HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 11-03CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll -call Attendance:
O Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: Josh Hatfield — Boy Scout Troop 166
3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle: Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as amended
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting:
Approve
B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting:
Approve
C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting: Approve
D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with
Ken Hamilton Presentations: Approve
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04-
024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT
to R-4 zone for proposed Siiverleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family
residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by
Meridian City Co moil Agen4a —No ber 3, 2004
Page 1 of4
Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard:
Approve
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential
lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and
street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve
H. Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission
for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04-
015: Approve
I. Coral Creek / Blackstone Lift Station Upgrade: Approve
J.
K. Approve Bills: Approve
6. Department Reports:
A. Planning and Zoning Department — Anna Powell
1. New Employee/ Planner:
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Nothing
8. FP 04-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 single-family residential
building lots on .45 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision
No. 7 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 7 is a re-
subdivision of Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub.
No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane:
Approve
9. FP 04-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 2 single-family residential
building lots on .34 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision
No. 8 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 8 is a re-
subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45, Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub No. 2)
— east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: Approve
10. FP 04-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential
building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres in an R-8 zone for
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates
Maidim City Council Agm&- Novemba 3, 2004
Page 2 of 4
Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle
Road: Approve
11. FP 04-062 Request for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential
building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres in an R-8 zone for
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle
Road: Approve
12. FP 04-063 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 single-family residential
building lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres in a R-8 zone for
Sheridan Place Subdivision by Robert Chavez — east of North Locust
Grove Road and north of East McMillan Road: Table to November 9,
2004 Agenda
13. FP 04-064 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 single-family residential
building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres in an R-8 zone for Sienna
Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West
Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Approve
14. AP 04-003 Request to appeal the decision and order of the Planning
and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat of Kingsbridge
Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Approve -
Notice Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat for November 30, 2004
15. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: AZ 04-023 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for
proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South
Eagle Road: Re -Notice Public Hearing for November 30, 2004
16. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: CUP 04-032
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions.to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the
maximum block length allowed for proposed Kincsbridge Subdivision by
Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Re -Notice Public Hearing
for November 30, 2004
17, Public Hearing: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation
easements in Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of
Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3;
the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by
Properties West, Inc — west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
for Approval
Meridian City Council Agenda—November3, 2004
Page 3 of 4
18. Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves
Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves — 1258 East Cougar
Creek Drive: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
19. Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-
8 to C -C zone for Calms Crossing Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of
Linder Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
20. Public Hearing: PP 04.033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11
commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C -C zone for Calms
Crossina Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. —
south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
21. Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods
Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the
City of Meridian — NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove
Road: Continue Public Hearing to November 16, 2004
22. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: Approve
23. Ordinance No. 04-1112 : City Attorney: Approve
24. City Attorney / Human Resources: Report on Benefits Option Flex
Pay: Approve
Maidim City Comc% Agenda—November 3, 2004
Page 4 of 4
Meridian City Council Regular Meeting November 3. 2004.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:22 P.M.,
Tuesday, November 3, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and
Christine Donnell.
Members Absent: Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Bill Musser,
Kenny Bowers, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the regularly scheduled City Council meeting
to order. it is Wednesday, November 3rd, 7:22. 1 would like to welcome you all here
with us tonight. We will start the meeting with the roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Josh Hatfield — Boy Scout Troop 166
De Weerd: I'd also like to welcome Troop 166. We appreciate you joining us tonight
and we do have one of their members Josh Hatfield who will lead us in the pledge. If
you will all rise?
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle:
De Weerd: Thank you, Josh. Item 3 is our community invocation by Pastor Bud
Henthorn with the Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Please take this moment to join us in
the community invocation or a time for a moment of silence.
Henthorn: Heavenly Father, we come before you this evening in awe of the spectacle
that we have just witnessed. We have seen over 120 million people cast a vote. We
have seen those ballots collected and counted overnight and we have seen how this
great nation has made its voice heard and we are grateful today to be Americans. We
are grateful, Lord God, for the freedom that you have purchased for us. We are grateful
for the grace that has made us and preserved us as a nation. Father, we have
witnessed our national leaders debating issues with such passion and such conviction.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 2 of 62
We have watched as our fellow Americans have made their opinions known and we
have entered into those discussions with our neighbors and yet, Lord, we have emerged
today knowing that we are one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
everyone and for this we are grateful. We ask, Heavenly Father, that you would grant
the men and women of this City Council with grace to lead this community with courage
and with conviction and we pray, Father, that you would allow those of us who are
participating in that process tonight to share our opinions, to share them with passion, to
share them with courage and yet, Lord, to always remember that no matter what issues
we are debating, no matter how much we may disagree with one another, help us, Lord
God, to remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, we are all created by
the same Heavenly Father, we are all equally valued by the one who gave his life for us.
We pray, God that unity and harmony and human value and dignity would prevail
according to your grace, in Jesus name, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Pastor, thank you for that message and I do have a pin for you, so you can't
leave that quickly. Thank you. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We do have a couple of requests. The Planning and Zoning director has
requested if we would move 17 on the regular agenda up to 13A, it would be highly
appreciated and No. 22, the ordinance number is 04-1112 and item number -- we'd like
to add Item No. 23, with the Council's approval, department report by the city attorney.
And with that I would move that we adopt the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion has been moved and seconded to approve the agenda
as amended. Any further discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting:
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 3 of 62
C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting:
D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with
Ken Hamilton Presentations:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04-
024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT
to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family
residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by
Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential
lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and
street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard:
H. Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission
for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04-
015:
Coral Creek / Blackstone Lift Station Upgrade:
J.
K. Approve Bills:
De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to
sign and Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 4 of 62
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Any
further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Department Reports:
De Weerd: Thank you. There are no items under department reports. Staff, is there
any last minute items?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did make an offer on a new
planner yesterday and he has accepted. We just don't have room for him yet, so,
hopefully, he will start toward the middle of the month and his name is Joe Genther, he's
from -- formerly worked for Ada County and has -- brings a lot of wonderful talents and
experience to our team and we are very excited about it, so --
De Weerd: That's great, Anna. Now, we have even higher expectations of your
department.
Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8: FP 04-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 single-family residential
building lots on .45 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision
No. 7 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 7 is a re-
subdivision of Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub.
No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8, FP 04-059. 1 will open this with staff comments.
Canning: So much for those high expectations. Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council, I apologize for that. I realized that the picture wasn't showing exactly what I
wanted it to, so I was trying to change it. I did want to give a quick photo credit,
because everybody commented on this. This picture was taken by Compass staff and
e-mailed to us the other day and we did appreciate them thinking of us and it just goes
to show the cooperation between staffs these days. They were impressed by how nice
it looked, so they took a picture and sent it to us. Okay. Now, to the item at hand.
Sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat request for three
single-family lots on 4.45 acres in an R-4 zone. You may remember that you recently
vacated the easements on the former lots. It was formerly four lots, we vacated those
easements. They are now final platting three lots. It is a re -subdivision of, as I said,
four lots, Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 7. This
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 5 of 62
is still in substantial compliance with the approved plat and staff is recommending
approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant agree with all staff comments?
Canning: Yes. We have a letter stating that they do.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Hearing no comments, I would move that we approve Item No. 8, FP 04-059,
final plat for Ashford Greens Sub No. 7, subject to staff comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item No. 8. Any further discussion? Okay.
Mr. Berg.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: FP 04-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 2 single-family residential
building lots on .34 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision
No. 8 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 8 is a re-
subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45, Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub No. 2)
— east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. Item 9, FP 04-060. Anna.
Canning: This is why I was working on it. I apologize, Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council. This was a similar situation where we recently vacated the easements on
three lots and now they are final platting two lots. It's a re -subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and
45 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 2. The preliminary -- or the final plat
substantially complies with the preliminary plat. There is one less lot, but staff is
recommending approval. And we do have a letter from the applicant stating that they
are in agreement with the conditions of approval.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 6 of 62
De Weerd: Thank you. I saw the G.Smith and thought, oh, an old memo. Council, any
further --
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: -- information needed? Okay. Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 9, FP 04-060 for Ashford Greens Sub No.
8, subject to staff comment.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 9. If there is no
further discussion, Mr. Berg?
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT
Item 10: FP 04-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential
building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres in an R-8 zone for
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle
Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is FP 04-061. Start with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat approval for 92
single-family residential lots and 19 common lots on 30.64 acres. The subdivision will
have a gross density of 3.01 dwelling units per acre and a net density of about 4.08
dwelling units per acre. This is the final plat as you see it here. This was the
preliminary plat. The area is circled in red. We turned sideways. We are turned -- we
have got different directions going there, but it's the same. This is -- north is heading to
the left and then -- and, then, north is heading up here. So, the plat -- the submitted
final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. Some lots were
reconfigured in Block 9. However, the number of building lots stayed the same and
there is one less lot on the final than was approved on the preliminary plat for Block 13
and two lots less on Block 10. The open space has increased accordingly in these
areas, so staff is recommending approval of the final plat as submitted. There is a letter
from the applicant and there is one clarification note and, then, they have -- they have
asked us to address one concern with item number 22, it's regarding Nampa -Meridian
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 7 of 62
Irrigation District. The note that you see there is the standard note that Bruce puts on
the plats that's generally what Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District wants. Bruce said he's
comfortable if they want to approve something else, as long as Nampa -Meridian has
approved it, that he could work with that. So, he would ask that the Council give him
some latitude to address that issue consistent with Nampa -Meridian's approval. I just
don't want to give up the microphone today. I could, though.
De Weerd: So, Anna, you are okay with the response from the applicant and in
agreement?
Canning: Yes. There was just those two issues, so we are in agreement with those
items.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have any further comment? Okay. And, Bruce,
now that you were able to get that away from her --
Freckleton: I wrestled it away from her. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I
would just ask that in regards to site specific comment number 22 on page four of five,
that we get something in writing from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District specifically
addressing the width of the easement. Typically, what they have required is a five-foot
easement width from the centerline of the pipe towards the lot. In this design they have
their pipe designed three feet off the property line, giving us a total of eight feet, and so
that's what I had requested, but if Nampa -Meridian in this case wants to agree to
something less, I would just request that I get something in writing to that effect, just for
the paper trail.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, do you have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 04-061, Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2, with staff
comments, particularly Mr. Freckleton's regarding the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation on site
specific item number 22.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve with the special note on item 22 regarding
if it's a lesser standard, that we need a letter confirming that from Nampa -Meridian
Irrigation District. Is that --
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 8 of 62
Bird: That's right.
De Weerd: Okay. Does that work, Bruce? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: FP 04-062 Request for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential
building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres in an R-8 zone for
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle
Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 is FP 04-062. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is another final plat for
Redfeather Estates asking for approval of 46 single family lots and three common lots
on 13.73 acres. It will have a gross density of 3.35 dwelling units per acre and a net
density of 4.19 units per acre. This is the portion of the preliminary plat. This time they
are both going in the right direction. The final plat does comply with the approved
preliminary plat. There were some minor changes. The open space storm drainage lot
increased and some of the lot frontages decreased slightly in size, but they are still
within the minimum frontage approved for the planned development and, then, the open
space configuration on Lot 5, Block 20, we thought had changed, but as the applicant
stated in their letter, it was just a misunderstanding on staffs part, because it was done
on a prior plat or on another plat. There is a letter from the applicant that raises a
number of concerns -- well, not concerns, but clarifications and discussions and staff
has -- agrees with the comments made by the applicant regarding -- on that letter. So,
staff is okay with those concerns and is recommending that Council would make those
changes. The changes would be to remove note number nine and to remove 11-A.
Okay. And, then, the other issue is regarding number 19 and that issue was discussed
during -- the issue is whether or not to leave the ditch open or to have it tiled and that
was discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and staff would
accept that ditch be left open. That was the recommendation of the P&Z.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Any additional comment from the applicant?
Canning: Sheri, any additional --
Meridian City Council
November 3. 2004
Page 9 of 62
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve FP 04-062, Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3
and to remove items No. 9 and 11-A and on item number 19 to leave the ditch open.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 11 with the noted changes. Any
further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12: FP 04-063 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 single-family residential
building lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres in a R-8 zone for
Sheridan Place Subdivision by Robert Chavez — east of North Locust
Grove Road and north of East McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is FP 04-063, final plat. Staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat for Sheridan Place
Subdivision. This -- you see the final plat here. This is the approved preliminary plat.
This takes access off of Ustick. This is on the north side of Ustick and it connects into
Vienna Woods and Edinburgh subdivisions. This was our annexation path to those
subdivisions. The final plat has 50 single-family lots and 13 common lots on 15.34
acres. The gross density is 3.26 dwelling units per acre, the net density is 4.31 dwelling
units per acre. It is -- it does have R-8 zoning and the lot sizes run from 6,500 square
feet to 7,000 square feet. The final plat does comply with the approved preliminary plat
and this is just the first phase of it as you see there. No. That's the whole thing. Sorry.
This is the entire preliminary plat as you see it. We have a letter from the applicant and
it does raise some -- some issues. Those are on number seven, 11, and 16, those
conditions of approval. The first one the applicant had asked us to clarify where the ten
foot setback is, is it from the common area lot line or the street, and it would be
measured from the common area lot line, not from the street. The second one was they
have requested that the Ada County Highway District approve the use of an existing 20
foot wide driveway. The issue was that they couldn't take access in this corner lot down
in that area, but the applicant, through the preliminary plat process, had asked for a 20
foot access easement through that common lot, so — to serve an existing home. So,
staff agrees that that condition of approval restricting access to Ustick should be
removed. There is a common lot in the way here. So, the only -- the only lot it may
apply to is this one here, but they would have to go over a common lot in that area. The
third issue, they have just asked to -- that was number 16. Sorry. Both 11 and 16
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 10 of 62
related to that issue. So, they have asked for some -- a change in wording and staff is
in agreement with those changes.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, would you go over those last two items you just discussed, because
I'm not sure what you said.
Canning: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Rountree.
I'll do that one again. Okay.
Rountree: Thank you.
Canning: The existing condition reads -- the existing -- on number 11. The first
sentence says existing house on Lot 9, Block 5, which is that lot right there, will be
required to take access from North Schubert Way, which is right there. But through the
process they had specifically requested and been approved to take access from an
existing driveway to Ustick. So, they have asked us to strike that sentence I just read.
And, then, the other issue is on note number -- on condition number 16, the staff
planner had asked them to add a note stating that direct -- I'm sorry, it's not Ustick, it's
McMillan. It could be one of those kind of nights. Its McMillan. It says direct lot access
to East McMillan Road is prohibited. So, they have asked that it read instead: Except
for the cross -access easement shown for Lot 9, Block 5, direct lot access to East
McMillan Road is prohibited. Is that more clear Council -member Rountree? I
apologize.
Rountree: Essentially, Madam Mayor, what we have said is that there will be no access
to McMillan and what they are asking for is that there will be allowed access to McMillan
from Lot 9.
Canning: Correct. And they did -- they had asked for that during the preliminary plat
process. It's one of those situations where the existing garage can't be reworked to
serve from Schubert. But the Council has in the past -required applicants to make it
work.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, you indicated there was some approval involved in that. Was that
approval part of the approval of the preliminary plat or was that part of the coordination
on the part of the applicant with ACRD?
Canning: I believe they got it specifically approved by ACHD.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 11 of 62
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Anna, so what was the discussion at Council regarding -- I know Council
has been pretty particular about having those extra accesses and that's why there is
discussion about accessing it within the subdivision, not having yet one more access
out onto a busy road.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't remember discussing the
issue in detail. In all honesty, IT need to go pull the file on the preliminary plat. I don't
have it with me. I'll have to look at the original staff report and the minutes and report
back to you. If you want to hold this one over for a week, I can have that for you next
week.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, would that be your desire?
Rountree: That would be my preference, Madam Mayor, to get that clarified, because
I'm not of the opinion at this point to agree with that recommendation.
De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have any comment at this time? Please state
your name and address.
Stiles: Sheri Stiles, 150 East Aiken Street, Eagle, Idaho. Mayor de Weerd, Councilman
Rountree, the access was shown on the approved preliminary plat. It had always been
the intention to show that. Ada County Highway District's comments were included in
the development agreement and it does reference use the existing driveway on the east
side of the property. That east was in error, it should have been the west, and the
applicant has taken that approval to do some extensive remodeling of that home to
make it fit in better with the new neighborhood. They will be paving it the entire length
into the property, but it was part of the preliminary plat approval.
Rountree: Thank you, Sheri.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, it still would be my preference to hold this until we can get
the input from the staff on this particular item.
De Weerd: Okay. So, do I have a motion?
Rountree: And I would move as such, that we hold this Item No. 12 until our next
regularly scheduled meeting, which is the 9th of November.
Bird: Table it until then?
Rountree: Just table it until then.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 12 of 62
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to table Item 12 to November 9th. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13: FP 04-064 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 single-family residential
building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres in an R-8 zone for Sienna
Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West
Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Item 13 is FP 04-064. Staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, try and get my major arterials right
this time. This is Sienna Creek Subdivision. This is the preliminary plat. Ustick -- it
really is Ustick this time -- nuns to the south of the property and, then, this takes access
off of Venable, which comes up on the east side of the property and, then, there is two
entrances -- or one entrance off of Venable, then, it connects through Cedar Springs for
an access. Yeah. This one is closed off. Now it's got two accesses off of Venable.
There we go. This is a request for 35 single-family building lots and six common lots on
8.84 acres and this is the first phase of Sienna Creek Subdivision. It's R-8 zoning and it
will have a gross density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 5.5 dwelling
units per acre. We did have a CU approved that allowed for reduced requirements for
lot size and street frontages. The preliminary plat does substantially comply -- I mean
the final plat does substantially comply with the approved preliminary. And staff is
recommending approval. I know that the applicant has concerns with the fencing issues
associated around the common lot at the entrance of the property and I will let her bring
those issues up to you. And that's all for now.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Wanner-Sissler: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council members. My name is Lisa
Wanner-Sissler, doing business as Sagewood Development. I reside at 2752 South
Goshen Way in Boise. My comments are two fold in regards to the fencing. Neither of
them are a make it or break it situation for me, but I do have some strong preferences
about what I would like to see happen. For rear lot lines adjoining common areas, I'm
wondering if a five foot semi-solid fence, rather than a four foot semi-solid fence would
be acceptable to the Council. I'm strictly thinking of people in their backyards and what
most people are used to is a fence higher than four feet in their backyard. So, my
preference for marketability purposes only would be to see a five-foot semi-solid fence
around the rear lot lines that adjoin into the park -like area. My second concern has to
do with the four lots that would technically have side yard fencing adjoining the common
area. Two of those lots would have side yard fencing on Venable Lane, which is the
more -- you know, which is the main local commercial street that comes into the
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 13 of 62
subdivision and, then, there are two more lots that would technically front onto common
area space up in the interior of the subdivision and I'm wondering if, rather than a four
foot -- the way that the -- that comment number four in the staff comments reads, under
item A, is that there would be a four foot semi-solid fence adjoining all common areas
and on those side yards I would prefer to see something like a four foot solid structure,
followed by a one or two foot, you know, open or semi -open structure to get up to a five
or six foot fencing requirement. So, that's, basically, in a nutshell what I would ask for
and if you have any questions, I would be happy to explain my preferences further.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Wanner-Sissler: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Members of the Council, I did want to point out that the wording that is on the
condition is the one that went through on the preliminary plat. That standard condition
is a five-foot with -- or a four -foot with two feet of semi-solid -- four foot solid with two
feet of semi -open or a five-foot open. So, it was an unusual standard that got into the
staff report, so staff doesn't have any objections to modifying it to meet the applicant's
concerns that she's raised.
De Weerd: Okay. In both the areas noted?
Canning: Yeah. That would be fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed?
Rountree: No.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Donnell: Madam Mayor, I'm going to make my first motion
Rountree: I was hoping you would.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 14 of 62
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Go for it.
Donnell: That's only because I'm going to beat Councilman Bird or Councilman
Rountree. See if I can do this right.
Rountree: Well, we have been waiting for you.
Donnell: I knew it. I'm sure you have been waiting. Madam Mayor, I move that we
approve Item No. 13, FP 04-064, Sienna Creek Subdivision, with those changes as
approved by staff.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 13. Is there any further discussion?
Thank you. Mr. Berg.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 17: Public Hearing: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation
easements in Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of
Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3;
the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by
Properties West, Inc — west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: In Council's motion to approve the agenda, they did move Item 17 ahead of
14, so I will go ahead and open Item 17, Public Hearing VAC 04-007 with staff
comments.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Since this is a Public Hearing, did you want to swear in all of the parties now,
since you'd have to at least if comments are going to be on Stokesberry?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Thank you. We are in the public commenting section of our
agenda and since our city attorney has not changed this ordinance yet, we are required
to swear in everyone who would like to provide testimony on any of the public hearings,
Items 15 through 21. So, if you will raise your right hand if you intend on offering
testimony in any of those items tonight. 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.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 15 of 62
(Affirmative answers.)
De Weerd: Okay. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request to vacate irrigation
easements. You may recall Stokesberry Subdivision is along Eagle Road just south of
the Carol Subdivision and the applicant came in to reconfigure the plat sometime ago.
There was -- they opened this up into several lots facing a common drive aisle with
parking on either side, so there is -- they have re -platted several lots, but before they
can get construction going, they need to vacate the existing easements on the first plat
that was done. So, that's their request tonight is to vacate the easements that you see
hatched here. Staff does have a notarized letter from Nampa -Meridian saying that they
are -- they have consented to the easement vacation and staff is recommending
approval of this vacation easement.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant like to provide any additional
comment? Okay. It is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer
testimony on this item? Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing that nobody wants to have a Public Hearing, I will move that we close the
Public Hearing on VAC 04-007.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in
favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve VAC 04-007, Stokesberry Subdivision vacation of
easements of irrigation and incorporate staff comments.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 17. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Clerk.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 16 of 62
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14: AP 04-003 Request to appeal the decision and order of the Planning and
Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat of Kingsbridge
Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14 is AP 04-003 and I will ask, Anna, to briefly introduce
this application and, then, ask our city attorney to explain the process or do we want to
reverse that order?
Nary: It's your preference, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Well, we will start will you, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Since you're so amenable tonight.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this matter before you here, Item 14, is
not a Public Hearing, it is an appeal of a decision by the Planning and Zoning
Commission denying the preliminary plat. That is the decision to grant -- or to approve
or deny a preliminary plat is within the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In their decision and order they list a number of reasons for their denial and one of the
those reasons is based on a legal premise that, in my opinion, is in error. Their belief
that the denial was appropriate for the plat was because they had recommended denial
of annexation, because there was an issue that was raised at the Planning and Zoning
hearing regarding some covenants between an adjoining property, as well as some
issues regarding the applicability of an Ada County ordinance to this property. The
Planning and Zoning Commission made this decision in regards to the Ada County
ordinance in error, because the Ada County ordinance would not apply to the City of
Meridian if this property were to be annexed. So, basing that premise as a reason for
recommending denial of the annexation and, therefore, recommending denial of the
preliminary plat, is, in my opinion, an error and so that is something that you would need
to consider in this appeal tonight. Again, it's not a Public Hearing, so what I
recommend, Council, for you to do is to put on the record the reasons that are here in
front of you tonight, so the record is clear. Again, one of those -- the rest of the
conditions that they listed are within their purview, it's just the one that was based on a
faulty legal premise that I believe is in error. If you concur with that decision, then, I
would give the applicant an opportunity to also make comment and, then, Council, you
can make the decision on whether you agree with that or not and, then, I would
recommend the following action: If you chose to grant the appeal, that you re -notice all
of these matters for a hearing later and not tonight, because the plat itself has not
initially been -- been noticed, because, again, it was not a Public Hearing and continue
all of these matters for one hearing in front of this body. You also have the option to
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 17 of 62
remand this matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review if you'd
like, although they did address it very briefly at their meeting in October when this was
requested for reconsideration. So, you're not obligated to send it back, you can hear it
again. Or, in the alternative, you can deny the appeal of this matter entirely and if you
do that, it's not necessary for you to hear the annexation and zoning or the CUP, but
you can certainly hear those if you wish and make a decision separately on those
applications. So, you have a couple of different options in front of you, but that's —
process -wise that's how we are here at this point and how you can go forward.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, I guess the item that you think kind of leaves us open legally,
is that --
Nary: It's in their decision and order -- yes. Decision and order, it is C -1-B and that,
again, deals with -- is an issue that was raised at the Public Hearing at the Planning and
Zoning Commission regarding some discrepancies -- or at least belief by the -- the
members of the public about some covenants in regards to the adjoining property, that,
in my opinion, aren't relative to whether or not you choose to annex. If you hear this
matter, you still have within your discretion the decision on whether to annex this
property, whether to zone it as it's being requested, to grant the conditional uses with
the changes to the subdivision that are being requested and to approve the subdivision
as it's designed. All of those are within your discretion. My only point is that the
decision -- or the premise that was based at the annexation should be denied because
of the applicability of the Ada County ordinance to this property, once it's annexed to the
City of Meridian, is wrong. It is not applicable to the city once you annex it. The other
premise that the covenants of a different subdivision may apply is not the city's battle,
that is — that is a -- if a lawsuit is to stem from that, that is between that adjoining
property and this property. That's not the city's fight and that's not within the city's
purview to decide on when making a decision whether to annex this property or not.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for Mr. Nary?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Nary, you indicated in process that one of the options is the possibility of
continuing the hearings that we have scheduled tonight. Is that the right word or would
we table them or just re -notice all of the hearings pursuant to this matter?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Council -member Rountree, we would be required re -notice them
anyway, because of the -- because the plat itself hasn't been noticed. Mr. Berg's office
can re -notice all of these -- these hearings in one notice anyway. So, I'm not as hung
up as the prior counsel on which word is more appropriate, but you could certainly set
all of these matters over, notice them up in one -- in one notice to all the property
owners as required by statute and you would be fine. To a specific date. And you can
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 18 of 62
certainly pick that date tonight, so assist Mr. Berg in getting that notice out, but you
could certainly do that.
De Weerd: I think all property owners are here, so that would be easy.
Nary: It appears there are certainly many of them here.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I think counsel -- Mr. Nary did a good summary, so I will save
Mrs. Canning from that. Would the applicant like to add any further information to this
appeal? If you will, please, state your name and address.
Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott.
E -1 -1 -i -o -t -t. I'm resident legal counsel for the applicant Vision First, Limited Liability
Company. Our address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle. 83616.
Randy Cuarno, the CEO of Vision First and the managing member of the LLC, is here
with me this evening and is prepared to answer any questions that the Council might
have. Just to briefly follow up on what the city attorney said, by filing this appeal we are
not asking the City Council to make a quick interpretation of this Dartmoor covenant and
support the Council's judgment for the conclusions of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. We are just asking the City Council to conclude that the interpretation of
the private covenant is outside the scope of the City Council's decision when finding if
annexation is in the public interest. As the city attorney recommended, we think that the
decision by declaring that the city takes no position and makes no findings or
conclusions on that private covenant or it's continued enforceability, would take the city
out of the middle of any potential litigation between the applicants and the Dartmoor
residents and would leave it to us to resolve as a private matter, either amicably or with
some assistance from the district court. We are prepared to do that and we think that
the city's decision as to public interest and the grounds for annexation and plat approval
should be based on the Comp Plan and the area of impact agreement between the city
and Ada County and we would respectfully ask the City Council, as Mr. Nary has
recommended, to grant our appeal and, then, to reschedule these three files for a
combined hearing at the City Council at a later date. Thank you very much. If you have
any questions I would be happy to answer them.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I don't have any.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 19 of 62
Bird: Just the legality. What we need to do is -- you have not opened the public
hearings on 15 and 16, we are just dealing with 14 right now; am I not right?
Nary: Yes. That's right.
Bird: So -- and we need to table all three to a certain date and get them re -noticed, all
three of them. Is that not right, Mr. Attorney?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Thank you.
Nary: We have to make a motion on the appeal.
Bird: We will have to make a motion on the appeal separate.
Nary: Correct.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Point of clarification on the last comment, that we would have two separate
motions in the event that that's what we are going to do?
Nary: Madam Mayor --
Rountree: A motion on the appeal and, then, a motion to set the matter aside or hear it
tonight or whatever.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Rountree that is
correct. You would need to make one motion on the appeal on whether you choose to
grant the appeal or deny that and, then, a second motion as to whatever action you
wish to take, setting all of these three matters over to a date certain for -- and direct that
they be noticed up as required, remanding it if you wish -- I guess those would be your
two options.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess just because I'm not going to try and explain what you
have already explained, because we have already been down that road, but the whole
reason the 15 and 16 -- items 15 and 16 would make sense to re -notice and continued
is they should accompany the plat and because the plat has not been noticed, it cannot
be heard tonight.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that is exactly right
Meridian Clty Council
November 3, 2004
Page 20 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. Well, you explained it very well. And it was also your
recommendation that the appeal be considered because of the legality issue?
Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Of one of the --
Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we don't have anymore discussion, I will try this. The attorney might have to
help me along here, but I would move that we grant the appeal of the decision and order
of the Planning and Zoning Commission, AP 04-003, denying the preliminary plat of
Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC. I guess that's all I have to say on that
one.
Rountree: I will second that.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, just to clarify, the appeal is to -- your motion was to approve
the appeal to hear the presentation on the preliminary plat.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Not to approve the preliminary plat.
Bird: Not to approve the preliminary plat, to approve the appeal of the decision and
order.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: AZ 04-023 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for
proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South
Eagle Road:
Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: CUP 04-032
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 21 of 62
consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the
maximum block length allowed for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by
Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Now, Madam Mayor, I will try all three of them. I move that we re -notice on Items
14, 15 and 16 -- 14, 15 and 16, Kingsbridge Subdivision, to set the date of November
30th, 2004.
Donnell: I second that.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to re -notice Items 15 and 16 and the
preliminary plat, Item 14, for November 30th. Is there any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'd just point out that if we act favorably on that motion, that you cannot imply
that this is an approval of this application or this annexation, it's simply a matter to bring
it back before Council as a package.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: And I agree with that statement. That's very good.
De Weerd: So noted. Mr. Berg, will you call -- oh, I don't need to ask you to do that. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Canning: Madam Mayor, before the applicant leaves, we did -- as staff we did want to
point out that we have received the full copies of the revised preliminary plat, so staff
will need those as soon as possible if they are going to prepare any kind of response to
that.
Berg: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Berg: We will need that also for the notice, if we are going to send out a notice. I'm
sure the public would like to see the most current plat that's going to be before you in
their application.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 22 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And so I guess all of those that are here on those items,
the date has been -- we really like seeing you here and we appreciate your patience,
but -- so we will hear this item, then, on November 30th. There is no more appeals or
anything, so public testimony will be taken on the 30th of November.
Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves
Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves — 1258 East Cougar
Creek Drive:
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the Public Hearing for Item 18, CUP 04-029
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was not here for the
reconsideration hearing, but this is a reconsideration item for this day care. The
conditional use permit came before you for -- it was for 30 children, that's what would be
supported by the lot layout. The applicant did request reconsideration and Mr. Bird did
change his motion, I believe, to -- or Mr. Rountree, I'm sorry.
Rountree: I will admit to it.
Canning: And staff does not have any -- we do not have anything regarding the
proposed changes to the initial recommendation, so I'm going to let the applicant
present those to you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Steeves: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Condra Steeves, 7035 North Linder
Road, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Steeves: We are actually going to tag team it tonight, because I am doing a part and
they are doing whatever. I don't -- anyway, for the reconsideration, we had first asked
for 30 to 40 students and the preschool noted as its set as a day care, but in the
preschool we have now changed our request from 30 to 40 to 27, which is our current
enrollment, dropping to 25 at reenrollment. And that changes it 30 percent in our
numbers that we have gone down. There was two main issues, the size and the safety,
and we are willing to drop down to those numbers that we had talked about. That also
could be extrapolated to traffic, too, 30 percent decrease, and that -- in the safety issues
we have passed our Central District Health inspection, they have done their safety stuff
on it, we have passed our fire marshal thing and -- I mean inspection and we also have
talked to the police department and have gotten some good tips on how to secure the
home. There would not be anyone living in it after hours. We are 9:00 to 3:00 and,
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 23 of 62
then, the place would be vacated. It already is vacated and so it has been empty,
except for us to have been moving things in here and there. We already have the
neighbor next -- on the east is parking their car in the driveway in the evenings off and
on to keep it looking like it's lived in. We are putting in a security system. The doors all
ding even when people walk in during the day, so we know who is coming and going.
The security system, we had talked about the backyard, wondering how to keep it
secure prior -- I mean for our conversation with the police department. They suggested
the biggest deterrent would be a neighborhood watch, which they do not have in the
neighborhood yet. I would love to bring that up and start a neighborhood watch and
also having neighbors around who are watching -- like I mentioned the neighbor to the
east next door is watching and parking their car in there. My sister at 1076 Cougar
Creek down the street, is also patrolling as she comes back and forth. The neighbors
kitty -comer, the Cabes, are going to be watching for us, too. Also, the backyard, they
said the biggest deterrent is motion lights, to get the motion lights on, so as soon as
someone were to walk in the back, the lights would come on. As long as the
neighborhood knows that it's secured and we have a security system and that people
are watching it, he didn't feel like there was going to be those kind of issues there. Can
we have that first one back up? May I ask that? Okay. There had been concern raised
from the street behind, which is Stormy -- the block right behind it is Stormy, as per
traffic, because there is a new subdivision going — I don't know how to do this.
Rountree: Push the button.
Steeves: There you go. Behind here is a subdivision going in, which is going to create
more traffic for the street. The -- we can request a stop sign be put there. People who
are coming through this way are not going to want to come through there as a cut back
if they have to stop. That's just not going to -- I mean no one is going to want us to do
that. They'd rather go through the light. On this street we were not successful in getting
the speed limit changed, since that's the highway district and they just don't change
speed limits, unless -- I don't know. But they can -- we can request a speed monitor put
up, so as people drive by it shows their speeds and that will help them to slow down and
realize what the speed limit is, because being there the last couple of weeks, just setting
up and getting ready for inspections and all these things that we were asked to do, they
are going really fast. But I don't during the day -- it was evening when we were over
there, so they are going a lot faster than the speed limit and we would like to get that
changed to where they are keeping the speeds down. And, then, also you can request
speed bumps, but whether you will actually get them or not -- but those are things that
can be done. Any questions for me?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: No. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. If you will state your name and address.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 24 of 52
Bolinder: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Erik Bolinder, 913 West
River Street. I'm here on behalf of the applicant in support of approval of this
Conditional Use Permit. I would point out that since this is a rehearing motion, the
applicant specifically asked that the people -- all the people that came before to the
hearing in support, that they not show up again and burden you with repetitive testimony
of what they brought to you before and I would refer you to the record of that hearing as
you can consider this rehearing tonight. First of all, based on the record from the prior
hearing, there are a few conclusions that everyone here appears to agree with. The
first one is Mrs. Steeves is highly qualified to provide a safe, structured, educational
preschool at the site. Second, Mrs. Steeves and her numerous supporters have
demonstrated a high demand for this kind of service to the area and to the community.
And, third, Mrs. Steeves and her supporters have spent considerable time and effort to
do, first of all, the right thing in going through the conditional use process, informing
neighbors, and offering a whole litany of conditions of approval. They have addressed
parking, traffic, safety, and landscaping. They have even offered a provision whereby
the Conditional Use Permit may not be transferable to another operator or assure that
conditions are actually met. This will assure that the conditions are actually met and
that the use does not evolve beyond what is appropriate. As far as health and safety
go, keep in mind that Central District Health and the fire department must inspect and
approve the operation for its use before they are able to operate and that's what they
have been doing is actually going through that process now to show that they can get
that approval. The Council discussion from the last hearing seemed centered on the
conclusion that this is a business and, therefore, consider it a commercial use. Under
the definition of commercial use in Title 11, this appears to be a logical conclusion.
However, the analysis doesn't stop at the mere definition of commercial use. In fact, if
you look at Section 11-8-1, the zoning schedule of use control, under the subheading
residential, there is a list of land uses under residential. These uses could also,
technically -- a number of these uses could also technically meet the definition of
commercial use. Boarding or lodging houses, family child care, home, group children's
home, home occupations, libraries, and private parks are all listed as residential land
uses. But depending on how they are managed, they could also be commercial uses.
Despite this fact, the ordinance lists these explicitly as residential land uses in the
schedule of use controls. More on point, another use that is listed under the heading
residential land uses, is childcare centers. And this is the very use for which the
applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit. The ordinance already contemplates
this use as a compatible residential use. In fact, the ordinance lists this use as a
residential land use. It's interesting to note that childcare centers is also listed under
commercial land uses in Section B of the same schedule, illustrating that these two are
not necessarily mutually exclusive. We should note the actual use for which the
application is being made. Mrs. Steeves intends on operating a preschool. This almost
fits more clearly into the code definition of school, except for one minor fact. The
definition of school includes applying the courses of study required by the State Board
of Education. That's one thing that's included in their definition and the State Board of
Education has not promulgated any courses of study for a preschool or a nursery. They
start at kindergarten. Barring that fact, if you look at the whole definition, it would meet
more appropriately that definition than of a childcare center or a day care. This creates
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 25 of 62
at least a legitimate question as to whether what Mrs. Steeves is trying to do really fits
that definition and for the reason of that one caveat in the definition; they chose to
submit the application as a childcare center. Even so, Mrs. Steeves follows an
organized curriculum that is completely designed to better prepare preschool age
children for the curriculum they face in kindergarten, including those courses of study
required by the state board of education once they reach kindergarten level. This is not
a kiddy drop off center, its not a baby-sitting business, it's not a day care. It's a
preschool. It would meet the definition of a school under the Meridian City Code, but for
the reference to State Board of Education requirements. I don't think anyone would
argue whether a school generally would be an incompatible use in an R-8 zone.
Likewise, a childcare center is also contemplated as a compatible residential use in the
code. Mrs. Steeves' preschool with its home feel serves a very unique purpose of
transitioning the child from the home environment to the educational environment. I
wish we had the time to get into performance data or studies that show how effective
this type of transition is in preparing our children for kindergarten. You have the toddler
who gets out of diapers, who is used to the home environment, who now will need to
transition to a learning environment in an institution and a preschool like this in a home
environment provides that transition and providing that transition close to home in a
neighborhood is a very appropriate residential use. We have heard a lot of anecdotal
testimony confirming this by those who support this approach. And this is not just
another business trying to come to Meridian with a competitive edge. This is a
preschool that will effectively serve its neighborhood and, in fact, further the goals and
objectives of the Comp Plan. A vital service will be provided in close proximity to its
patrons at a relatively low impact, much like neighbors who are able to walk to school,
parents will be able to walk children to this site. You even heard testimony from a future
employee who will also be able to walk to work. This is the kind of use that helps
accomplish the goal of providing a balance of uses while reducing impact if such a use
were not as convenient. With all the conditions that the applicant has offered to accept
and based on the fact that this is truly a contemplated use in a residential zone, I would
urge you to approve this conditional use application. I will be happy to stand for any
questions at this time.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bolinder: Thank you.
Nickle: Madam Mayor, Council, Shawn Nickle, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle,
representing Condra Steeves. Very quickly, by reducing the number of children in this
facility, this does free up an additional space in the park -- in the driveway, which, in
turn, would allow vehicles to pull into the driveway, to drop off children, turn around, and
go back out Cougar Creek without doing the loop around the subdivision and possibly
going out on Stormy Drive. Mrs. Steeves is going to make that a requirement of her
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 26 of 62
students and her students' parents that will make this use more compatible with some of
the opposition testimony at the last hearing. In addition, because this is an allowed use
within the residential, we are asking for the waiver to the side landscaping requirements
and, again, it is our belief that the requirements that are currently in the child care
section refer to this, if it was going to go into a commercial setting, and, therefore,
require that additional landscaping. We believe we can meet that landscaping and we
can work with staff on the appropriate type of buffering -- fencing, buffering
requirements to make sure that this is a compatible use to the area. I will stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Donnell: Madam Mayor, I do.
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Explain to me again, if you would, how they are going to make a turn around in
that area. Oh, thank you. That's helpful. But rather than go around the subdivision, is
what I heard you say, rather to make that total loop and go out, that the parents would
drop off the children, turn, and come back and go back the way they entered. But
where can they do that?
Nickle: Madam Mayor and Council -member Donnell, the parking requirement for this
type of facility is one space per ten occupants, which have required us to have one, two,
three, four parking spaces. By eliminating that -- by reducing that number, it frees up an
extra space, thereby, a car can come in, pull into the driveway, drop off their children,
and, then, back out and continue -- or go back towards Cougar Creek.
Donnell: So, they don't make a --
Nickle: Right. And that would be a requirement that she would put on the parents to
make sure that they do not inconvenience any other neighbors by pulling around.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Council -member Donnell, the applicant is a little confused on
their parking requirements.
Nickle: Am I?
Canning: Staff had always said that this site could only accommodate 30 children,
because the parking requirements is one per each staff person, which would be the two
in the garage, and, then, one per every ten children, which would be the three in the
front. So, the reduction to 27 students from 30 still does not reduce the parking
requirements. You would still be required to have all three parking spaces available.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 27 of 62
Nickle: Madam Mayor and Council -member Donnell, it would still provide -- they would
still be able to go in there, though, and back up with -- even with three cars in that -- and
thanks for clearing that up for me, Anna. That is our intent, again, to have those cars
back -- pull into the driveway, back out, and, then, go back towards Locust Grove. I
think that's my time.
Donnell: Madam Mayor, follow-up question. It doesn't seem very safe to me to have
cars backing out into the traffic. Does it not seem to make more sense for cars to be
able to go in and, then, come back out, rather than backing out? Do you see what I'm
saying? And I guess I just -- it seems to me that when I see most -- I'll give you an
example. The day care and preschool that's on Linder Road right before the railroad
tracks, that's a circular drive, you can go in, drop your children off, you know, continue
on. You can go, then, either direction. So, would it not be better to have some way that
-- rather than to pull in and, then, back out again? Does that seem safer?
Nickle: That would seem safer. I don't believe we have the room to do a full circular
driveway.
Donnell: So, there isn't the space to do that?
Nickle: Not without -- if you put the map back up. They are referring to this area right
here, so, yes, we could have them make that turn and go back out that way. That's
another option, I guess, for a requirement to the parents.
Donnell: Except many of them may just continue to choose -- I would choose just to go
around and go back out.
Nickle: They could. Yeah. They could. It would be a request by Condra to her parents
and from what I understand of the parents, they -- you know, they are responsible and I
think they can come to that agreement. One other thing to point out is that the hours of
operation, I think, was key in I think the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation of this to the Council, because the 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, would be offset from the normal commute time and I think that even if
there was one or two that did not follow Condra's instructions and was to make the loop,
it would probably not impact that neighborhood as much, but --
Donnell: Particularly, if the grandmother goes to pick them up and doesn't know which
way to go.
Nickle: That is true and that could happen.
Donnell: That has happened other places. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have a number of people signed up. If I call your
name, I will indicate whether you signed up for or against. If you would like to provide
testimony, you're certainly invited to step forward as I call your name. Don Steeves, for.
Meridian Clty Council
November 3, 2004
Page 28 of 62
Okay. Okay. So, if I mess up your name, please, don't get too offended. Karen
Hadley, for. Stephanie Perry, for. Okay. Malinda Jensen, for. Okay. Ann Vaughn,
against. Okay. Sharon Gilbert, against. And I -- this person signed her name, so I can't
read it. Maureen or Marlene. Sorry. Marlene, what is your last name? Nicholson.
Signed up against. And if any of you want to provide testimony, please, step forward.
Gary Gilbert against. Okay. Tina Christensen, against. Okay.
Christensen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Board, my name is Tina Christensen. I
live at 1429 East Stormy Drive, which is a block north of Cougar Creek. I have lived on
Stormy Drive for seven years and I'm a single person, teacher, and I just feel like my
home is an investment and I feel that if we set a precedent of putting a business in our
subdivision area, that we set the precedent of other people doing that and I feel like that
would devalue the -- my home and I also feel like the traffic going through, just more of
increase in traffic and on my street there are lots of children on the street and I feel like
that could be a hazard for them. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Brenda Cabe, for. And Robin Harris, against. Please
state your name and address.
Harris: Yes. Thank you. My name is Robin Harris, I live at 1301 East Stormy Drive
and I'm also speaking for my wife and another person that you mentioned asked me to
speak for them, Gary and Sharon Gilbert. I have some comments that I wrote. I would
like to go through those first and, then, I would like to address some of the issues -- or
some of the comments raised by the applicants, if I may. When I first saw the notice for
this day care or preschool, I, actually, didn't realize that it was for 40 children. I thought
it was going to be a husband and wife who was going to have a day care for like five or
six children in their home. Otherwise, I would have been here earlier. But I probably
misread something. I oppose this 40 children preschool for the following reasons: First,
a house of less than 1,500 square feet I would think would be too small for -- at that
time 40 children, but even for 25 children, even though the city staff has looked at it and
approved it for fire and that type of thing. There already is a business on this street and
it's actually next door to where this house is. It's not, I guess, according to the definition
that was read earlier, wouldn't classify as a commercial business, but it is a hospice for
mentally handicapped males. In this case it's all males. I approve -- I'm not against that
business and I, actually, enjoy that it's there in a setting. However, this would be right
next to where all these children would be. I live directly behind this particular place and
there is a lot of commotion sometimes, not always, and a lot of things that are spoken
that maybe wouldn't be appropriate for small children to hear. The Cougar and Stormy
Streets form this U pattern. I'd like to speak to that just a little bit and, then, later I will
come back to some of the comments that were made. With 25 children this could
increase the traffic on Stormy by about 50 auto trips a day. That's two trips per child if
they make this U -shape loop, which there is plenty of incentive to do that. I go running
at 3:00 o'clock, at 9:00 o'clock, because I work shift work and -- or used to and there is
still plenty of traffic on Locust and on Ustick at these hours. It's not the peak, but there
is still plenty of traffic and a person coming in could make --
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 29 of 62
Nary: You have to use this mike, sir.
Canning: And, sir, if you would prefer, there is a laser pointer right at that podium and
you can just use that.
Harris: Oh, tied to the podium. I see. Okay. Can't take it home. If you come on
around over here, boom, this street right here takes you straight to Ustick and it's easy
access to Ustick, instead of having to cross traffic on -- over here on Locust Grove.
Another thing is you got all these people coming in, they talked about turning around,
believe me, you're going to have all these people coming at one time trying to turn
around and that's going to be congested. It will be convenient for these people to
continue on around, come back to Locust, and come on down or go over here to Ustick.
This little cul-de-sac thing right here is not very large, if there are any cars parked there,
there will be nobody turning around there. Also, it's dangerous, because now you have
all these people coming out of here, coming down this way. So, you do have some
traffic concerns there. Then, also, with this development that is being built here, it will
increase the auto trips -- have the potential to increase the auto trips here by an
additional 120 per day. So, now we have increased the whole auto trips on Stormy
Drive right there by about 170 auto trips a day, assuming, you know, every person does
this -- uses this road. In the past I have been a president of the homeowners
association here. We have tried many things to get people to slow down on this road.
Nothing has been successful. We did -- the city did come out and put one of those
speed warning deals. That was fine for the week that they left it there, as soon as it was
gone, boom, it just -- a week later it was like it was never there in the first place. We
have a gentleman that lives right here, he has -- he's retired, he has stood out here to
slow people down and, you know, nobody cares. We have numerous children that play
along this street and there is nothing to slow these people down. A stop sign right here,
we tried to get a stop sign here when this little division was put in. No go. A stop sign
would not be put in there. Speed bumps and things like that, nothing has ever been --
De Weerd: Sir, could you, please, summarize.
Harris: Pardon?
De Weerd: If you, could, please, summarize.
Harris: Okay. Well, to answer some of the points brought up by the other gentleman,
people walking their children to this preschool, that's only temporary until those children
grow older. There is no control over that, so you will still have people driving here. The
driveway will still be a congested place, because all of these children -- all of these
people will be coming at the same time. And I think I have already answered some of
the other points that this gentleman brought up. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you, Mr. Harris. Okay. That is
who I had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on
this application?
Meridian City Coundl
November 3, 2004
Page 30 of 62
Jensen: I'm Malinda Jensen, 1885 North Aronmink in Meridian, and the biggest issue
that seems to be coming out is the traffic thing. You have to remember -- I am for -- and
you have to remember that we car pool. I mean I have more than one child in my car
and we do not come at the same time. Not everybody shows up at 12:45 at the same
time, and so I think the biggest issue, too, is that subdivision that's coming in right next
to them, to Stormy Drive, the people on Stormy Drive, I think, you know, if that
subdivision wasn't there, it might be such a big deal. That's just what I think. So, traffic,
I don't think, is going to be any different than what you see normally.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay.
Nicholson: I'm Marlene Nicholson and I live at 1263 East Stormy Drive and I just moved
into the area about two years ago and the reason I moved into that area, because there
was not a lot of traffic, it was nice, slow -- it was a nice place to retire. I moved from a
busy area where they -- the street won't be open, it was opened, and all I had was traffic
going back and forth across. What happens now if you decide that you're going to
approve this and they don't do as you say? Can that go back and, you know, you take
back what has happened? We just -- you know, I just don't think it needs to be there. If
there is a day care, it needs to be in a commercial area where most day cares are -- or
most preschools are, instead of in a subdivision, where there are small children,
increased traffic, that type of thing.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Please state your name
and address.
Alton: Judy Alton, 1252 East Stormy Drive
De Weerd: Thank you.
Alton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm here to represent myself and about
36 neighbors whom we felt didn't really understand what was going to be going into our
neighborhood. When we were initially approached about this day care center, we were
just told, you know, we are looking at having a day care center in the neighborhood,
come to a meeting.
Nary: Ma'am, could you pull the mike down, please.
Alton: Oh, I'm sorry. My assumption and the assumption of most of our neighbors was
this was going to be a home-based business, we are talking five or six children, and no
one had an objection to that, we all live busy lives, and so we didn't pursue it any further
than that. At our last meeting Representative Rountree and Wardle spoke very
insightfully about the commercial nature and encroachment into our residential
neighborhoods and we'd like to thank them for that, for acknowledging that. Its very
important to us. We have moved into a residential neighborhood, because that's where
we wanted to live. If we had wanted to live in a mixed-use area, we would have
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 31 of 62
relocated in that kind of development. I commend Mrs. Steeves for what she's doing.
She's providing a service to the community, and all the reports are glowing that she
does wonderful things for children and no one has any criticism of her or of that. What
we are opposed to is commercial development in our neighborhood. We do have some
concerns about traffic, but our bigger concern is the City of Meridian is at a crucial point,
we are growing like crazy and what we are going to be in the future we have to
determine now if we want to preserve the kind of environment where we can have
separation between commercial businesses and what that brings with it and our living
areas. We need to make that decision now. If we begin to allow a worthwhile and a
worthy cause business, if we give that the okay now, where are we going to draw the
line? We are told that there is going to be I think three classes a day and that's great,
but if we say yes to that, what if the desire and the need arises for four classes a day?
Can we say no to that? We have no control over whether people are going to car pool
or not. You know, they are and that's wonderful, but what about new people? There is
no way of controlling where they drive or whether they car pool. There is a wonderful
facility on Locust Grove, it appears to me, about a quarter of a half -mile away. It's a
house that's been converted into a business. Empty. Up for lease at this time. Lots of
parking. Lots of area for play. It would be a wonderful preschool. We would like to see
that kind of facility used, rather than a house in one of our neighborhoods. No, we are
not against children, we would just like to see some more creative solutions, perhaps,
developed. If we were talking about four or five children, we could -- you could multiply
the services all over the community and still meet the same need, but fit into the current
zoning. So, we would like to respectfully request that you would decline this and some
of the people who have signed our petition are here tonight and I'd like to ask them to
stand. What our petition said -- we took this from the notification that was sent out
about this meeting. It says I respectfully oppose allowing the property located at 1258
Cougar Creek Drive to be changed from residential to a commercially zoned property
for the purpose of Condra Steeves operating a permanent and full-time 30 to 40 student
preschool business from that location. I understand now it's not going to be that many,
but that was what came out in the notice. And I suppose it may not technically be
changing the zoning, but we are making an allowance provision to allow a commercial
business. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay.
S.Alton: My name is Steve Alton, 1252 East Stormy Drive. I don't want to go over
everything that's already been said, but I do want to get this out of my face and I want to
emphasize a little bit more some questions that we have been wrestling with with this
idea of putting a business in our neighborhood. The question does come up of what if
and a what if question is what if the cars don't turn around, what if they do come around
to our neighborhood? That's already been brought up. What is our recourse at that
point? What if the children -- and all the testimony that we heard in the last meeting
about how many people are going to walk to this environment, what if they don't do that
when it's 15 degrees, a wind's blowing, and there is ice on the ground, which is probably
-- they are probably not going to walk, they are probably going to drive. And, then, what
do we do when this is expanded -- and this has already been brought up, but what do
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 32 of 62
we do when it's been expanded to four classes a day? And the last testimony in the last
meeting Condra Steeves said that 60 people are interested, but you only want to
approve 25. That raises the question in my mind of would there be a lot of pressure to
accommodate the rest if nobody could monitor this, if there were no governing bodies to
enforce what we have -- what you could possibly agree on tonight as being okay? What
is our recourse at that point? Do we come back in? Is there another opportunity for us
to reverse this? I don't know. Those are questions that we have. I don't know how you
get them answered.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, do you want to explain about a Conditional Use Permit?
Nary: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The question you're asking is
can the Council condition some of the things that are being requested as to the
increasing class sizes, hours of operation, all of those things the Council has the ability
to place those conditions upon this property, so they can't expend the use. I don't recall
in the staff report -- I think previously it was brought up that one of the conditions that
planning and zoning specifically had set on this particular conditional use that it went to
Mrs. Sleeves. It didn't go to the property, it went to her. So, it couldn't be transferred to
another property owner. Someone couldn't purchase this business and operate it under
this Conditional Use Permit, because what was recommended is that it went to her for
her operation only. So, the Council can place all of those conditions. If they aren't
being met, then, we do have -- we do have enforcement mechanisms within the city to
enforce all of those conditions. If that isn't complied with, then, that can be brought back
for the City Council for a revocation of that Conditional Use Permit. So, there are
mechanisms that are already in place in the city code to place those restrictions upon
this property and to enforce it if they aren't being adhered to.
S.Alton: Okay. And who monitors this?
Nary: Who monitors --
S.Alton: The enforcement.
Nary: The enforcement is monitored by our code enforcement division.
S.Alton: They patrol, they --
Nary: No, they don't patrol. I mean -- no. No. No.
S.Alton: How does it happen?
Nary: Okay. How does it happen? It's happens from people calling the city saying this
isn't being adhered to.
S.Alton: So we patrol --
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 33 of 62
Nary: Here is the problem.
S.Alton: Got you. Right. That's good.
Nary: Exactly.
S.Alton: Suggestion or statement. This is a worthwhile endeavor, there is no doubt
about it. I don't want to argue that point. There is a need for it, there is a desire for it,
its legitimate. It was stated in the last meeting that Condra Steeves wasn't doing this
for money and I appreciate that. That's a noble endeavor to do this for families and kids
and make no money at it. What I would suggest to meet that need of the children and
to meet our concerns, for the City Council to consider -- and this is what I think Judy
was trying to allude to about the four or five, is to take the 60 children that want to come
-- or 60 families that want to participate right now and divide those into groups of four
and five in their own neighborhoods, they can walk -- they can do the walking four or
five houses down or where ever those four or five families live in close proximity, they
can come under the guideline of a true day care, nobody will object, Condra Steeves
can send over her teachers to teach -- not only teach the children, but teach the parents
how to do what they are proposing to do and that, then, in those cells -- those cells can
be -- the location can be rotated on a daily basis house to house to house, so it's
moving through the neighborhood, its never at one place saturating traffic and those
kind of concerns. The beauty of it is is that that can grow, potentially, to -- there are no
limits. It can go on forever and it can continue to duplicate as what they have learned is
duplicated into the homeowners in the area and, then, they duplicate into others.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. When we give someone extra time, because they speak
on behalf of people, it's unusual that we, then, ask everyone to come up and speak as
well. but --
Gilbert: I will be very brief.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Gilbert: My knees are shaking.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Gilbert: My name is Sharon Gilbert and I live on Cougar Creek. I'm about six houses
between the proposed property and Locust Grove.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 34 of 62
Nary: We need your address, ma'am.
Gilbert: 1396 Cougar Creek.
De Weerd: Thank you
Gilbert: Right now there is a lot of talk about the traffic and the traffic on Cougar Creek
is quite heavy and most of it -- I think -- we have only been there four months -- comes
from the group home that will be next door to the proposed property. It's -- from what I
have observed it's a shift change and they just come racing in there and I realize by the
time they get to the proposed property they are probably slowing down, but I am
concerned about the children. I realize that a parent will be dropping their child off and
a parent will also be picking their child up, but there is also that one in a lifetime chance
that a child could be out in the street when somebody from the group home comes. My
other issue with the group home is, you know, children are curious and if they are
playing in the backyard as they are out next to the fence, I don't know what kind of
language they might hear coming from next door. I don't know what they might see if
they peek through the fence. That's a concern for me. Concern for the children.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Is there any further testimony? Would
the applicant like to have their five minute rebuttal?
Steeves: Thank you, Mayor, Councilmen. In, yeah, rebuttal to those, to start with, the
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name.
Steeves: Okay. Condra Steeves, 7035 North Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho. The traffic
-- we don't have 25 coming in at the same time. Our classes are staggered. Monday,
Wednesday, Friday we only have 17 that are even coming. We just run them as
classes. They are preschool classes. They come in nine at a time, go to a room with a
teacher, and so you have probably four cars coming in at 9:00 and four coming -- five,
maybe, at 9:30. Sixty kids -- we run Monday, Wednesday, Friday classes, Tuesday -
Thursday classes, Monday through Thursday classes in the afternoon, so you can right
there where it's -- what -- anyway, they are staggered days, too. So, we could have that
many enrolled and not have that many children on the premises and not have that many
cars come in. So, the 50 car, whatever -- how it was figured, doesn't quite compute with
what we do. The people on Cougar Creek we have talked to within our radius. They
also what is -- they are the ones that are going to be impacted, the people the most --
are those people and as you see, they are not here against it and they have actually
supported us and petitioned for us. They don't feel like that's going to be a big issue.
As to the commercial, its not -- it's not a commercial, it's a residential home, and when
they moved into the R-8 zone the provisions are already there to allow this. This is an
allowed use. There is one, two streets up, a home, same thing, 44 kids, and it runs
from 6:30 in the morning to 6:00 o'clock at night and it's just a drop off. What we are
trying to do is preserve the residential neighborhood to do the small classes and to keep
it as a home in the residential. It will be bought as a residence, it will be listed as a
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 35 of 62
residence, it will not affect property values, and it will fit very nicely into the residents
and, like I say, the R-8 zone does allow this. This is already allowed. So, that's not --
when it comes to the law, the code, that's not an issue. It is allowed.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just for clarification. Its my understanding that you do have the classes and
the classes are inside, it's not --
Steeves: They are never outside.
Rountree: -- a day care, you don't turn them loose in the backyard?
Steeves: No. If they went outside to play, it would be in the backyard. The group home
is right next door. It's a blackout fence, so the kids -- I mean they could get next to it
and try and look. It's the garage that's next door, not the home. They have a separate
garage. The group home men -- there are five to eight in there. Five at last count. And
they are -- if they are able to get up and move around, they are out at work during the
day while we are there. The evening there has been some reports of some language,
even some things that wouldn't be appropriate for children. We are there when they are
not, they are there when we are not, and that is one reason is also a good use for that
house. The family had it on the market for three years next to the group home. It
wouldn't sell. People just were afraid to move in next to a group home. We can work
very well next to them and oo-exist and be able to provide that service, too.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: I don't have any further questions or discussion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 36 of 62
Donnell: If I might ask for clarification. If I listened to the testimony, between a school,
which a state board does provide a written curriculum for, and a day care and since I'm
very new to this, an R-8 zone allows a day care, but does not allow a school; is that
right?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, probably Mrs. Canning can answer that
easier for you. I think -- I think that's been the issue that we have wrestled with on this,
is that it sort of fits in between those two things, which, again, is what a conditional use
is for.
Donnell: Sure.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Donnell, I'm looking
up school really fast. Just one moment. I don't have it memorized yet. A private
nursery school is listed as conditional in R-8, as is a child-care center. So, those are
consistent. There was a lot of discussion about the difference between a preschool and
a day care and having had a mother who was a preschool teacher, I very much
understand the difference and I understand them wanting to make the distinction, but
from a land use standpoint, the uses are identical. You have children arriving at a site
and leaving a site, accompanied by parents. From a land use perspective those
distinctions are not important. So, we have processed this as a day care. We could
have also processed -- it's just there is that -- there is an inconsistency in the code
about the private nursery school. One would think that definition would apply, but when
you actually go and read the definition there is a problem there. The public school
definition also has the language about being consistent with the state education rules.
So, that distinction is not really all that important. Either way it's a conditional use. Or if
you want to say its a use that's not listed in the zoning ordinance, it becomes a
conditional use for the R-8 district, so --
Donnell: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. If there is no further information needed and if you're ready to
consider a motion --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 18.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 37 of 62
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Ora motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Since I was the Councilman who made the motion previously to deny this
application and since the denial and with the additional information this evening, my
concerns, which were two -- one was the scope or the scale of the facility that was
originally proposed in a residential area I thought was not appropriate and I think that
scaling it back to no more than 27 initially, with re-application for the next term of the
school to be no more than 25, is more in line with what I would envision a residential
slash commercial slash some kind of an activity in a residential area that's, in fact, an R-
8 residential zone, but by its nature does allow this kind of use with our conditions. The
other issue I was concerned with was safety and several things that I heard tonight
eased my concern there. One, the coordination that's been done with the police chief
and the suggestions and I believe recommendations and agreement on the part of the
applicant for lighting, their offer to assist in the community and in the neighborhood to
pursue a community watch or neighborhood watch program, I think that's -- that's a real
benefit for the community. Usually what it takes is somebody to champion that and
once they are in place they are a good thing, but you have to have somebody that's
wanting to take the drive to do it. So, I think that offer to at least assist in that effort is
laudable. Having said that, Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve CUP 04-029,
request for conditional use for Condra Steeves day care center and slash preschool.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 18 with the findings and the notation
that it is 25 at the beginning of the new term.
Rountree: With the testimony presented here this evening and staff comment. And I'm
sure we are going to get a request about landscaping.
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I could not follow all of the proposals
that the applicant was making. I got the two -- the lighting, I believe, was in the rear
yard and, then, I have got the 25 to 27. A number of those issues she raised I was
wondering if Council -member Rountree wanted those added as conditions of approval.
There are -- enforcing the neighborhood watch I don't think would be possible, so I'm
just trying to clarify exactly which of those proposals you wanted included in the
conditions of approval.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 38 of 82
Rountree: Madam Mayor, Anna, the one significant one is the number limitation in
terms of students, so not to exceed 25 after this initial class of 27 -- I don't know, do
they graduate or whatever they do. Go on to public school. And the safety items that
were testified by the applicant be included as conditions and that was lighting and -- I
don't remember all the particulars that she and the chief had explained, but that should
be on the transcript. Other than that, I have no other specifics.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And just to clarify, because I don't know that I heard that, the original types of
conditions that were discussed previously and recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, such as the conditional use is to Mrs. Steeves herself, the hours of
operation, those would be included as well, I assume, Council -member Rountree.
Rountree: My intention was that all of the previous conditions are still applicable
Nary: Thank you
Canning: And, finally, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is still an
outstanding issue on whether or not a variance is required from the parking standards.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that one not be required. I
will refresh your memory. Hold on. The -- and this is an issue, again, because we have
got a commercial use in a residential district. The parking would overhang -- the
required setback is 20 feet for this property. The code says that the parking cannot be
in the required setback area. The applicant has been able to get the parking so that it's
within 15 feet. Now, a 15 -foot setback is allowed for a residence if the garage does not
-- if its a portion of the house that isn't the garage. So, there is this question of the 15
foot -- does this piece of property have a 15 -foot or a 20 -foot setback. Fifteen foot
generally applies to a residence, being allowed to move that residence forward. The
standard setback is 20 feet for the district.
De Weerd: What does the motion maker want to do about that?
Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, I suppose that would be subject to another motion. But
I could add it to mine.
De Weerd: I believe, legal counsel, can that be included in the findings?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes. If you feel a variance is
appropriate, one of the requirements of a variance that usually is a sticking point is
whether or not there is any other alternative, whether or not this is, essentially, the most
reasonable alternative. Here you already have a house that's there, so its not -- its not
that they can't -- they can't build it differently and it is -- was built as a residence, so you
certainly could make the findings, if you want to include that variance to allow a 15 foot,
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 39 of 62
rather than 20, as part of your motion, you could certainly do that and we could make
findings.
Canning: We haven't noticed a variance. The question before -- I'm sorry, Madam
Mayor, Members of the Council. The question before the Council is staff has said that
we believe a variance is required. We need directions from Council as to whether or not
you believe that to be true. If you think that this does require a variance, we need to
add a condition of approval to the application stating that a variance application is
required.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, can't it be -- can't it be a condition on a CUP? It would go with the CUP. I
mean this is -- the variance -- you know, if the CUP goes away, we don't want the
variance left there. Why couldn't it be a condition on the CUP, the same as other
conditions you put on CUPs?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only way to vary from a set
dimensional standard is either through the variance process or the planned
development process. This was not processed as a planned development. There
would have been additional requirements for amenities and different things that staff
would have looked at for that application, so --
De Weerd: So, it's more to put a condition for a variance application?
Canning: That or to make the determination that this property has a 15 -foot setback.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, any comment?
Nary: Madam Mayor, just give me -- give me one moment to look at the --
De Weerd: So, Mrs. Donnell, you're not the only one a little bit out of the loop tonight.
Donnell: Thank you very much. Except since there is a motion and a second, can we
also have some discussion while he's taking a minute?
Nary: Sure.
De Weerd: Yes.
Donnell: I can't support, you know, this motion. I just need to say that. I keep asking
myself would I want this in my neighborhood and I keep telling myself I don't think so.
And so -- and this is coming from someone who loves schools and loves children and
has, you know, all her life. But I think there is an appropriate place for a preschool. I
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 40 of 62
don't see this as a private day care, even though I know that there is, you know, a fine
distinction. So, I just want to make that clear for the record.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Let me look at the findings real quick. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in
looking at city code on this particular one, I do think it's within your discretion to grant
what's being requested by the applicant, which is that the Council's determination is that
a 15 foot front yard setback is adequate and compliant with the code, because it is --
this is a residential property. There is -- there is commercial aspect of use, but whether
or not to apply that 20 -foot setback requirement is within your discretion. You can also
do, as Mrs. Canning as directed -- or has indicated, that you can require that they
submit a variance application as well, if you're unclear or uncomfortable with simply
making that determination. But our code has a lot of leeway in that regard and you
have -- in my opinion you have the discretion to make that decision, so --
De Weerd: Okay. So --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If the second would agree, I would like to amend my motion to include the
language that the 15 foot setback for residential is compliant in this particular application
and also clarify that there will be a condition that landscaping will be done and/or
maintained on this particular property that's consistent and compatible with a residential
use.
Bird: Second would agree to that.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, do you have enough within that motion to draw up
findings?
Nary: Madam Mayor, you probably should ask Mrs. Canning. She's the one that -- she
drafts them and I read them, so --
De Weerd: I'm sorry.
Nary: That's okay.
De Weerd: Mrs. Canning. But we do have the record here.
Canning: I believe so. I think the only thing I'm missing is some of the safety lighting
features that were discussed with the police chief and I'm sure Mrs. Steeves or the chief
would be happy to help me with that, if I need to do the findings before the minutes
come out, usually we have the minutes.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 41 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. The motion, then, on Item 18 is to approve with the stated
changes on the public record. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 19: Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8
to C -C zone for Cairns Crossina Subdivision by Landmark Engineering
and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road:
Item 20: Public Hearing: PP 04-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11
commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C -C zone for Cairns
Crossina Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. —
south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items -- Council, do you want to take a ten-minute break
or do you want to just finish? Okay. I will open up the public hearings on Items 19 and
20 for RZ 04-011 and PP 04-033. 1 will open --
Canning: I'm sorry, ma'am, I thought you had done a break.
De Weerd: No.
Canning: Sorry. I guess I heard what I wanted to. Sorry about that.
De Weerd: No pressure, Anna.
Canning: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for a
commercial zoning. It's -- the property is currently zoned R-8. It's on Cherry Lane next
to the Meridian Middle School as shown here. Its just east of Linder Road. It's
currently vacant. There is a commercial use just to the west that was approved through
certificate of zoning compliance. As I mentioned previously, the property is currently
zoned R-8. The applicant is requesting a rezone to Community Commercial, C -C, and
that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation as commercial on this
property. The applicant is also requesting preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial
lots. Each lot will have a single use building on it. Sometimes the buildings are
attached, as in the case along the south property, and the east. The others are stand-
alone buildings on their own lot. The proposed lots range in size from 21,000 square
feet to 73,000 square feet. And, let's see, ACHD -- the applicant originally had three
access points to Cherry Road. It's one, two, and three. ACHD did ask them to -- or
required them to reduce it to two. Those two are shown on this -- this plan and they do
have cross -access here to the west as well. I did notice before the hearing started that
you do not have a summary recommendation on this project. I apologize for that. I
believe this was -- Wendy -- Ms. Kirkpatrick did not finish it before she left and,
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 42 of 62
apparently, that slipped through the cracks as far as getting that recommendation done.
I do apologize. The city attorney has said that that won't hinder tonight's hearing,
because we have the staff report, the conditions of approval, and I will briefly
summarize the Planning and Zoning Commission. Most of the discussion at the
Planning and Zoning Commission was regarding the properties to the south. As you
see here, there is a stub street going into the property and the developer had a similar
situation when he developed the property just to the west. There was a stub street
there. So, he had worked with this neighborhood before. They have been clear in
making their concerns known regarding the stub streets that they do not want them to
go through. The applicant has complied with that request. What they are proposing --
what the applicant is proposing along the south boundary is to do a concrete block wall
up to the stub street and, then, they will pick up the concrete block wall again. ACHD,
though, did require that they provide a ten -foot pedestrian access through the property
and also a 20 -foot emergency service access. This is -- the applicant has prepared this
drawing for tonight to show what he plans to do. The street comes in at an odd angle
and that's what you see here, 13th Avenue. And, then, what they will do is they will
bring the sidewalk up through here and they will continue the sidewalk up through here
on through the landscape buffer. It's a little bit unusual -- the condition reads ten feet.
Well, they are asking to provide five feet here and five feet here and, then, the 20 feet
will come through at a right angle to the street and it's got the right -- correct turning
radius for the fire department to get their trucks and maneuver in there. Then, they
would put a gate from -- between the two sidewalks, so that general access was
restricted and cut -through -- cars could not cut through. The applicant's concern was
that if he did a ten -foot pathway, that people might use that to actually drive into the
property. Staff has agreed that in this instance the two five feet probably is better than
ten feet, so -- and, then, just designing the transitions as well, the five feet seems to
work well. So, staff is in support of the applicant's request to do that. This item did --
was a major discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission and the height of the
wall and the block wall -- all of that was probably the major point of discussion from the
surrounding property owners. The other discussion was the access points for the
property. When ACHD reduced it to two, they made specific reference to lining up with
the ingress access point of the library, so the east access will line up with that of the
library, so that you have got those two major access points to Cherry Lane lined up from
one another across the street and that was the other big topic of concern. In the motion
made by Chairman -- or by Mr. Zaremba, they did make some specific changes to the
conditions of approval and I can read those now and, then, we can incorporate those
into a motion if the Council wishes to do that. So, I will put that on the record for now,
so that you understand those. They wanted to change on page nine, paragraph five,
add a sentence to say that the applicant will work with staff to plan the final relocation of
Cairns Lateral. Staff had just asked for some clarification on what would be done with
that. They felt that staff could workout that issue with the applicant. And, then, on
paragraph six, subparagraph B -- and this was regarding the access points -- it was to
modify the plat to show two access points off Cherry Lane and align the eastern access
point with the library's and to add the word ingress access point, so that it says it's
aligned with the library's ingress access point. And that was the end of the motion. So,
Meddian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 43 of 62
there was very few modifications to staffs original condition of approval. With that, I
believe I will end staffs presentation and answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
Donnell: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant --were you swom in?
Boyle: I have not been. I apologize.
De Weerd: Is the testimony that you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Boyle: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you, Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: Please state your name
Boyle: -- and City Councilmembers, Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and
Planning. Business address is 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. Home address here
in Meridian, 3668 East Judicial. This evening it's a pleasure to be in front of you on this
project. Many of you are familiar with this area. You will recognize it. This particular
piece of property is the nine acres that are adjacent to Linder Crossing, a commercial
development which is at the intersection of Cherry Lane and Linder. That project was
completed some time ago and we believe is a nice functioning commercial development
amenity to the city. Same developer is proposing this extension to that project, so this
is, essentially Linder Crossing No. 2. Unfortunately, he couldn't use that subdivision
name when we processed it through the county surveyor, so here it is Cairns Crossing,
which is the name of the irrigation lateral that cuts across the site. So, for marketing
purposes it will be marketed as Linder Crossing Phase Two. It does consist of 11
commercial lots. This project, from the time that we started the concept plan, has been
through several different meetings. After we prepared the initial concept plan on this,
we met with Patty Younger, the Meridian librarian, and had some good discussion with
her. That initial meeting we came in with a proposal and we had three access points,
one roughly in this location here, another one lined up with 13th Street across the way,
and, then, another access that basically split between the two library drives. If you're
familiar with the Meridian library, there is an entry drive, which would be the eastern
drive, and there is an exit drive, which is the western drive. So, initially, we had those
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 44 of 62
split with our driveway. After that particular meeting, Patty Younger expressed a desire
that if we were to propose a driveway across from the library, that it align with one of the
library drives. So, recognizing that, that's when we came back with the proposal to align
a driveway near the east boundary that aligned with that entry drive. Through
discussions with ACHD, as the project kind of progressed through time, they also came
back and requested an elimination of one of the proposed driveways on the site. If
there were bare land across from the site, based on ACHD's policies, that driveway
would have been allowed. There is an existing church that has some existing driveways
and due to some offsets there they felt that there would be safety issues with the
location of that drive. The developer eliminated that drive as well, considering those
comments. Taking it a step forward, we held two neighborhood meetings on the
project. The first neighbor meeting was with property owners that were immediately
adjacent to the site and that would be the residential lots that abut on the south. There
is also some residential lots here on the west. So, any of the adjacent property owners
received a notice of that meeting and I believe we have a couple of them that I
recognize from the meeting here tonight and from previous meetings and we had some
good discussion with the neighbors on the project and, obviously, they have concerns
with how the project is going to be designed. The developer committed to extend the
block wall. Linder Crossing Phase One has an existing block wall. It was agreed that
that block wall would be extended from where it ties in in Linder Crossing No. 1,
traveling south along the west boundary and, then, traveling all across the south
boundary of the project, that there would be a block wall installed for the neighbors.
One of the primary topics of discussion from the neighbors was the 13th Avenue stub.
The road just stubs to the property right now, dead end stub, and there was a fairly
strong sentiment from the neighbors that we just run that wall straight across and that
that is forever barricaded off, the 13th Avenue extension. The developer made the
agreement that he would do that if that was an acceptable option for the agency
approvals, being ACHD and the City of Meridian. Since that time, going to ACHD and
working with Meridian staff, they have indicated that they want a pedestrian access, as
well as emergency access, through that 13th Avenue location. So what was finally
agreed upon -- and I don't know if my presentation person here can click to that -- can
click over to the little overhead that had the exhibit. Okay. The exhibit's gone. It must
be off making copies. I do have copies for the Council, but I'll just describe it briefly.
What was ultimately agreed upon -- and this was through discussions with Meridian fire,
with Joe Silva, Kenny Bowers, with Meridian staff, Wendy before she left, Brad, and
also Anna has been involved in those discussions -- and that is that there would be a
20 -foot wide emergency access for five. That access would be gated and it will be --
the developer's proposing to make that -- I mean a nice gate, it will be a vinyl -- solid
vinyl fencing gate and it would be a 20 -foot wide double gate that could open up to allow
emergency access. On the project side of the gate he would pave that across the
landscape area with the appropriate radiuses for fire district and if we can all visualize
now. We have a blank screen. This is great. Oh, you do have the letter. Okay.
Excellent. And so the design that I believe everybody is in agreement on is that there
would be a 20 -foot wide gate with the drive aisle on the other side that would allow for
emergency vehicles to proceed into the site, that the pedestrian access would consist of
a five foot opening where, essentially, the sidewalk ends right now and another five foot
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 45 of 62
opening over on the other side. Those sidewalks would extend into the project and it
would just be a nice flow right off the street sidewalk into the sidewalks that extend into
the project. Now, with that said, a street -- obviously, if you add up the numbers, a
street is a little wider than that and what we are proposing is that there would be just
some small segments of vinyl fencing, opaque vinyl fencing, that would extent between
the opening for the pedestrians and the 20 -foot wide gate. So, in other words, the
overall break -- there will be an overall break in the block wall, on either side of the block
wall you will have the five foot pedestrian openings, then, you will have some vinyl
fencing and, then, the 20 -foot gate per the fire department and staff and other
discussions that we have had. So, this kind of -- it gives you the example of how we
propose that design to function and work with the project. And I know that was a
primary item of discussion. We believe that everybody is on the same page with it, with
this concept that we have presented. With that said, I did submit comments earlier and
I think that in looking through the staff report -- and I received a staff summary. I'm not
sure if that was just a draft now. I was kind of wondering. But all my comments were
based on the exhibits that I had from the staff report that I received on the 28th of
October and I believe that we are in agreement with all those comments. The only -- I
had just one clarification on the building designs. There was discussion about making
sure that any buildings that are adjacent to Cherry Lane not have a cold blank wall look,
that they be dressed up with windows, with architectural projections, et cetera, and the
developer has agreed with the proposal that Meridian staff presented, which is 40
percent glass on those walls adjacent to Cherry Lane and, then, provide, you know, at
least one architectural feature, either a projection or a parapet or something to break up
that elevation and he certainly wants this to be a nice looking project from the street,
obviously, so he's interested in making sure the buildings that are out along Cherry look
good and make it an inviting project into the center. With that said, I would be happy to
answer any questions, but I think the conditions that I received for the rezoning and the
preliminary plat we are in agreement with and, then, I just provided the clarification in
the letter today. Thank you for your time and we request approval. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. I do have two people signed up for or against. Michelle Gaffagan.
Would you like to provide testimony?
Gaffagan: Hi, Madam Mayor and Council people. My name is Michelle Gaffagan, I live
at 1538 West 15th, and my property is adjacent to the west side of the property. The
few things we did talk about in the meeting were some hours of operation and from what
I got is that the three buildings behind -- the last three buildings -- back buildings were
going to be presented from I think 6:00 to 11:00, but they never specified any time
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 46 of 62
frames for the front four buildings or the two side buildings next to the high school -- or
the junior high. And I'd really like being -- the three back buildings to have the hours of
operation pushed to, if we could, 6:00 to 10:00, because they are really close to the
residents and we do need sleep every now and then. And the second one -- I did notice
on the drawings -- and I just wanted for clarification if -- I'm going to catch her off guard.
If she could go to the -- if the corner -- if that is a trash can, that it be moved next to the
buildings, so we don't have a back -- SSC backing right up into our back property, if that
is, indeed, a true back -- or, indeed, a true trash can. They had said that this was just,
basically, a drawing, that the buildings could change, you know, facing different ways or
move a little bit. So, I just wanted to make the suggestion that if, indeed, that is trash, to
move the trash closer to the buildings. I do know that Boise BFI starts running their
commercial trash at 3:00 a.m. and I'm not quite sure what SSC does. Also, we talked
about the lighting and I know Patty Younger did mention in the letter to Planning and
Zoning that -- to have the lower lighting, such as the hospital -- or the hospital -- the
library has and we had discussed that and they said that some of the measures of the
lighting could be costly to them, but it would be in our backyard, it would be kind of nice
to kind of have it a little dimmed, as well as the building on the far west side not have
any windows facing that way, even though there is some parking, because our
residence is right back here. And those are my three points I wanted to bring up.
Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. And Jan Shurte. Or Shurte.
Shurte: Madam Mayor and Council -members, my name is Jan Shurte, I live at 1522
West 15th Street, and, basically, the reason that we put for and against is because we
just wanted to make sure that some of the points that were covered from before got
carried over. And so that's why we have been waiting. But the wall is a very important
thing to us, because we -- and it was agreed upon, I believe, a six foot wall and I don't
think that's been mentioned and the wall was supposed to be exactly the same as the
wall that they have on the present -- the same design and everything. They talked
about the lighting in the parking lot that would be installed in such a way to shine away
from the homes, so they said that was a part of your usual standards. This was at the
Planning and Zoning meeting. And that the neon lighting -- I don't know if we discussed
neon lighting, but we definitely -- where we are located at is right along here and we
wouldn't want lighting on this side. Now, I can't imagine why they would, but just in case
I thought I would mention it. You never know or -- you know, or their business to reflect
out that direction. I can't imagine that they would, since this is the front portion of that
building. But we just wanted to make it clear, because it sounds like that the -- maybe --
I don't know if it got into the minutes of the Planning and Zoning. We also had concerns
about the hours of operation. We wanted -- we were hoping for 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
due to the fact that -- that delivery hours, which I found out -- which I didn't know -- are
the same as the hours of operation and so when you have got your delivery trucks
backing in there to unload things with the beepers going and everything, it would -- and
there are -- there are homes all the way along that west side and all the way along the
south side there. It would be disruptive I thought at 6:00 in the morning for that to be
occurring and so I was hoping for 7:00 to 10:00, instead of 6:00 to 11:00. That was one
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 47 of 62
of the things that we were against in our, for and against. And on the height of the
building, I am assuming that the height -- and it was my understanding is to be the same
as the Linder Crossing Phase One buildings, the same design, which we have no
problem with that. And that the types of businesses to go in there would be businesses
that fit with the Comprehensive Plan, which I think are a residential commercial
business type, which would not include things such as bars, let's say, and things like
that. And so, let's see, I think that's -- I think that covers everything I wanted to just kind
of bring up from the last meeting, so that nobody -- because none of you were there, so
I would appreciate you considering all those items.
De Weerd: Thank you. And definitely the bars would be excluded, because of the
church across the street and the school right next door. Would not be eligible.
Shurte: And that is another -- just one more thing and I'll leave -- is that the children do
walk along the street there and they walk all over the place there, because of the middle
school and everything, so, you know, you might just, you know, think about the hours of
operation for that, too, so --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: This comedy of errors is almost at an end, thankfully. And I apologize. We
did locate the summary recommendation in the findings and I would like to verify several
of the statements made by the last three people regarding those -- the former hearing.
There is a condition that the south perimeter block wall shall be designed such that the
top of the wall matches the top of the existing wall at Linder Crossing, allowing for
overall wall height to exceed six feet if the ground contours down and that was an issue
that was raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission, that for some people the wall
was six and a half feet tall and that's just because the ground slopes down away from
the wall. But they did agree to maintain a six-foot height to the wall on their property
site. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Block 1, which are those down here along the south, shall
have a restriction that any use that is not consistent with the standard limited office
zone, shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. every
day of the week. So, that was a condition placed on those lots. There was also an
addition of a cross -access agreement among these property owners. We were missing
that one. And, finally, they -- in the outstanding issues before City Council, Brad
Hawkins -Clark picked this up from Ms. Kirkpatrick when she left, and after reviewing the
minutes he had requested further clarification from City Council on how they wanted to
address the condition from Planning and Zoning that said that the building elevations
along Cherry Lane and Brad had proposed to add a condition to the development
agreement requiring that all Cherry Lane facing building elevations -- that would be
those at the north end of the property -- be at least 40 percent glass and floors above
the main floor to be a minimum of 20 percent glass, if they were two story. Also,
Meddian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 48 of 62
awnings, modulated articulated walls, parapets, eaves, overhangs, or similar design
features be used to minimize long, monotonous walls and to incorporate those into all
future buildings that are oriented to Cherry Lane. So, the applicant has agreed to do
that and was comfortable with that -- that condition, so you would need to add that
condition as noted in the staff recommendation. And, then, there is -- he also raised the
outstanding issue of the 13th Avenue access, which I do believe we have resolved
tonight already, so with that I will end staffs second presentation on the project. It does
come forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant like to come and summarize?
Boyle: Mayor and Council Members, again, Clint Boyle representing Mr. Stubblefield on
the project. And I appreciate Anna's presentation there. That is in accordance with
what I have received. The letter that I submitted to the Council was just to clarify the
outstanding items that were listed in that executive summary to the Council, which was
the conceptual design of the 13th Street access and, then, the commitment that, yes,
we will -- we are willing to do the 40 percent glass, like I indicated, and, then, the break
up in the architecture -- to break up and make those attractive facades along Cherry
Lane. So, we agree with staff. Appreciate working with them on those conditions.
They just -- the planning commission left it a little bit open-ended, which I kind of like,
because it just said work with staff on the elevations, which is kind of nice, but they
wanted a little further -- further clarification in the record and, that's fine, I think that's
appropriate. The other items -- there was a lot of discussion. The plan that is shown
here, again, we presented a conceptual plan for the buildings on the site, with the
parking, so the Council would be able to get a feel for the rhyme and reason as to why
we placed lot lines where we did and where the utilities were running through. We do
meet the ordinance requirements as far as the landscape buffers, so the residential
areas will have the 25 -foot wide landscape buffer with the tree plantings. The
developer, you know, went above and beyond to continue that block wall, recognizing
that there were requests from the neighbors to have that extended. The issue with the
hours of operation, Linder Crossing Phase One that's adjacent to this site, there was a
Conditional Use Permit process on it that also had hours of operation placed on it of
6:00 in the morning to 11:00 in the evening, so this agreement that was proposed in the
staff report is something that the developer would like to see as the 6:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. hours of operation on those buildings that are along the south boundary there
adjacent to the residential areas, as proposed in the staff report. The building
elevations, again, the developer intends to develop this project with a similar look to that
that you see with Linder Crossing Phase One and that is his intention. As far as some
of the items that were brought with regards to the trash enclosures and loading and
unloading, again, we don't know where exactly those are going to end up being located,
that will be something as we come in with specific building plans we will locate. The
way these buildings are designed, right now, yeah, we do show some loading areas on
the concept plan. Does that mean that when it actually comes in there is going to be a
loading area there? No, not necessarily. The trash enclosure, as far as their location,
again, we do have the perimeter landscaping around that's going to provide separation
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 49 of 62
-- even further separation, besides the fact that you do have a block wall. Block walls
probably -- and I don't know the acoustic effects between a vinyl fence or a wood fence
and a block wall, but I would imagine a block wall is probably one of the better, if not
best methods of blocking sound and noise that's available, outside of maybe the
vegetation and the plantings. So, I think that they will have some nice buffering there
adjacent to them. As far as lighting, the developer -- he will comply with the ordinances.
Meridian ordinances already require that lights be directed away from residential areas.
Linder Crossing Phase One he has shields on those lights that are on the back side
adjacent to residential properties and he intends to do that with this development as well
to be in compliance with those ordinances. Again, we feel like it's going to be a nice
project. We have strove to work with the neighbors as much as we can within reason.
Like I said, we had a couple of neighborhood meetings there and worked through some
of these issues and made some commitments to them and with that said, again, we
agree with the staff conditions, incorporating that letter of clarification that I submitted
today with the design concept for 13th and, again, the commitment on the architectural
features along Cherry Lane. With that said, I respectfully request your approval and
stand for questions if you have any. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: And I don't mean to make these comments because of this project, but the
project gives me an opportunity to make my point yet again, that -- and Cherry Lane is
kind of my barometer on what's going on with signs and we required this development,
as we have required all developments in Meridian, but particularly Cherry Lane, to
provide nice landscape buffers and driving up and down Cherry Lane I can see those
buffers, but I can also see everything from shave and a haircut to a car loan to a home
loan to the sweetest deal you can find on taking new applications staked out in these
landscaped areas with metal fence posts, banners, sandwich boards, right-of-way signs
-- you name it it's there. It continues to be there. It continues to irritate me. Can we put
a condition on the rezone on this, that the conveyance of these properties in the future
have a condition that if anybody puts a sign that is inconsistent with the City of Meridian
signing ordinance, it will be removed post haste without any due process, the fact that
these things crop up and they don't go away. Bright signs have been on Albertson's for
the past three years. They have been in front of U.S. Bank buildings in every location
in the Treasure Valley for the last year and a half. They just don't go away. Sorry,
John, but it just gave me another opportunity to poke at that issue. I appreciate the
developers are willing to comply with Meridian's landscape requirements, but we are not
doing them justice by allowing and continuing to allow that to go on. Having said that, I
think this is a great idea.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 50 of 62
De Weerd: As long as the landlord doesn't allow obnoxious signs in the landscape
buffer. I hope that staff got the hint on this and maybe we could start --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Rountree, you have
just a rezone and a preliminary plat before you tonight. I'm not -- I think if you had a
conditional use you may be able to address that issue. I'm not sure we can make it a
requirement of the plat.
Rountree: I'm checking for ways to make it easy for the city to do this.
Canning: Point well taken, though, and we will increase our coordination with the police
department to try and take care of the temporary sign problem.
De Weerd: And maybe we need to look at our ordinance on temporary signs.
Rountree: We need some help there. We are not getting this taken care of. But that
has nothing to do with this application.
Canning: As part of our rewrite we weren't touching the sign ordinance, but I think I
have gotten some direction that we will go and look at the temporary sign ordinance.
De Weerd: I think that's a good idea. Next time he will probably stomp his feet.
Rountree: Take my shoes off.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Donnell: None.
De Weerd: Okay.
Boyle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: I have no more comments, if that's what you're looking for, anymore
discussion.
Donnell: Are you needing to have a motion to have the Public Hearing closed?
Bird: You got her.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 51 of 62
Donnell: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Items 19 and 20. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Donnell: And, Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve public -- or the
request for rezone, Item No. 19, RZ 04-011, the Cairns Crossing Subdivision. And can I
make the motion for the next item or does that have to be a separate motion?
De Weerd: Separate.
Donnell: Okay. So, that would be just the motion, then, for the rezone
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 19 and on a rezone is that where you
would make sure to list any special conditions, Mr. Attorney, on hours of operation or
lighting specifically for shielding and trash receptacles and those kinds of things? That
would be the plat?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mrs. Canning can probably remind me,
but I thought I saw a recommendation from the Commission that there be a
development agreement, so all of those conditions could be put in the development
agreement.
De Weerd: But you would want to specifically state those
Nary: Yes
Donnell: Does that need to be part of the motion, then?
Nary: That would be helpful, yes.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Exhibit A that you may or may
not have by this time does list several conditions of approval -- or additions to the
development agreement. The only one that needs to be included in the motion is to add
the language proposed by the developer regarding the Cherry Lane facing building
elevations that they provided in their letter.
Donnell: So, I would amend my motion to include the recommendation that has been
agreed to by the developer in terms of the front of the buildings -- what's a better name
for that.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 52 of 62
Rountree: Elevations.
Bird: Elevations.
Donnell: Oh. Thank you. Elevations. Thank you.
De Weerd: Per the --
Donnell: Per the November 3rd, 2004, letter.
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 20.
Donnell: Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to -- that we approve Item No. 20, the
preliminary plat 04-033 for the Cairns Crossing Subdivision. And were there
recommendations as well?
Rountree: Per staff recommendations.
Donnell: Thank you very much. And as per staff recommendations.
Rountree: Second.
Donnell: Oh, I'm going to get good at this. Maybe.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Donnell, would that include the clarification
on the pedestrian path, that it could be consistent with what the applicant has presented
tonight?
Donnell: That would include that. Absolutely.
Canning: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 53 of 62
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods
Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the
City of Meridian — NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove
Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 20 is a Public Hearing AZ 04-025. We will open --
I'm sorry. Item 21. We will open this Public Hearing. It was posted as November 2nd,
rather than the 3rd, and it will need to be reposted, but I guess since I see no one for
this item, I would entertain a motion to continue this Public Hearing, since I have now
opened it.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the Public Hearing AZ 04-025 to November 16th, 2004.
Rountree: I will second, but just a question.
De Weerd: Second with discussion. Yes. Mr. Nary, it must be for you.
Rountree: Is that date because of the posting requirements -- is that date because of
the posting requirement or --
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Rountree, there is ten
days requirement for posting.
Rountree: Okay. Okay.
Nary: And the property -- I did receive an e-mail today from Mr. Hood and the property
has been posted, so it's been posted for the 16th in anticipation of this motion.
De Weerd: Don't change the date. Please. Okay. So, we do have a motion to
continue to November 16th. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 22: Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 22. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you
have the right to a pre -termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 3rd,
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 54 of 62
2004, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts
and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer and trash bill is
delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on December
4th, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to
contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Okay. They are hereby
informed that they may appeal and have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth
Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their
water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $27,954.21. Council, may I have
a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the water, sewer, trash delinquency turn off list for
November 4th in the amount of $27,954.21.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the shut off list. Mr.
Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 22: Ordinance No. 04-1112 : City Attorney:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Item 22 is Ordinance 04-1112. Mr. Clerk, will you,
please, read this item by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1112, an
Ordinance amending Title 1, Chapter 8-C, Section 1 of the Meridian City Code
regarding the position of City Attorney, providing for Deputy City Attorneys, defining
duties and responsibilities for the City Attorney and deputies and providing for a waiver
of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? If so, you are certainly welcome to read it
yourself. Okay. Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Ordinance 04-1112, with suspension of rules.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 55 of 62
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 22. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. I just need a count -- I think that Peggy had e-mailed you all on
the Hymns of Celebration. Those tickets are free, but they have special reserve
seating, if you would like to go. So, I just need a count. I think it's the 21st, 22nd, and
23rd.
Rountree: I know when it is. What is it? Just a choir?
De Weerd: It's like a concert.
Bird: It's an orchestra and choir. Its very nice.
Donnell: I lost the flyer.
Rountree: Is it local?
Bird: I think it is. I'd take a couple tickets.
De Weerd: There is three different nights, so I would need to know which night. So, if
you will just let Peggy know?
Bird: Well, Tuesday is out.
Rountree: Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. 21st, 22nd and 23rd.
Donnell: Of November.
Rountree: Of November.
De Weerd: So, Keith two.
Bird: Not Tuesday.
Rountree: If I ask, probably two, but don't ask.
De Weerd: So two?
Rountree: No. I will ask.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 56 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. And you'll call Peggy?
Bird: I want two, but I better find out what night.
Item 23: City Attorney — Bill Nary: Benefits
De Weerd: So, I'll just leave it all up to you. Okay. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I thought since the late hour
I'd stand over here, rather than try to talk to the side of you and what I have before you
-- we have talked a couple of times over the last few weeks regarding the city's benefits.
This is not the time -table we'd like to normally have. We have open enrollment that
needs to get done starting next week. In the future I'd like to bring this before you well
in advance of that kind of time table, but because of circumstances when I started, the
lack of a director we haven't had through the summer, we haven't had a benefits
consultant until recently as well, we haven't been able to do that. So, that being said, I
do have some very good -- good information for you and, hopefully, you will approve the
recommendations that we have. We have taken this information to both the department
directors, the benefits committee, through finance to make sure we are all in line with
what's been budgeted for these renewal rates and I think we have some very good --
very good news. Our benefits consultant Marsh Company was able to secure a lesser
increase than was originally proposed by Blue Cross for our medical insurance.
Originally they proposed a 33 percent -- 33.4 percent increase. Marsh was able to get
them down to a 22 percent increase and with an additional change in one portion of our
plan they were able to get the increase down to 20.7 percent. We had budgeted
approximately 25 percent for that renewal, so we are well under budget for that. Some
of the other ones were a little -- one of the other ones was a little higher, so it does work
out. It's not a complete four percent return, but there is some -- there is going to be
some savings. The three tiered plan for the prescriptions basically is a change for the
employees in this way: Currently there is a ten dollar co -pay for certain prescriptions
and a 20 dollar co -pay for others. In this new plan there is a ten dollar co -pay for certain
prescriptions and a 25 co -pay for others and a 40 dollar co -pay for certain name brand
non -generic types of drugs. What Marsh did with that increase is they looked at that
increase to the employee; they looked at what the employees currently use and how
many employees would be affected by that. What they were able to determine is that
based on the usage of prescription medication, that approximately nine percent of the
employees use those types of prescription drugs that would be affected by that level of
increase. They weren't able to secure data on whether or not at least some of those
nine percent would be able to switch to a generic brand. They did indicate that some of
them would not be able to, but some -- but they believe some would, but they didn't
have data to really show that, but other than just anecdotal type data. But overall 91
percent of the employees would not be impacted to that great a degree and, again, it
would lower our increase to a 20 percent increase versus initially was a 34 percent
increase. On the other programs that the city provides, the dental program was a slight
increase over the other one. It's requesting a 23 percent increase. Delta Dental, in
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 57 of 62
providing the data to Marsh, was able to show that our increase probably should be
closer to 35 percent, but was able to bring it in at 23 percent. So, we were able to still
get it at a rate that was affordable and within the budget that we had set for this benefit.
The other additional services we have, the employee assistance program, the vision
provider, and, then, some of the short-term disability, long-term disability, the ones that
are provided for employees, all of those were at rates that were all within -- without any
-- excuse me -- without any increases. The other ancillary products that we have, we
have been using standard insurance for the short-term disability, long term, life,
accident, death and dismemberment, dependent life, and voluntary life, we have been
using standard. They were able to secure -- Marsh was able to secure a quote from
United Heritage, a local company, to provide the exact same coverage for all employees
at a lower cost to the city, with no change in the product of the employees. So, overall,
we have a lower increase -- obviously, an increase, but a 21 percent increase versus 34
for the medical insurance, we have an increase that's within our budget and there is
some savings. What I had asked and recommended to the directors and to the benefits
committee and I'm recommending to you to consider, is one of the ways to alleviate that
issue or concern of the increased amount of prescription medication is the city has
already had a program through Express Flex for employees that's a flexible spending
medical reimbursement program. There is three programs that we have. One allows
employees to take their monthly co -pay amount that they pay towards their family or
children and have it taken out of their check pre-tax. We have 196 employees who
currently are on our medical plan, 171 of those employees get that taken out of their
check pre-tax. So, most people use that -- use that service very well. There is no cost
to the employee for that. We have two other methods of flexible reimbursement that
employees can use that we don't have very much usage in. One of them is medical
reimbursement. An employee can set a certain amount of money to be taken out of
their checks pre-tax, they determine the amount, the amount can be up to 3,000 dollars,
but it can be any amount they choose, and that can cover their deductibles, that can
cover a variety of different medical services, as well as things like orthodontics that we
don't have coverage for, lasik surgery if they choose glasses, contacts, and it actually
goes as far that it will cover things like cold medicine and Tylenol, if you want to send
those in. It's a very good service, the reimbursement rate -- or the reimbursement time
is very quick. It can be reimbursed to employees within a day if they do it direct deposit.
We don't have very much usage in that. We have approximately 48 employees that use
it currently. Part of the reason I believe that employees don't use it is that they aren't
given enough information as to how it can work for them. Secondarily, there is a $5.50
a month administrative fee for employees to access that program. The third one we
have is for dependent care. We have seven employees that use it for dependent care.
My belief is, without doing any surveying, without doing anything, that I'm sure we have
employees -- more than seven employees that have children in day care of some sort
that could use the service. Again, I believe the fee and education has not been there to
make employees understand how that could work for them. What I'm proposing to you -
- and verified with the finance department that within the budgetary savings that we
have we can afford to do this, is a couple of things. I'm recommending that the city pay
that 5.50 per month per employee that signs up for the program. That's approximately
65 dollars a year per employee to do that. The question that you may ask is why would
Meridian City Coundl
November 3, 2004
Page 58 of 62
we want to do that. Well, of all the benefits we provide for medical, for vision, for all of
these things, this is, actually, the only benefit that the city gets a return on as well. Most
of the other ones we are just paying for it. This one, because of the pre-tax dollar
savings that the employee gets the benefit of, because it mean more money in their
pocket, in that second sheet I gave you is just a very rough example of how we could
fund this. Currently, based on just the number of employees that are in this program,
the city saves approximately 6,500 dollars a year. If we funded this program just for the
current employees that are in it, we'd still make 3,200 dollars a year. It's money that we
had not captured as savings that we were already making as revenue. If we can
increase the numbers of people by taking that -- to me a disincentive away by having
employees pay for the administrative cost, we should, hopefully, be able to increase the
number. You know, very simple math, we increase the numbers, the more money the
employees make, the more money the city makes in savings from tax dollars. It's, to
me, a very good accessible program that the other piece that -- that we need to work on
is educating the employees to why it works for them. But it's an affordable way to do it.
What I'm proposing is that we do it for one year only, that that's the message that we tell
the employees, that this is a one-year experiment. We will have some better data,
because we have never done this before, to be able to tell you next budget year that
this works or doesn't work, that this is affordable for a longer term commitment, but right
now it's a one year experiment to see if this would work. Again, it's within the budgetary
amount of money that we have. We can afford to do this, without it impacting the
money we have already set aside for this benefit. The other piece of that, there is a
small risk to the city. Employees on the medical reimbursement, the amount of money
they choose to set aside out of their paycheck is reimbursable for them from the first
day, from January 1st they can be reimbursed the full amount. The risk to the city is
that if that employee were to leave employment prior to the end of the year and they
have been reimbursed the total amount, the city is responsible for that difference. So,
what I have asked the finance department to do is come up with a number that we can
set a reserve aside from that savings to be able to, again, cushion that if that were to
happen. Although it's a risk, in my opinion it's not a significant risk at this point,
because, one, our turnover is very low, the usage has been very low. Now, eventually,
it may -- it may have a bigger fiscal impact in the future, but right now our usage has
been low enough and what the Marsh consultants have told us is in their -- in the data
that they have done with other businesses and other entities that use this program, that
the approximate amount of reserve that we would need is about six percent. So, based
on the current usage, if we had had a six percent reserve, we need to have about 1,600
dollars set aside for that. The higher usage, obviously, the six percent, the amount's
going to go up, but that's the amount of loss that the entity has suffered over the course
of a year is about a six percent loss. Again, many entities make money, many entities
make more money and are able to roll that savings over each year, so they can fund the
program continuously. Again, we don't have any data to be able to do that, but if we
don't try and we don't take a step and we don't try to do something else, we are never
going to ever be able to gather information and data for you. It is an affordable
program. I think it's a very good program for employees and I think it shows, again, if
nothing else, its a benefit that, actually, the city gets a return as well. And so I think we
can do it. I think if you're of the mind set to approve that, I think it would be a good thing
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 59 of 62
for the employee and the city to do that. But everything else, like I said, can be -- we
can go forward, if you're all comfortable with that. If there is other information I can
gather for you, we can certainly do that, but I think we have -- I think Marsh has done an
excellent job in getting some affordable rates for us and keeping us within our budget
and, then, giving us some flexibility to be able to provide something more.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Donnell: Just two things, Mr. Nary. One, a comment. In my former employment we
had this program and it definitely is a savings to the organization. In fact, quite a bit of
savings. And so I would really recommend that this be offered. My question is is Marsh
responsible for the education of the employees? When we used a firm - because what
you're paying for is the administration. You're paying for them to -- to handle the
documentation that's submitted by the employee when they want reimbursement for the
money that has been set-aside for them -- that they have set aside out of their own
paycheck. And so I think they also are responsible for providing some in-service.
That's just a suggestion. I think that a company -- its certainly something we could ask
them to do. And that just means they come in, they explain what the benefit is to the
employee in some kind of venue and that generally helps, because they can do a pretty
good job of explaining why it's such a benefit. And, then, secondly, has the law
changed where if, in fact, a person does not utilize all of the money that they set aside,
the organization keeps or does the company keep? Marsh.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Donnell, money
doesn't go to Marsh. Marsh is simply a consultant. We use an express -- Express Flex
is the name of the company that we use.
Donnell: Okay. So, they are the ones that actually keep the money if it's not all
expended by the employee?
Nary: Right. And currently the law has not changed, its still a use it or lose it. There is
legislation that is being proposed to allow that medical savings accounts, which a lot of
people are familiar with that as well, do allow that roll over. The difference with it -- and
we have looked at that -- is it requires a hard deductible. It requires deductibles of a
minimum of 2,500 dollars. I don't think I want to be up here today saying let's have
2,500 deductibles for our employees. On the education piece, part of what's going to go
on next week -- and we are doing things a little bit differently. What we have done in the
past was we basically had all these different vendors of these different programs come
and give their pitches to the employees and the city's involvement was basically done
by the prior director and no one else. Well, since I have been there, what I have done is
one of the people that -- in my department, who has been -- worked here for a very long
time, Mrs. Clinton, is our benefits person, she handles all of the paperwork that goes
through with our benefits. She works with all the employees on these issues for family
medical leave, as well as all these other benefits. She will be at all of these things. The
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2004
Page 60 of 62
employees aren't required at that meeting to fill out all this paperwork. It is an
information gathering thing. So, the education responsibility is on us. Marsh is there,
they do help explain all of these different programs, how it works for the individual
employees, but -- and they have provided us with one tool that I think will help the
people on the flexible spending account, they have, essentially, a program that an
employee can take with them -- basically we can e-mail it to them, they can plug in their
own numbers onto what they make, what amount they want to set aside, and what that's
going to mean to them, how much money they will realize in their own pocket by what
they choose to put into the program themselves. And, really, our pitch right up front --
because, again, for a lot of folks this is new to them -- is figure out what you spend. I
mean most people know, especially for things that they plan, if they have a set amount
of regimen they take of prescription drugs monthly, they know what that amount is.
They know what they can set aside and if they are going to spend it anyway, then, the
best way to do it is through this program. What else we have done in working with the
finance department is come up with a sheet of benefits for all employees. We should be
able to have all of those by the open enrollment time. So every employee is going to
get a sheet -- I didn't bring copies tonight, I'm sorry. It looks something like this and
what this will have, it will have each employee's name, their position on it, what their
salary is, what benefits the city provides them and what the costs of those benefits are,
so that the employee understands it isn't just what they make, but what the city puts into
what they make. So, again, in providing that tool to folks so they understand how these
benefits impact them and what it costs the city to provide them -- I think some of these
things will start getting that message out to folks that they all have to share in what
these costs are. Most employees don't realize that they are only paying a small portion
of the percentage of the benefits that they receive.
De Weerd: Council, I would also say that this plan has -- is extremely convenient as
well, because you can fax it in and it can be direct deposited in your checking account
the next day. So, it's very convenient for the employee as well and through hands-on
educational part, the small percentage of employees who are affected by the
prescription drug, they will definitely be sat down and talk about this plan, because it
may have -- it definitely has potential of helping them cover the additional costs that
they would have in their prescriptions. So, you know, we will work closely with them. I
think, also, as discussed at the benefits committee, this is our opportunity to start getting
on top. We have a rating issue with our insurance and we need to get on top of that
with a better education program and pro -active outreach, with preventative health care
and those kinds of things, giving them options and education and case management
plan. These kinds of things we hope to turn the tied to some of our rating issues.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is one other practice that I want to
make you aware of and ask your -- if you agree with this proposal and to consider this
as part of it. A practice that has existed in human resources prior to me coming here --
it's not a written policy, but it's a practice that has existed, is there is certain benefits that
employees receive that they are not allowed to use within their first six month of
employment and one of those is vacation time. New employees aren't allowed to use
vacation during their first six months. And I have no objection to that, I'm not proposing
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2904
Page 61 of 62
anything regarding that, I understand the reasons for it. But one of the benefits that
employees get that have -- that are not allowed access to is this flexible spending
program. To me that's a disincentive and it makes -- I can't fathom a very logical reason
to not allow employees to access it, because our orientation program it is very small, it's
very one on one, we generally have no more than three or four employees with Mrs.
Clinton as our benefits specialist, presenting all of these different plans and I will tell you
we -- from her, she'll say she gets very positive feedback from employees about this flex
plan and, then, she has to tell them go away and come back in six months and, then,
you can sign up. I recognize there is a risk that employees can leave employment and
that they may have -- they may have exhausted or expended part of the plan that
doesn't get reimbursed. But my feeling is that exists with all employees, it doesn't just
exist with brand new employees. On a one-on-one basis, if we are going to get people
to participate in this plan, that's where we can get them the best information that will
matter to them that would make them want to be a participant. And, again, this is a
benefit that benefits the city, as well as the employee. So, part of what I'd like to do with
that is to remove that practice and allow employees that -- new employees to be able to
access this flex plan right from the beginning when they sign up for all of their other
benefits. Again, there is certainly some risk, but there is much more upside to the city
and to the employees to provide this.
Donnell: Are they also providing a day care -- the day care option?
Nary: Yes.
Donnell: That's all part. And that one is -- they can't --
Nary: They cannot exceed it.
Donnell: -- exceed that one.
Nary: Correct. Yeah. The best way to characterize that, as the Marsh people did, is
you look at them like a bucket and with the medical reimbursement, however much you
choose to put in it on day one, your bucket is full of whatever you wanted, but on the
day care side it's not. It's what you put into it each month is what you're eligible to be
reimbursed back out of that. So, you cannot exceed it. Again, my feeling is employees
who aren't using that program; they are leaving money on the table. Is there any other
questions? If all of those things sound, you know, acceptable to you, I just need a
motion for approving that. If there is parts of it you're not comfortable with, maybe I can
answer some other questions.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Oh, I was just going to say if he needs a motion, I'd make a motion to accept the
plan that's been presented to us.
Donnell: I second that.
Meridian City Council
November 3, 2A„04
Page 62 of 62
Bird: Including the change in the policy with the new employees getting the --
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the recommendation from
our city attorney slash HR person. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Donnell: I can wake up for that. I so move.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
!( 23 o 4 --
DE
DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTE `,•��C` VZ
�.,,,,
LLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY €LE �"t
�,,�'Ypg•''