be my only additional comment that hasn't already been
said.
Bird: Madam Mayor, would you tell me clearer now that I'd understand. Right in and
right out next to the corner on Highway 69 or are you talking on Victory?
De Weerd: I would talk on Highway 69 at the appropriate distance and I have heard
between the 400 and 600 area for a right in, right out and, then, have the designated
area that I think you were talking the Rumples or --
Bird: Yeah. Rumples.
De Weerd: So, that was just my suggestion. And if the applicant would like to comment,
he certainly has the ability to do that.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that what you just said
makes perfect sense to us and the applicant. We realize that you do have that
agreement with ITD and you're willing to work with ITD and work with them and we
appreciate your willingness to work with us as well to find some sort of use that will work
for this site at this time and, you know, where that's a right in, right out at 400 or 600 and
what's deemed appropriate, we can work with that.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: My recollection from the staff report from Mr. Siddoway -- and, again, if Mr.
McKinnon needs to comment, I think because we don't have any conditions of approval
-- we actually have conditions for denial, I think before we close the Public Hearing on
this we probably should continue this matter for a couple of weeks to give staff the
adequate time to have conditions of denial -- or conditions of approval prepared, if the
Council is a mind set to do that. At least I am. If we think we have had a lot of jumbled
information, we are probably going to have to have a transcript to be able to be sure
that we cover all the points and I want to give the staff the adequate time to do that and
I don't know if two or three or four weeks would be more appropriate. Four? Four is the
high sign. Is four going to be adequate, do you think, Mr. Siddoway?
Siddoway: Mr. Nary -- or Mayor de Weerd and Mr. Nary, the site plan that we currently
have does not -- I believe, Dave, you can correct me -- have the design that we are
talking about with the frontage slash back -age road with the right in, right outs with that.
So, we need a site plan that addresses all these agreements, that we can respond to
and write conditions of approval for. These negotiations and the agreement that seems
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 30 of 58
to have been reached are all -- all good items, but they are not items that were shown
on the plan that was submitted and that the staff report was based on, so if we could get
a final revised plan that addresses the issues raised by Council, we could, then, take
that and prepare a revised staff report on that plan.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we can agree to do that. We could
have something submitted by the end of the week.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, but where does that leave this project,
even assuming those issues are worked out, until the ITD process is complete? I mean
do you want to have this left open until the process is complete, so that you know
exactly what -- how many accesses? Because if ITD says no, we are sealing off all
three, we are going to keep them -- call it inverse condemnation, call it what you want,
you're not going to get it, do you have -- I mean you see what -- they could come
forward with a site plan that has an access, but ITD says no. So, how would you
propose to handle that part of it, Mr. McKinnon?
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Nichols, the feeling that I got
from the Council was that we would need to provide a frontage road, regardless of
where any access would be and we could show an access that could be located in a
variety of areas, you know, from the requested area from ACHD from 400 feet to 660
and beyond. We can show that there is a frontage road or a back -age road to that.
What you see with a frontage and back -age road, the requirement is that you have a
parking lot with cross -access and as long as we can show that the cross -access of the
parking lot in front of the buildings provides access to each of the other lots, that that
access is provided. So, I don't believe that it's paramount right now to show exact
location of that access, but to show that an access can be provided within a certain
range or distance and show that there would be a connection between that and the gas
station to the south and the ability to go as well. So, we could show an access at some
location and it would be a floating location until ITD approves it, as long as we have a
frontage or back -age road that would provide connection both to the north and south.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Dave, it sounds to me like there is probably still a bit more work to do and the
recommendation we had was for denial. Would it be more appropriate to remand this
back to Planning and Zoning? Because you're going to have to make some significant
changes to the site plan, you have some commitments from this discussion -- again, I
Think the mood of the Council at the moment is that we are in favor of all of those
changes, but realistically it maybe should go back to the Planning and Zoning
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 31 of 58
Commission for that. I don't know that that really delays it any longer than us setting
this over for five or six weeks to get findings and a new site plan and all that done. I'm
not as concerned as -- about the access points, because if ITD says none of them and
us saying one is okay by us, isn't going to really make much difference. If ITD says two
and we say one, one it is. So, I think either one of those contingencies doesn't concern
me as much as whether or not Planning and Zoning should really be reviewing this
again, because you're going to be making significant changes from what they originally
looked at.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, these were all items that were
discussed with the Commission. At the time that the Commission voted to deny it, it
was a motion made by Commissioner Zaremba after asking Craig Hood -- he said do
you want to continue this hearing until we have the issues with ITD worked out. Craig
Hood responded: I don't want to baby-sit this project anymore. Commissioner Zaremba
made the motion to deny this project based on the fact that they didn't want to wait for
ITD. That was the reason for that, was for ITD's -- and they went ahead and based their
motion on the majority of that for ITD issues. The additional bullet points were
discussed at that meeting, it was discussed at that meeting that we would add the
additional landscaping and the frontage requirements at those meetings, but it was the
issue with ITD that was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.
De Weerd: Mr. Siddoway, do you think that these would be significant enough to
remand? I guess they were all items that were discussed. I don't share the same
opinion, but --
Siddoway: I was not present at the P&Z hearing. My items I think were before it and,
then, had left and this was covered by Craig later in the meeting, but -- so I can't speak
for sure by my own knowledge as to what -- how much of it was addressed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. It certainly will be nice to have all of these tied down
on one plan and based on what I know, it seems to be significant enough to warrant
P&Z to look at it, given the opportunity for a different -- somewhat different layout based
on the back -age road and access arrangement, which may affect that site plan. I guess
we could get some input from Dave as to whether it would significantly alter the layout
of those buildings as originally shown. If it does, then, I would certainly remand it back.
If it doesn't, then, it's just whether it needs to be remanded back based on the accesses,
the landscape buffers, the amenities, to get P&Z's buy off on those items as discussed
tonight.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I just -- Steve, could you move
forward to the site plan that shows -- yeah, leave it right there and I will be right back.
Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the reason why I wanted you to see this
site plan is to see that this is what ITD is considering the frontage or back -age road, is
the parking lot. It provides access -- it would be cross -access at this point. All the
buildings have to have -- there is going to be a 35 foot setback for landscaping from the
future right of way line and, then, you're going to have parking and, then, you're going to
have a building. So, as far as a major redesign of this site, there is no major redesign.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 32 of 58
What it is, is if we have to take this access point and move it down here, we provide the
additional parking all the way across the front just to match this and you provide the
building, so it wouldn't be a redesign, it's just the location of where that road is. So, that
we are not talking about a major redesign. As far as landscaping, the landscape
ordinance covers what the requirements are for that. There is nothing major to do that,
it's one tree every 35 feet, plus some shrubs and bushes and some irrigation and you all
know Title 13 as well as I do, it covers the landscaping. So, there is nothing major that I
see there. We are just dealing with where the access point would be and, then, the
parking lot that's all connected across the front.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't know why we have to remand it back to Planning and Zoning. I don't think
it's that much of a change. Their denial reason was because of the access and they --
you know, they are making some changes, but it's the access that they basically did it. I
would like to see them get four weeks and bring it back before us and after the staff
gives their report and let's go on with it.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Dave.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Was that a motion?
Bird: Well, we need to continue the public hearings and I would make a motion to
continue the public hearings for Items 13, 14 and 15, the Mussell Corner Subdivision.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Was that to July 6?
Bird: To July 6th, 2004.
De Weerd: Okay. And the second agrees?
Wardle: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in -- oh, I'm sorry. The motion is to continue Items 13, 14
and 15 to July 6, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 33 of 58
De Weerd: Okay.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Siddoway: Just for clarification, the applicant is to get us the revised plan within a week
and, then, we have got a couple of weeks to turn around a report and -- a week prior to
the hearing, then; is that correct?
De Weerd: That is correct.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, would you have the record indicate that I abstain from the
vote?
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry.
Rountree: Thank you.
Item 16: Public Hearing: MI 04-004 Request for a Miscellaneous request for an
amendment to the Development Agreement for Resolution Subdivision
No. 1 by Aspen Grove Development, LLC — south of East Overland Road
at Celebration Avenue and Gala Street:
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree abstains from the vote. The ayes, one abstention.
Okay. Thank you. Item 16. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for Item 16, MI
04-004, with staff comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a miscellaneous
application, with a request to amend the development agreement for Resolution
Subdivision, specifically for Lot 1, Block 1 of Resolution Sub No. 1. At issue is that the
subject property, which sits in the lower right-hand corner or the southeast corner of the
subdivision and requires a Conditional Use Permit for all uses, regardless of zoning, in
compliance with their conceptual CUP and their development agreement. Most of the
other lots in the development have been through in the last couple of years for detailed
CUP approval. Recently there was an application submitted for Valencia Subdivision on
Lot 1, Block 1. It's been through Planning and Zoning and I believe is on the City
Council hearing for next week. One of the conditions of approval in the staff report for
that subdivision is the continued requirement for detailed CUs on all lots in that
subdivision. They have submitted this miscellaneous application to request that that
development agreement be amended to not require the detailed conditional use
approval. You should have a staff report dated June 8th that goes through most of the
issues. The analysis on page three hits the highlights with the development
agreement --
De Weerd: Steve?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 34 of 58
Siddoway: Yes.
De Weerd: Would you show page three?
Siddoway: Up here?
De Weerd: Yes.
Siddoway: Okay. It does show the subject property being subject to the development
agreement for RZ 00-003. It was approved as a conceptual CUP at that time. The
subject property was approved under that conceptual CUP for an ice rink. That ice rink
never came to fruition. The proposal now is to just convert it to six office lots. Because
the approval was conceptual in nature, the city required, through the development
agreement, a detailed CUP approval for all uses of the development. That condition to
require detailed CUP approval is a standard requirement per Ordinance 12-6-7, B. Staff
finds that the requirement for the detailed CUPs in this subdivision may be overly
burdensome and at least warrant the consideration of the Council as to whether they
desire to see those detailed conditional use permits come through for every lot or
whether they are agreeable to amend the development agreement as proposed by the
applicant. The proposed language has been reviewed and recommended for approval
in the report and I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do not.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Steve. Is the applicant here?
Dunsmoor: I guess we will be coapplicants.
De Weerd: And were you sworn in?
Dunsmoor: I was sworn in. Did you swear?
Guho: Yes.
Dunsmoor: He swore.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will just state your name and address and if we can do it one at
a time.
Dunsmoor: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 35 of 58
Dunsmoor: My name is Jason Dunsmoor, I'm with Roylance and Associates. Our
address is 391 West State Street in Eagle.
Guho: My name is Mark Guho, 362 Rooster Drive in Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Dunsmoor: Staff, I think, has done a nice job with the staff report of summarizing our
request. The basic gist of it is that at the time -- in our view, at least, at the time that the
city entered into the development agreement on this property there was a lot of
massaging still going on with the original developer of Resolution Subdivision and he
had visions of an ice rink and a couple other things on this property. Since, then, you
know, Mr. Guho has purchased the property and he would like to build six commercial
buildings there, which would be an outright allowed use in the L -O zone were it not for
this development agreement from four years ago. We think that six concurrent CUP
applications over the next couple months to come and see you, as well as to weigh
down your staffs time, is not necessary, considering that the proposed uses are all
allowed uses in the zone. That's the gist of it. Be happy to stand for any questions if
you have them, though.
De Weerd: And I would just -- I think that Steve mentioned this. At the time this
application came through, it came through with a conceptual plat and that's why this
condition was put on there as it is our ordinance. If it were platted, we could take that
condition off out of the development agreement, but -- and so that's why we are here
today.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, it was a conceptual planned development, which, typically,
requires a detailed CU.
De Weerd: Thank you for the clarification. Are there any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Anything further you would like to add, Mr. Guho?
Guho: We are planning to do, naturally, a first class development there and primarily we
are hovering on medical. We have Idaho Gastroenterologists, which is going to be
building a surgery center. It would be on the northwest lot first here. And I think the
development as a whole is predominately medical in that immediate area and we plan
to continue with that medical and professional office.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions? Need any further information or
clarification? Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 36 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing for MI 04-004.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion? Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 16, MI 04-004, for request for amended
development agreement for Resolution Subdivision No. 1.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 16. Any further discussion?
Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4
to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 By Sutherland
Farm, Inc. — East of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road:
Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79
single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in
proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 By
Sutherland Farm, Inc. — East of South Eagle Road and north of east
Victory Road:
Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in
addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79
single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 with request
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 37 of 58
for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. — East of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 17, 18 and 19 are all related. I will open those three
public hearings on RZ 04-006, PP 04-009, and CUP 04-009. We will start with staff
comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is an application
for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 4. It is outlined in black on the screen. It sits at
the intersection of Eagle Road and Victory Road across from Thousand Springs
Subdivision and south of Silverstone. You can see the aerial photo taken last year
here. Sutherland Farms Subdivision was approved a couple of years ago under this
preliminary plat. What the applicant is trying to do is take phase four -- they are already
final platted phases one, two, and three. They are now at phase four and wish to take
these office lots, change them to residential and, then, reconfigure the residential beside
it in this manner. So, this is that area, the area west of this line -- or, I'm sorry, east of
this line is the already final platted Sutherland Farms No. 3. So, the application before
us tonight encompasses this area. It includes a rezone of that area from R-4 to R-8. It
has a preliminary plat for 79 single-family residential building lots and eight common lots
on 16.1 acres. And the Conditional Use Permit amends the existing planned
development that exists for that site. This was the landscape plan that had been
submitted for the project. You can see the lot layout and the centralized open space.
The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the north portion of the property, as does a multi -use
pathway. You should have a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission from their hearing date on May 6th. There were only two outstanding
issues for Council. One that staff had not yet received the revised plat and landscape
plan to comply with the conditions of approval. The applicant did bring those tonight,
but staff has not had a chance to review them. The second is that the other department
comments for fire, police, sanitary services, and parks were inadvertently left out and
they have been provided to you on the second and third pages of the recommendation
and just would request that you include those in any motion. Staff would like to have an
opportunity to review the plans. I guess the one that I would be most comfortable with
is if it were continued just one week, not that we can't take the testimony tonight, but to
give us just a couple of hours to spend with the plans and make sure that they are in
final compliance. I guess another option would be to act on it tonight and we could
always ask to pull the findings off the Consent Agenda if we did find an issue with our
review. But the applicant has brought the revised plans tonight, we just haven't had a
chance to do a detailed review of them. And I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? If
you will, please, state your name and address.
Fluke: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South
Beechwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. I won't spend a lot of
time on this. We view this as really a fairly minor change, given the scope of the original
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 38 of 58
development. This was handled as a PUD originally and it allowed some general
commercial uses up here in the north, five -acre park here in the center and, then, some
office uses and multi -family in this area, along with some attached single family in that
area there. Great. The Boy Scout ran the batteries out of this one. So, what we did is,
essentially, we maintained the attached single family and just kind of flipped it over into
this office. If we could just see that proposed -- maybe the landscape plan is the
cleanest. It looks like this and what we have proposed is attached single-family dwelling
units along here and, then, detached single family for around here on smaller lots. We
netted out about another 3,500 square feet of open space, I think, and so -- and ended
up with a better configuration, which we have got a two acre park here. We are in
agreement with all the conditions of approval. We worked out, I think, all the issues of
the Planning and Zoning Commission. We don't have any problems with tabling this for
a week, if you want to do that. We have made the changes to the landscape plan. We
saw those as fairly minor and perhaps that's why the urgency wasn't there to get them
done. I apologize and that was my fault. So, if we need to spend some time looking at
those, we can certainly do that. But other than that, I think what you see here is what
you were looking for originally in the planned unit development, which was a little bit
higher residential density, mixed in with some lower density, some open space, and
some commercial uses. So, the original concept hasn't changed, but we did drop a little
bit of office space and replace that with some residential uses. I would take any
questions if you had those now.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I guess, Daren, I do, in terms of the open space. There is just no clear way
of looking into that for safety reasons. How will that remain monitored and safe?
Fluke: Madam Mayor that, actually, was one of the larger issues that we worked out
with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Unfortunately, you don't see the revised
plan, but what we agreed to in meetings with the chief of police was that -- this is a
sewer easement here. What happens is the sewer comes from Silverstone to the north,
comes down and around and down to serve phase one and two in the south and so this
layout, actually, got -- this was the defining factor of the layout was this sewer line. It's
about 30 feet deep and extremely difficult to move and so we must design the project
around that. Long story short, this is 30 feet wide. We agreed with the chief that if we
put 14 feet of grass Crete on top of there, which would provide vehicle access in there
for emergency vehicles and, then, each one of these entryways into the park have been
increased to 15 feet and we did take this lot and turn it up right next to this one, so we
have got two lots sitting there and, then, a clear view in there as well. And that was our
compromise with the chief, rather than to lose all the lots on the corners, so I think
everybody is happy with that.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further -- okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 39 of 58
Fluke: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move to continue Items 17, 18 and 19 for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 4
for one week to our June 15th, 2004, meeting.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items 17, 18 and 19 to
next week, June 15th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20: Public Hearing: PFP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
of 2 building lots on 2.3 acres in an I -L zone for Haztech Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. —475 North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is Public Hearing PFP 04-004 and I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This application is for a
preliminary/final plat combination of a two -lot subdivision on an existing 2.3 acres. It is
located on Linder Road just immediately south of the Union Pacific Railroad. You can
see the area outlined in the aerial photo. The existing -- I don't have my pointer
anymore. It's on -- the existing building sits right on Linder Road and the proposal is to -
- thank you -- split -- split this property into two lots. You can see the existing Haztech
building right on Linder Road in that location. I believe all of the issues on this have
been worked out. The Commission did make one modification to the staff report
regarding fire department sprinklers on the buildings. Other than that, it remains the
same and is detailed in the recommendation for the P&Z Commission hearing date of
May 6 and I would go ahead and stand for any questions at this time.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Well, it's the Boy Scout who
wasted the battery. If you will state your name and address.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 40 of 58
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, again, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Not quite
an Eagle Scout. Steve hit the nail right on the head. It's a simple two -lot subdivision. I
just found out today that the City of Meridian is now going to allow one time splits and
so we -- I guess I'm stuck with the conundrum now as to whether or not to pull this at
this point and do a record of survey and get that recorded quicker than going through
this subdivision process. I would request recommendation for approval tonight and we
agree with the conditions of approval, but now we just have to determine what's going to
be the cheapest and fastest way to get this done for our client. It's unfortunate that we
have got stuck right in the middle of this project when that change happened, but it is
what it is and I have talked to the client and he understands that as well. With your
recommendation for approval tonight, I think that that would be a good indication that
the Planning and Zoning staff would recommend approval of a one time split as well.
So, I would ask for your approval tonight.
De Weerd: I'm sure you're not complaining about that, are you?
McKinnon: I am not complaining at all. I am so excited to hear that. I just -- I feel bad
for my client, who has spent some money to get to this point. And just the one extra
thing I guess I would like to add is if we do go the record of survey route for this for a
one time split, I'd ask that you be willing to waive the fees for that after we have gotten
to this point, that he shouldn't have to submit new fees for doing a one-time split if we go
that route, if that would be agreeable to the Council. Just so he doesn't incur any
additional cost that he already has incurred.
De Weerd: Council, questions or comments? Any comments to the request?
Nary: The fee request or the --
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Nary: Are you waiving your fees, Mr. McKinnon?
De Weerd: No comment.
McKinnon: Well, actually, if we can go the one time split route and we don't have to
route everything, yeah, it's going to cut down on the cost for us to process this for him.
It will. Absolutely.
Nary: Good answer.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: What a way to treat a Boy Scout. Thank you, Dave.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 41 of 58
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we close the Public Hearing PFP 04-004.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 20. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I'd just like to make a comment -- sorry I couldn't get it in before Shaun made
his motion. Just something to think about, not necessarily this particular application, but
Linder Road. Linder Road is the next in a series of facilities that will upgraded in the not
too distant future with an over -crossing of the interstate. I believe that's on ACHD's
long-range plan. And I don't know when that -- and I don't know when that really is
going to be, but Linder Road at some point in time will be a -- probably if not a minor, a
major arterial connecting our community north and south across the interstate and
across at least from the rim to -- well, across the county. Keeping that in mind, as we
see more and more of these activities on Linder Road, that we will have the same issue
with access as we just saw on State Highway 69. So, cross -access agreements,
frontage roads, access limitations, are something we will want to keep in mind in the
future.
Bird: Amen.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree, for that timely reminder. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve PFP 04-004, preliminary/final plat for
Haztech Subdivision.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 42 of 58
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 20. Is there any further
discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21. Public Hearing: AZ 04-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.22
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake —
2855 Magic View Drive:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 21 is Public Hearing AZ 04-008. 1 will open the Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This Item, Item No. 21,
is for Magic View Court, which is located on the south side of Magic View Drive. Just to
orient you, this is the Eagle Road interchange. This is -- oh, now my batteries are dead.
This is Eagle Road. And St. Luke's sits on the big blue lot over here. The gentleman --
maybe I can use the mouse. There we go. This is the subject property. You can see
the existing aerial photo. Developments to the north by -- in the plat done by W.H.
Moore. The proposal tonight is to annex the 5.22 acre lot and zone it -- it's currently
RUT in Ada County. They are requesting C -G in the city. They have submitted a
conceptual site plan, because they know that the Council prefers to see how things may
lay out, but they are trying to keep their options open at this point as to how it really will
lay out in the future. They have provided this as a concept plan. The hearing date with
the Planning and Zoning Commission was on May 6. There were no outstanding issues
for Council from that meeting. However, there has been a letter submitted by Jonathan
Seal, which the Council should have, dated May 25th, addressed to Larry Hellhake -- I
hope I didn't -- great. Okay. They have specified nine uses in that letter. I don't know if
you have that in front of you or if you would like me to put it up, but they have nine uses
that are allowed in the C -G zone that they have requested be prohibited from this site,
basically, through a development agreement and -- does the Council have those uses in
front of them? Yes? Okay. So, that's the only issue that I know of that remains
unresolved at this point and I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: You know, Steve, it might be just faster to put it up.
Siddoway: I will.
De Weerd: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your
name and address.
Hellhake: My name is Larry Hellhake, 3837 North Hall Drive in Eagle, and I represent
the owners Bob and Kathy Barnes, who are also present. And I'm not a Boy Scout, so I
don't know if that counts or not, but I thought I would get that in ahead of time.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 43 of 58
Basically, as staff indicated, we went through the hearing and would like to have the
annexation and rezone to C -G, which is what the Comp Plan is recommending in that
area. We feel -- when we were marketing the property that that was the one thing that
was holding us back. We had several people interested in the property, but they were
always a little bit leery of the statement that it's conceptually approved for this. So, what
we decided to do was to go ahead, have it rezoned, and, then, if we did not sell the
property, we would take a look, as the conceptual plan showed, of developing it ourself.
So, that we would see how things could go together. We feel that the area does need
to be C -G. We don't have any problem at all with the staffs recommendation. As far as
the letter from Mr. Seal, I think of those nine; I believe five of them are conditional use,
so they would come back. I think he can speak for himself, obviously, if he comes up,
but five of those are conditional use, which would mean that you would have to come
back to Planning and Zoning for the use. Four of them are permitted uses, which would
just, basically, involve an application. At this point we would be willing to say before
they are permitted, if this was something that he would want, that would be a conditional
use. We have no problem with that. We, actually, believe that the site is not conducive
to any of those sites and I think he would probably concur, but a development
agreement lasts forever. They are there and 25 or 30 years from now, if somebody
wants to assemble 15 acres and do something in there when this area may change,
then, you're facing a development agreement and another step that's involved in this. In
the wisdom of Planning and Zoning in the concept of the C -G zone in that general area,
which included everything within Magic View Drive, over the years this was discussed
with everyone and it was agreed at that time that this should be C -G and at that time
nobody indicated that they would take pieces out of that. There are some C -G zones
that fit these uses a lot better than other areas and maybe these don't specifically apply
here, but they happen to be part of a C -G zone. So, my feeling is that the market would
indicate that none of these are going to happen and I really would strongly recommend
that Mayor and Council would go along with staff and just approve this as requested
and, then, let the market determine what's going to happen in there. But I really don't
have any other comments in that. We would entertain, if we are required, obviously, to
put all five -- all nine of those uses under -- under conditional use, so that they would
have to come back, so the owner of the property to the north could have a comment on
what is going in there, but not necessarily disapprove those things at this point, not
knowing what the future is going to bring in that area. And with that I would respectfully
ask you to approve it as recommended by staff.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Hellhake: And stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 44 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess -- I understand your points, but you don't think any of those uses should
be prohibited? All of them should be conditional uses? I mean I can't see the
complexion of that property and that area changing at any point in -- even the far future
that a contractor's yard is going to be an appropriate use there or a lumber yard.
Hellhake: I can't either, so what would be the purpose of prohibiting it? If you are going
to do that, we should go down the list of 80 or 90 items and pick out what you and I
believe isn't going to be used and I think the C -G zone says here is these issues, all of
these are permitted or conceptual uses and let the market determine that and staff and
you. I don't want to -- and I'll use the word play God here to say none of those are
going to happen when I can't tell you that for sure for sure for sure.
Nary: That's okay. We do that all the time.
Hellhake: Oh. Well, then, I'm all right.
Nary: Thank you.
Hellhake: So, that's what I'm saying. Leave them there and bring them back, you know,
at the worst case.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further? Okay. Thank you very much. I guess I won't
ask if there is anyone else who would like to provide testimony. Please state your name
and address.
Seal: Jonathan Seal, 600 North Steelhead, Boise, Idaho, representing Winston Moore
here.
De Weerd: Thank you. Did you get sworn in?
Seal: No, I didn't, so if you would like to --
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Seal: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Seal: First I would like to say to the Mayor and also the Council that I apologize for
bringing this after P&Z. When I talked to Brad Hawkins -Clark when I first got the notice
I assumed, like we did with Ustick and Eagle, that if we come in with an annexation and
rezone that there would be conditions put on that at some point in time, such as what
we did there. I found out after the fact, as I was explained it, anything under five acres
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 45 of 58
they can simply do an annexation and rezone. Having said that, could you flip up the --
kind of the site plan? No, the whole area, which would also show our office buildings.
And if I can get my bearings here. This is Lincoln Plaza right here, as you know. There
is Mountain West Bank. We own this and we also own all of this property over here
and, of course, you have medical here. I guess our primary concern is we are not
suggesting a development agreement, if that's not necessary. We don't want to make
this anymore complex than it needs to be. All we are simply saying is is that with those
type of developments around there -- and I think you can appreciate if at anytime any of
these projects came in, it could be a serious detriment to the marketing of our projects.
I know Mr. Hellhake has said, well, let's make this conditional use. But, again, with
conditional uses, then, you're back here again. You have the opportunity to do that, but
you may put some modifications. All we are simply saying is here is uses that we think
clearly would be detrimental to this area and I think this would be shared by other
people if they understood this. All we are simply saying is eliminate these uses. I think
the likelihood of a truck stop or a contractor's yard or an auto repair place, it's very
remote, but there is that possibility. So, we are simply asking the same conditions that
are applied, for example, in EI Dorado Business Campus, Ustick and Eagle, or, for
example -- and this is where we had to do a development agreement and a concept
plan at the time, be applied to some degree to this project and that these uses be
eliminated, whether it's ten years, 20 years, 25 years down the road, these office
buildings are still going to be there. These are uses that could be a real detriment to
any type of use by other people. I don't think that this is a lot to frankly ask for, so --
De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Seal?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I noted the one that was shown up on the board next to the drive-in
establishment, the one that we saw up there said no. Or out. I'm sorry. But on here it's
still there. So, who wrote out and --
Seal: I did. When I talked to Anna Powell, she explained to me this drive-thru windows
and things of that nature. I think Winston misunderstood that one in particular. We
don't have any problem with drive-thrus. I mean, obviously, if it's a bank or something
like that, then, we don't have any opposition. So, he asked me if I would initial that and
sign that -- or sign that and put out, so that's all I did. So, out of these, I think with the
drive-thru establishment, if I'm understanding that correctly, that's such thing as a drive-
thru bank or something like that, we don't have a problem with that.
Nary: That was for like a drive-in theater or --
Seal: That was my understanding that this would be more for a drive-in theater type of
thing, which, obviously, I think is unlikely, but, again, we -- we are not trying to be
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 46 of 58
unreasonable here, we are just asking for things that we think could be a real problem
to the area, so --
Nary: And the sales lot you're talking about is probably like vehicle sales? Is that what
you -- is that what you mean by sales lot?
Seal: Councilman, that's what I would take it as. You know, they are somewhat generic
in their things, but I think the used car, new car sales lot, again, unlikely, but there is a
possibility.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Seal, you say drive-in establishment is okay, as long as it's a bank or
something like that. What if it's a Wendy's or something like that drive-thru?
Seal: We -- I'm sorry.
Bird: Go ahead.
Seal: Councilman, I don't see any problem with that. There is a Subway down the road
from us, so, again, I don't see that -- I think that that's very -- we have got the same
thing at EI Dorado Business Campus, so --
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you.
Seal: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Would the applicant like to respond?
Hellhake: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I agree with --
De Weerd: Please state your name if you would.
Hellhake: Oh, again?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hellhake: Larry --
De Weerd: Oh, yeah. One more time.
Hellhake: All the time?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 47 of 58
De Weerd: No, I did swear you in.
Hellhake: Larry Hellhake.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Hellhake: Address is enough once, though; right?
De Weerd: Yeah
Hellhake: I understand what Mr. Seal is saying and I think we all concur that 99.9
percent of the issues are non -issues we are sitting here discussing. But I really -- I just
hate to see -- see policy being made before the opportunity to make policy is actually
out there in the open. I think your applications, your conditional uses, call for all the
setbacks and landscape requirements and ingress and egress and all other of the
things that make that compatible with the area under the zones that are there. The L -O
zone is, actually, a buffer between the C -G and residential and I don't think -- even
though this may not -- none of those might be a use -- and one of the concerns I did
have was a drive-in establishment, in the event a medical office put a drive-in window
for prescriptions or something to that effect. So, I'm glad he clarified that and did
remove that. But it just -- it seems like there are enough vehicles, enough ordinances in
place to allow this to happen to be an application and if it is detrimental, those cases
can be made in the future and documented. Right now it's just we don't think this is
appropriate and the why's is it economic or is it visual? We don't -- you see, you don't
have anything to make this decision on, is my -- is my feeling, is that I would prefer, if
any of those ever were going to come in, to have -- give them an opportunity, see how --
what a -- what they can do. Maybe they can do something creative that would be
acceptable, but by eliminating it, you eliminate that possibility and, basically, that's it.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Hellhake, what about the other concern, though, that was raised by Mr. Seal?
Is part of it -- I think his concern is an equity issue, that the other properties, including
their properties, have had similar types of restrictions placed upon it and they are,
essentially, just protecting the same interest that they have. I mean, you know, I think
we can all agree that the marketplace does drive many of these things, but I think part
of the reason councils make these types of decisions on these -- on these types of
projects is to say, you know what, we don't want you ever bringing a contractor yard
here for a CUP, because we don't think we want a contractor yard there ever. If you
really want it really badly, then, you can amend the development agreement like we did
earlier, so -- I mean it's not that uncommon for councils to say, look, we can identify
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 48 of 58
some uses that we don't really even want to waste our time trying to review a CU or
someone else wasting their money preparing it. Also, we may believe you, but you may
not be the property owner for the developer five years from now or ten years from now
and I think especially around that Magic View, we haven't always been happy with what
happened later when we believed the people that were there asking for it. So, you
know, if you would at least address your thoughts on the equity part of this and why you
think we still should, you know, simply leave it to the marketplace and the CU process to
drive that.
Hellhake: Well, I guess -- Madam Mayor and Councilman Nary, I guess I just believe in
the market system. That's where it's at, is that the people putting up the money, if they
want to feel like what their use was and they want to, quote, waste their money on an
opportunity, that's their right. They have the ability -- you have stated that that was a
use -- a general use in a C -G zone, if you approve it as a C -G zone, that's what you can
do. If they want to waste their money and time to try to convince you that what their use
is is compatible, that should be their freedom, not -- not eliminating it off the bat. If there
was an elimination, then, it should have been when the annexation -- or the Comp Plan
was made and that area said, okay, this probably is more medical and more office and,
therefore, we are going to put a C -G, but we are going to eliminate 25 of those
permitted or conditional use units in this area, because we know -- and so it's just a --
more of an allowance to let it happen. I understand -- probably shouldn't say this, but if I
was in his position I would be saying the same thing. Not a question. But what I'm
trying to do is defend the ability for somebody to make an application under what the
ordinances say you can do and I realize he has the ability to say, no, we don't think that
is, but the economic detriment -- you know, normally you have to come in and show why
that's an economic detriment and you are -- he's asking you to make a decision on eight
items on his word that that's an economic detriment to his property. But why? I mean --
because we haven't seen anything that would take away from it. And 99.99 percent we
aren't going to see anything. You know, we are in negotiation with a medical use right
now, which, you know, chances are it probably will go through, but we don't know, and
they may sell it to somebody else, as you said. I'm not the ultimate owner and they may
not be the ultimate owner. So, it's just more of ability to function in a free marketplace. I
don't mind -- I defend his right to come in and say I prefer you not do that, as much as I
want to defend my right that I have at least the ability to come and waste my money and
see if it would work.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you. Okay. If there isn't anything
further, no further testimony or comment? Questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess before we close the Public Hearing, I guess the only comment I have is --
the only thing I can think of in recent memory that we sort of followed what's being
proposed here and waited to make policy and let people spend their money and try to
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 49 of 58
figure out a way to make a CU work was that third drive-thru over there by Carl's Junior
on Meridian Road and I'll tell you, by the end of -- by the third time around I was pretty
tired of hearing it and I don't want to go through that with -- but I recognize what you're
saying, is that many of those uses may be able to be done. It may take another piece of
property, it may take another -- some growth of this area or some change to some
degree of area to allow that and I guess at least me I'm willing to do that. The ones up
there that I look at that I think, at least for me, I could say I can't see any change in the
area to allow outside storage of a contractor yard, heavy farm equipment, sales, repair,
or lumber yard. All of those to me have tremendous amount of use of the property and
the majority of it is all outside, versus the others that can be done interior. Outdoor
storage facilities don't really concern me a great deal. Sales lots can be done
predominately interior as well. Many of those can be done through the CU process, so I
guess for me I don't have a problem with most of those uses going through the CU,
other than the ones -- again, I just don't want someone to waste their money and our
time to try to convince us that a contractor's yard or a lumber yard is ever going to work
there, because that heavy use of the outside of the facility to try to get that to fit just isn't
going to make any sense. Not next to the hotels, businesses, restaurants, and
everything else that's there now. But I guess for me that's the ones I would eliminate,
because the rest of it I would agree with you, I'd let the marketplace ferret out and we
will see what happens and whether somebody could make a truck stop or an auto repair
shop or something else work in that spot, that would work for me.
De Weerd: Any further comments? Okay. What would you like to do? No comments?
Would you like to close the public hearings?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing for Item No. 21.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion or further information needed? Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: I would like to know -- and this is a question of staff -- which of those uses are
already conditional use uses, please.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, I'll have that in one second. Do you
already have it? Oh. Apparently, the applicant has already done some of the research.
The truck stop is a permitted use. The contractor's yard is a conditional use.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 50 of 58
Equipment, heavy, farm, sales, and repair is a permitted use. I'm just going to put this
up. A lumberyard is conditional. Auto repair shop is conditional. Drive-thrus, drive-ins
are conditional. Entertainment center is permitted. Sales lots are conditional. And
outdoor storage facilities are permitted. And I believe that is accurate. I can verify that
real quick, but that sounds right.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, any follow up?
Wardle: Yeah. Did we confirm those, Steve?
Siddoway: About half of them.
Wardle: Okay. I'll give you just another minute.
Siddoway: It is correct.
Wardle: Thank you. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve AZ 04-008, request for annexation and zoning, Magic
View Court, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments and to also make a truck
stop, equipment, heavy, farm, sales, and repair, entertainment center, outdoor storage
facility, which are permitted uses within that zone conditional uses.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 04-008 with the amendments
as stated. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22: Tabled from June 1, 2004: Ordinance No. Parks and
Recreation Commission Ordinance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Do we have an ordinance number on Item 22?
Berg: 1081.
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 22 on Ordinance 04-1081. Before I ask the clerk to read it
by title only -- well, why don't you just read this by title only? Is there any discussion? I
guess they can read it by title and have discussion.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 51 of 58
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1081.
An ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, repealing Chapter 2, Title 2, and reenacting
the Parks and Recreation Commission of the Meridian City Code, providing for conflict,
severability, savings clause, and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Is that it? Okay. Council, is there any discussion on this or -- anyone in the
audience wants this read in its entirety? I guess I just had two items and it's to add
clarity on the youth member that would be one of the seven or it would be one of its
own. So, one of the seven? So, we would want to wait until any opening to include a
youth member.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. And in duties it says that it -- that the Commissioners would work in
conjunction with to advise the Mayor and Council and, then, in A-1 it says to advise the
parks and recreation staff, the City Council, and Mayor. So, again, I think there is -- it's
a little bit of a -- a message that's a little bit confusing to me. It has different readings is
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I wanted to address the youth member part. One way we can resolve that
-- sometimes commissions fluctuate in size, people leave, sometimes there becomes an
issue of occasionally that the -- it's not properly constituted without the proper number of
members, so they can't meet. One way that cities have resolved that issue is by
allowing a target without having a fixed membership amount or having a minimum and a
maximum, because I think part of the intent of this ordinance is to get some youth
participation on it and, you know, we have some very dedicated parks commissioners. I
don't know that any of them are planning on leaving. I think they are all very interested
in what goes on and they are very active and very involved and l hate to wait a year or a
year and a half for somebody to decide not to be on it before we can add a youth
member. It's something we could consider if the rest of the Council wants to do, is
changing the language of the B-1 -- and I'm sure Mr. Nichols wants to re-amend this
again, but we could say this Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of a
minimum of seven members and a maximum of nine. And that would allow -- I don't -- I
don't foresee or recognize there may be an even number. My experience with
commissions is that I have rarely seen a tie, I have rarely seen a situation where they
couldn't proceed, because they couldn't get consensus of the group, so I guess for me it
doesn't -- it doesn't concern me that you could have a tie, but that would allow -- to
continue with the members they have, allow for some expansion, and also leave some
room as well for the future. Three may be some need in the future. The currently
constituted members of the commission make the decision as to what the quorum is
anyway and so it doesn't have to be a set number, it can be simply the quorum is the
majority plus one of the current number of members seated. So, that way you can --
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 52 of 58
you can have a youth member sooner and you can also provide some ability for
expansion in the future. You can even make the lowest amount be a minimum of five,
with a maximum of nine. So, that, again, you still have the ability to have a commission
meet if two people decide to quit, before they have another person appointed. So,
those are some ways to address that. On the other one -- point you raised, Madam
Mayor, what section was that? I'm sorry.
De Weerd: It's just the --
Rountree: Duties.
Nary: Duties. It's the duty provision.
Rountree: Page three, I think.
Nary: Yeah. I guess I didn't -- I don't disagree with you that there -- there is some
interpretation, I guess, that it could be in conflict and in the practical sense I don't know
if it's really a conflict, but --
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Nary: The meeting is tomorrow, isn't it?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting is tomorrow
evening. And I'll just reiterate again that I know that the commission, while anxious to
have this ordinance, would want something that the Council's happy with and that the
City of Meridian be happy with in the future and so if we want to hold those over for the
changes, I will certainly make the case to the commission that --
Rountree: Could we approve it as amended?
Wardle: Or potentially we could -- Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. First, if I may, we are happy to make
any changes you want to make to this until the cow comes home. Just a couple of the
things to think about. You hold your meetings in this room, don't you? And there is
seven chairs up here. So, you have a physical limitation if you're going to have more
than seven, at least keep in mind you may have to have some way of drawing straws to
see who sits with the staff, instead of the dais, but that's a physical limitation in this
particular building, which, hopefully, you won't have, you know, too much longer, but it --
that's something to consider here. And if there is any other changes you want to make
just tell us and we will come back again.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, can it be approved with the changes noted?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 53 of 58
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you can always have a first reading
and direct that we make a certain change before the second reading, but it's just cleaner
-- there isn't a real hurry on this, it's been however long now. Let's get it right the first
time, so that you can approve it and, then, what Will puts in the book looks good as
what you want.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: So, if we are going to get it right, what are the precise words that you need in
2-2-3 and -- for the duties? And, then, as a group I guess we need to decide whether or
not we want to create a spot for yet another commissioner or two and get that clarified
and, hopefully, that will do it, so we don't do this one more time.
De Weerd: I guess I feel comfortable with the language that was offered by Councilman
Nary and -- or the flexibility that was offered by Councilman Nary and it either is to work
in conjunction with the staff to advise or it's to advise staff, Council, and Mayor. So, you
know, it just would be cleaner if those read the same. So, you want it to advise staff,
Council and the Mayor or do you want it to work in conjunction with staff to advise the
Mayor and City Council? Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess the real question -- excuse me. The real question on
that is interpretation of what -- what the role is and my only thought on that is if we direct
them to work with staff to the Council and Mayor, I see a limitation as far as - or I don't
see a limitation, but an interpretation that maybe that the commissioners are -- there is a
separation between -- which there is, a separation between the Council and the Mayor,
but I don't want to leave the impression that the only way to go through the Council and
the Mayor is through a staff member, if that makes any sense.
Bird: It does. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That's one of the reasons we brought this new ordinance through, was just the
reason that Mr. Wardle stated. Our old ordinance, everything had to go through staff.
I'm going to be very blunt. The staff we got now was -- is no problem, they would bring
what the commission wanted forward. The old staff wouldn't. That's why this was
brought forward three years ago. We have been messing around with it. I agree with
Mr. Wardle on that. I think that they should report, they should help the staff and have --
but have the direct route to the City Council and the Mayor. I also disagree with the
floating membership. I have sat on a lot of boards; we have always been uneven for the
reason of doing it. I suggest Mr. Nary gets on the MAA board and he can see how
many times the seventh guy has to make or break the tie. So, I am not for that. I'm not
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 54 of 58
for -- at this point not for increasing it, because of the sitting arrangements, having, as
Mr. Wardle and Mayor de Weerd has done the same thing, we'd like to have the public,
so the commissioners have to sit up here. The table is taken by staff and the liaison. I
don't know how we are going to seat them once we get bigger. I'm for going for nine. I
do want youth on there and I'm sure that Mayor at this point, if anybody would resign or
something, would come forward with a youth. I think it's something that we need on a
lot of our commissions is youth, but I do want to keep an uneven number. That's my
say.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: In 2-2-3 -- because I like the language of A and I'm -- I guess I'm not sure from
your comments if that's the language you prefer, is the one that says to advise. In the
2-2-3 it would appear that if we simply added the word and, so that it read it shall be the
duty of the parks and recreation commissioners to work in conjunction with the parks
department staff and to advise the mayor and the City Council in the orderly and
efficient administration of the city parks, it separates the two concepts, one to work
together, the second to advise, and that would appear to meet both the needs that are
addressed by this and I think that's probably adequate with that provision. Again, I think
everybody probably has got varied experiences on having an even number versus odd
numbered boards. Like I said, my suggestion was simply so that we didn't have to wait
around. I don't want to -- I don't want to lose any of the parks commissioners we have.
I think they are all active and interested and great participants, but I certainly don't want
to wait a long period of time either and I -- but there is a -- you know, obviously, the fact
that we only have seven chairs up here and we are putting eight people up here is a
pretty tight squeeze. I haven't been to the parks board, but I'm assuming it's pretty well
attended, so we don't have a lot of absences very often. So, that may be a
consideration. Again, it wouldn't take much to change the language to say a minimum
of five, a maximum of nine, half plus one of the currently seated members shall
constitute a quorum. So, that's all you have to do to do that. But if the rest of the
Council doesn't want that, that's fine.
De Weerd: Just for discussion, I'd hate to limit or exclude youth, which is one of the
whole reasons we also rewrote this, because we have committed commissioners right
now. You could have your floating members that the youth members sit at the table and
I don't see why all the staff members couldn't sit there at once, kind of like we have right
now, they rotate in and out as they need to speak. But I have really never seen at the
parks commission from inception, except one item, a split, and that was on a budget
issue, which is purchasing. So, I don't know. I would like to see youth there. I would
like to see youth there sooner than later and would hate to pressure the commission to
have an opening, so we can get a youth representative.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 55 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we are going to put one on, put two on, then, you've got your nine
De Weerd: And that was also suggested, so -- Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I agree with Mr. Nary's comment about 2-2-3 with the
insertion of the word and. That clears that up. As far as A-1 under that, it seems to me
that that ought to read to advise parks and rec -- to advise and strike the parks and
recreation department staff and to advise the City Council and the Mayor, because in
the duties it says that they are to work in conjunction with the park staff and I don't --
that I think clears up the issue you were talking about language -wise and as it relates to
how we get youth involved. I agree that if that was the intent that probably we ought to
try to do something to implement it, whether it's one or two or not to exceed eight in the
language and that gives you the ability to nominate two -- or not to exceed nine and that
gives you the ability to nominate one or two, but not to exceed nine, gives us an odd
number and how the Mayor and how we vote on that in the future -- or a future Council
votes on it, they have got the parameters, they can make that choice. So, I would say
with those changes let's be done with this rascal.
Bird: Yeah. Let's get her done
De Weerd: Okay. So, do we have consensus on the change of language to the duties
and, then, as stated by Councilman Rountree and also on up to nine members, two of
them can be youth? Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: I believe I'm clear. I just had a quick question. These are three-year terms and
I just had a thought, since we are talking further about youth, if that three year term
would be conducive for a youth member.
De Weerd: There is a statement in that paragraph about -- I believe it's a year -by -year
provision.
Wardle: Thank you. With that I'm clear and will take this to parks commission tomorrow
night with comments, understanding that, hopefully, this is the last round of changes, if
everyone else thinks that's appropriate.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: One final thought. Or you just said -- he said -- or somebody said up to nine. I'm
like Mr. Nary, we have got to have a minimum, too. You have got to have a minimum.
So, I would say -- oh, you got it? Okay. He's got it.
De Weerd: Okay
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 56 of 58
Bird: Forget it.
De Weerd: So, we will continue this until next week. Or approve with the change and
have the second reading next week.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, I would recommend a clean document.
Bird: I would, too.
Nichols: And if I may just review the changes one last time. Under 2-2-1, B, 1, will now
read the parks and rec -- this parks and recreation commission shall consist of a
minimum of seven members and not more than nine members.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Nichols: And, then, change the quorum language to read one half plus one of the
members of the commission shall constitute a quorum.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think the minimum should be five, because I think there is always the potential
that you will have seven members and two people quit for some reason and you don't
want to have an argument or a discussion of whether or not you could actually meet if
you had it -- you probably won't ever have just five, but if you're going to have a
minimum and a maximum that are so close together, it probably defeats the purpose of
having it and if you take the other part of the language on the quorum, Mr. Nichols
should probably say that one half plus one of the members -- of the number of members
currently seated, so that it's clear if you have eight it's five, if you have six, it's four. So,
that it's always based on how many are actually seated at the time, because you may
not always have seven and you may not always have nine. So, that way a list is always
clear. But I just think if you're going to have a minimum that you shouldn't have it quite
so close to the maximum.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nichols: Clarification, Councilman Nary. When you say seated, do you mean appointed
or do you mean at the meeting?
Nary: Appointed. I'm sorry. You're right. Appointed is probably the better one, because
if they are -- because you may have five and four vacancies and could still have a
meeting and the quorum could, then, be three.
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 57 of 58
Nichols: And -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nichols: Then under 2-2-3 in duties in the second line after the word staff, insert the
word and. Under sub A in the first line strike the words parks and recreation and, then,
down about the sixth line strike the work department staff. I believe that's all the
changes.
De Weerd: Does that sound good?
Bird: Sounds great.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, then, I would entertain a motion to continue this item until next
week.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Oh, before we get to this next item, remember the summer picnic or the
picnic this weekend at Storey Park. And I would like to find out if any of you would like
to write a 300 -word guest opinion. The Statesman would like someone's opinion from
Meridian on the school district funding issue. Anyone would like to volunteer? Because
personally they haven't told me what their funding issue is and so I don't feel qualified to
comment.
Nary: What was the -- 300 words on -- what was it again? I'm sorry.
De Weerd: The school district funding issue. Okay. Hearing none, no volunteers, we
will just tell them that no one feels informed well enough to be able to comment,
because we've only read in the paper --
Rountree: We know what's in the paper.
Item 23: EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: Yeah. Okay. And without any further discussion, so I have a motion to
adjourn into executive session?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 58 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into executive session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c), I
believe it is.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn into executive session. Mr. Clerk,
will you, please, call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK
6 /22/0¢
DATE APPROVED
Meridian City Council
June 8, 2004
Page 58 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into executive session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c), 1
believe it is.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn into executive session. Mr. Clerk,
will you, please, call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor — oh, can I --? All those in favor say aye. No decisions
were made while in Executive Session.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor, say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:21 P.M.
(TAP71-17. LLE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
6 / `?-i/04--
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD ` 0, o"FM�w,,�DATE APPROVED
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR,