HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 03-15
Meridian Citv Council Meetina
March 15. 2005.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M.,
Tuesday, March 15, 2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, Charlie
Rountree, and Christine Donnell.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Brad Watson, Anna Canning, Bill Musser, Kenny
Bowers, Doug Strong and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
~ Shaun Wardle --LChristine Donnell
~ Charlie Rountree ----2L-Keith Bird
~ Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I will go ahead and -- if we can get everyone's attention, I will go ahead and
call the City Council regular meeting to order and welcome you here. It is Tuesday,
March 15th. It's ten after 7:00. I will start this meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Bud Henthorn, Youth Pastor at Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle:
De Weerd: Item No.3 is our Community Invocation. We will be led tonight by Bud
Henthorn and is he a young -- the youth pastor. He is young, too. He is the youth
pastor at Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Please join us in the invocation or take this
opportunity for a moment of silence.
This community. We thank you, Lord Jesus, for the sacrifice that has been made on
behalf of the people who live here. God, we pray now that you would give us wisdom
as we do our best to be good stewards of this blessed community that you have given
to us. We ask it in Jesus' name, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page 2 of 49
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent, Item K, we would like to move that to the general agenda, make
it 7-K. I'll get the resolution numbers when we do the Consent Agenda and I believe -- I
would move with that change that we adopt the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
E.
F.
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of February 22, 2005 Regular City Council
Meeting:
B.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-053 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for a clinic I office in a L-O zone for OB/GYN
Associates by ZGA Architects and Planners, Chartered - south of
East Franklin Road and east of North Eagle Road:
C.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ. 04-
035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to
R-4 zone for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy by Worden -
4625 West Ustick Road:
D.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family
residential building lots and 3 other lots on 4.56 acres in a proposed
R-4 zone for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy Worden -
4625 West Ustick Road:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
05-004 Request for a Variance for block lengths from the required
450 feet to 535 feet for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy
Worden - 4625 West Ustick Road:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ. 04-
034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.63 acres from a RUT
zone to a R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo
Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page 3 of 49
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
G.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04-
043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98 building lots and
27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North
Meridian Road:
H.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 zone
for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North
Meridian Road:
I.
Water Service Easement for McKaaue Familv Revocable Livina
Trust:
J.
Sanitarv Sewer and Water Main Easement for McKaaue Familv
Revocable Livina Trust:
L.
Request for Approval of proposal for Master Plan. LandscaDe
and Architectural Services for the ¡-acre neiahborhood Dark in
Autumn Faire Subdivision by Jensen-Belts Associates and the
Design Team:
Resolution No. 05-464 : Warrantv Deed from Autumn
Faire. LLC to the Citv of Meridian:
Resolution No. 05-465 Establishing ADDointments
for Board Members and Alternates to the Vallev Ride Reaional
TransDortation Authoritv:
Aareement with HDR for GIS On Call Services:
Chanae Order No.2 for an Addition Pressure Reducina Valve
with Star Construction:
Award Bid for Victorv Road I Meridian Road Water Main to Paul
Construction:
Streetliaht Aareement for Vienna Woods Subdivision:
Streetliaht Quitclaim Deed for Vienna Woods Subdivision:
Sanitarv Sewer and Water Main Easement for Parcel "An in DroDosed
Bonito Subdivision No.2 by Kimball Properties:
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 4 of 49
u.
Sanitarv Sewer and Water Main Easement for Parcel "Bn in DroDosed
Bonito Subdivision No.2 by Kimball Properties:
De Weerd: Consent Agenda, No.5.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Berg, what is our -- do you have them there?
Donnell: Down it comes.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of taking
Item K and moving it to 7-K on the regular agenda. M is Resolution No. 05-464. N is
Resolution No. 05-465, and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper
papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda as changed. If there is no
further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports
A.
Police Department - Chief Bill Musser
1.
Presentation of MOU with Ada County Sheriff
Department for Participation in SWAT Team:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No.6 are Department Reports and there we have another
enemy item -- or member. We had team play today and Brad and the chief and Kenny
over there were the enemy. So, chief. Chief Wild Bill.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I have for you this evening is a
proposed memorandum of understanding with the Ada County Sheriff's Department
regarding participation of the Meridian Police Department with their Special Weapons
And Tactics team, what we all affectionately know of as a SWAT team. At this point
what I have been doing is working with the department trying to find alternatives to help
us with retention when we are looking at some of our larger departments and some of
the specialty areas that they offer. The county has been good enough to go ahead and
let us move forward with training and testing of at least two of our members at this point
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page 5 of 49
and they have qualified for their SWAT team at this point, so they are undergoing
training and this allows us a little bit more specialization that we couldn't necessarily do
ourselves at this point, given our size and the cost of maintaining a full blown SWAT
team that would augment their team and also provide us some insiders for anything that
may potentially occur here in Meridian. At this point, though, after it's been through
legal and all, our MOU does require signature of the Mayor at this point, which is why I
wanted to bring it forth tonight, find out if there are any questions on it, and, then, if not,
see if we can move forward with the Mayor's signature on that, you know, followed by
my own, and, then, we can move forward with participation with the county on this
SWAT operation team and I stand for any questions if there are any.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Donnell: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief.
Musser: Thank you.
De Weerd: I need a motion, then, to sign.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the MOU with the Ada County SWAT team and for the Mayor
to sign and the police chief to sign, the clerk to attest both signatures.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve the presentation by the chief for the MOU. If there
is no further discussion, Mr. Berg?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
K.
Approve Liquor License for Backwater Saloon:
De Weerd: Thank you. We removed Item K from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Nary,
would you like to open this discussion?
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page 6 of 49
Nary: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We were presented tonight
with a liquor license approval -- or request for approval for the Backwater Saloon. You
had an item like this previously a few weeks ago in front of you regarding this type of
facility. All of our -- in reviewing our city code, the schedule of use control requires that
all bars require -- are required to have a Conditional Use Permit. This particular one is,
essentially, an accessory bar inside another already licensed establishment at the
Whitewater Saloon. It does not currently have a Conditional Use Permit. So, if the
Council has not had to address this previously, except for the one occasion, I think we
had with Mugsy's a few weeks ago --I spoke with Mrs. Canning this afternoon about our
code and other types of conditional uses the city hasn't previously required a second
CU to be acquired, but they never had to address that in regards to a bar or a liquor
establishment. Because of that it would be my opinion if the Council wants to make a
finding in regard to that, they probably need to make a finding on whether a second
Conditional Use Permit is required. If it's going to be required, you may want to
consider setting this matter over for one week to inform the applicant of that. The last
applicant whose application was denied, Mr. Eddy, objected to the fact that he didn't
receive any opportunity to come and speak to you regarding his application. Again, I
think it's more of a legal issue if you want to make that finding, but you certainly may
want to allow the applicant an opportunity to speak if you want to. Mrs. Canning could
probably provide more on the planning side, but I think there is that issue, as well as I
think the police chief and I have had a couple of discussions and there are some
concerns of public safety reasons on having two licensed establishments in the same
premise. I think you will also have the ability, under our ordinance, to make that finding
as well on where to approve or deny a license. Additionally, if the Council would like,
under our city code and the section on licensing, we could certainly clarify, if you would
like me to bring an ordinance back, if that's your preference on whether or not two liquor
-- two licensed liquor establishments could be in the same premise and what
requirements there may need to be to have them be separate, so that they can be dwelt
with from a law enforcement standpoint. I could certainly bring a draft ordinance back to
you in a couple of weeks if you would like that. Thirdly, if there is a question about the
state code, I think it came up in a meeting that I wasn't present, Mr. Baird was here
instead, the question was what the state code speaks to in regards to that and the state
code is, essentially, silent, it really leaves it to the city to make those determinations as
to zoning and whatever other requirements you cite, just the ability to actually have a
license for the establishments themselves, the city does have the ability to do that and I
think that was a question that had come up previously. So, that was what I had from the
legal side and Chief Musser or Mrs. Canning can add any other information you may
want.
De Weerd: Chief or Anna, do you have anything to add?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only thing I might add is that the
only other instance where we -- where a CU doesn't run with the land is day care. It's a
licensing issue in that case, too. So, they are similar in that they both have a separate
license issued by the state.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 7 of 49
De Weerd: Council, any questions or comments?
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Okay. So, help me to refresh my memory about the last time that this was
brought before us. Am I to understand that this is exactly like the request that we had
from Eddy's that wanted to acquire a license at Mugsy's, but am I also correct that we
did allow it with Bill & Lynns' Back Door, but if I remember correctly, we denied that
license -- the additional for Eddy's. How -- is this any different than what we looked at
before?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council-member Donnell, other than
maybe some -- there may be some differences in layout, it is, essentially, the same
circumstance that you viewed before in regards to Mugsy's and Eddy's required for that
separate licensed facility within their restaurant. You did deny that request. He has
filed -- he did file a letter, which requested an appeal. There is no appeal under the city
code for that type of denial. He has filed a second application, which is, really, his
remedy. That's -- you can always come back and ask for another license, if the
circumstances change. That might be in front of you in the next meeting. I don't know
when it's scheduled to be in front of you for review. The other one, the Bill & Lynn's,
what I think the -- the information received prior at the last meeting was -- I think there
was an oversight on that. I think the issue of whether it's a conditional use -- I haven't
discussed it with Mrs. Canning -- if a conditional use is required, if that's the direction of
this Council as to how you interpret your city code, then, there is still the opportunity to
notify them that that's still required. A license is one thing, zoning requirements and the
application for zoning is different. So, there is certainly something we can look at
whether that's appropriate at this juncture with the other facilities. But other than -- to
answer your question, I guess, is -- the long way around, to answer your question is,
yes, it's very similar to the last one that you have done.
Donnell: Madam Mayor, follow up, please.
De Weerd: Yes.
Donnell: Did we also not talk about a change in the ordinance coming before the
Council when we discussed this the last time or did we not? And if we didn't, then, I
certainly would suggest that we should have some change in the ordinance, so that we
will have a clarification in interpretation that we can go on to either deny or approve this
request.
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell, I think that there was, but there wasn't this specific instruction
and that is why staff has gotten together to talk about it, to look at -- at the code and do
an evaluation and bring something back and this is the recommendation they are
bringing back to you, so that our codes can be more specific in addressing the issue.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 8 of 49
Donnell: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I do need to clarify one thing, since it is -- he has asked to come before you
again. On Mike & Eddy's, it was a different scenario, because Mugsy's is not approved
for a bar. Mugsy's is a restaurant. So, to move a bar on that property definitely requires
conditional use approval and that's why the Council was -- one of the reasons that the
Council denied it -- the request for the liquor licenses. They definitely, by the land use
code, required a conditional use approval, because they do not have one currently.
Nary: Madam Mayor, yes -- and I guess I'm sorry that I misspoke in the sense that the
circumstances of how the facility is operated is the same. Mrs. Canning is absolutely
right, that one clearly needs a Conditional Use Permit. There isn't, really, an
interpretation issue in my mind. This one is an interpretation of our code, because how
we have applied it in relation to other types of conditional uses that aren't licensed
establishments versus this one. In our city code it only lists bars as conditional uses in
all the zones that they are allowed to be in and so the way I read it and my interpretation
is is that whether it's one bar or two bars, it doesn't really make any difference, they all
require conditional use, regardless of whether they are in one building or two buildings.
Donnell: Okay.
Canning: And a follow up, Madam Mayor, I did talk to the planning commission on the
specific use standards for drinking establishments in the new code and we did come up
with two things -- well, we came up with one thing and I think I forgot to add the second
one, but the second one would be we will just put in there that only one liquor license is
allowed per establishment, without an additional conditional use approval. We will just
put that in. The other one was our definition of drinking establishment specifically
excludes restaurants where the principal purpose of the structure is to serve food. We
are going to tighten that down a bit and we are going to say excluding restaurants that
do not serve alcohol after 11 :00 p.m. So, that way the bars will really be bars and -- I
mean if you -- if you have got Mugsy's that's serving -- that's serving alcohol after 11 :00
p.m. and some bar food, it's clear they are not a restaurant, even though they are
serving some food there. So, I think that will make it a much easier and more
enforceable definition for the enforcement folks.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 9 of 49
Bird: Why would you make bars and restaurants different on times? There is a lot of
bars that stay -- or restaurants stay open until midnight, 1 :00 o'clock, and if they have
got a liquor license, they are entitled to serve their liquor.
Canning: The general consensus from the Planning and Zoning Commission was that if
you're serving liquor past 11 :00 p.m., you probably should have a Conditional Use
Permit for a bar, because, otherwise, we will have everyone just calling them-selves a
restaurant and I don't think we want to make everyone get a Conditional Use Permit for
a restaurant.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: A restaurant has got to have something -- a kitchen that you can serve out of.
You don't bring in catered food and consider yourself a restaurant. So, if you have got a
kitchen in there and it's usable and you serve food, then, you're a restaurant and you
can also be a restaurant bar, I guess.
Canning: Well, most bars have some sort of kitchen facilities with -- that serve food,
Bird: Most bars do?
Canning: Uh-huh.
Donnell: So, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: So, I'm having a hard time understanding why an establishment -- a drinking
establishment, a bar, wants two licenses in the same facility. Is that just too simple a
question?
Bird: No.
Rountree: It's a good question.
Bird: It's a very good question.
Donnell: Okay. Here we go.
De Weerd: We need to have our economic development coordinator answer that.
Donnell: I think that came out at the last one, but I -- obviously, it didn't stay with me, so
here we go again.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 10of49
Musser: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council -- and perhaps this might help
clear up things a little bit, Councilwoman Donnell. First off, when the state issues an
alcohol license out, in particular a liquor license, you can obtain a liquor license for two
establishments, bar or a restaurant. There is also a retail one, but we won't go down
that road right now on it. For those two items, though, if it's inside of a restaurant, the
restaurant has to show that more than 50 percent of their overall gross profits are
associated with the service of food or delivery of food, as opposed to alcohol. A bar
only shows the majority that they bring in is from the sale of the liquor or other alcoholic
beverages. So, that's part of the distinction there, as to whether or not they are a
restaurant or a bar pursuant in the state guides on that. In reference to your specific
question on why we have two of them in there, at this point what it's come down to is,
essentially, the liquor licenses are an investment for most of the business people that
have been in line waiting for it. We have had a number of them that have opened up,
because of our increase in population. However, the state has a 90-day requirement for
them to put that license into operation once it's issued to them. What they have been
doing is trying to find some sort of mechanism to be able to do that and what they are
doing is renting out, essentially, closet space, a section of the -- of an existing bar in
order to be able to say that they are in operation and they are running with that. And we
have been down to check the one that did get approved inadvertently before all this
came before us and it's, essentially, in a small room off of the kitchen and they are
operating out of a file cabinet, they serve three drinks, all drinks cost you a minimum of
ten dollars, and you have to request somebody serve it to you in there at the time. So,
all it is, basically, is a mechanism so the license can be put in place to meet the state
requirement of the 90 days. In essence, what we are facing is a legislative oversight at
the state level, which we are having to handle at the municipal level at this point.
Donnell: Thank you.
De Weerd: And I guess I would just add a little bit further to that confusion, is we found
this and we found them in drawers in Cascade and false addresses in Boise and so --
because we are looking for economic development, we have restaurants legitimately
wanting to come in and buy these permits for 800 dollars and they are being sold in
Boise for 100,000. So, what this city has done with our Economic Development
Coordinator, our City Attorney, and a Boise Attorney is written some legislation that
addresses two different things. One is a legitimate time frame for a legitimate permit
holder or license holder to put it into use. So, extending the 90 days, so that they show
good faith effort in trying to find a location and building or annexing, zoning, those kind
of things -- a lot of the different things that they are faced with, versus the person who is
holding it and trying to sell it two years down the road. So, that legislation has been
written, it's with Senator Bunderson, who will most likely sponsor it next year. So, more
information than you probably asked for.
Donnell: Now I know.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 11 0149
De Weerd: But it has been an issue in our city. So, Council, do you feel comfortable
with this ordinance update, bringing back in two weeks -- on the 29th, since that is our
next meeting, and addressing it again at that time?
Donnell: Uh-huh.
Bird: You want to -- do you want to continue this until March 29th?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: I agree. They got a right to have a day in court.
De Weerd: Okay. Then, I will need a motion to continue this.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue Item 7-K until March 29th, 2005.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue to the 29th. All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Item No.8 --
Rountree: Do we need a motion on the ordinance?
Bird: Yeah, you do.
De Weerd: Do I need a motion on the ordinance?
Nary: Madam Mayor, if the Council has -- if they would like to review an ordinance, that
would make it -- prohibit two licensed establishments on the same premise, and the
Council is all in agreement with that or has no objection to that, I will bring you a draft
ordinance in two weeks.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: I agree.
Item 8:
Request for Reduction in Fees for Pinebridge Subdivision by Dave
McKinnon:
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 12 of 49
De Weerd: Okay. It looks like everyone's in agreement. Okay. Yep. Item No.8 is a
request for reduction in fees for Pinebridge Subdivision. Dave McKinnon. Please state
your name and address.
McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. You have all
received a memo from me. Hopefully you have had a chance to read it. I don't want to
take up a whole lot of your time tonight. The fee structure for planned developments in
Meridian works great for smaller developments. Pinebridge Subdivision is a large
development, 120 acres, and it's going to have approximately a million square feet of
commercial office, retail, industrial buildings. The fee structure asks for two cents a
square foot and if you add that up, it comes to about 20,000 dollars for an application
just for conceptual approval. After conceptual approval there is a requirement for a
detailed Conditional Use Permit approval, which is five cents per square foot, which
would be another 50,000 dollars. We felt that 70,000 dollars for an approval of a project
that would benefit the city seemed like a lot. We talked with Anna. Anna agreed with
that. She suggested we come and talk to the Council. We met yesterday with Anna
and Bill Nary and Michelle Brown and come up with a number of 10,246 dollars. It
seemed like an appropriate number and we all came in agreement with that and we are
asking you at this time if we can make a check out to the city for that amount, so we can
move forward with our planned development.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. McKinnon, I have to ask the question. How did you come up with the
10,247 was it?
McKinnon: Forty-six.
Wardle: Forty-six.
McKinnon Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, we came up with that number by taking
the two cents and halving it to one cent a square foot for 10,000 square feet. The
conceptual PD also requires one dollar per apartment unit and we have 246 apartment
units, we said 246 apartment units, we will pay a dollar for each one of those, 10,000
dollars for the rest of the project, and we felt that that was appropriate. In the past you
have allowed reductions like this for larger projects, such as Silverstone and those
areas, and you reduced it a similar amount.
Meridian City Council
March 15,2005
Page 130f49
Wardle: Thanks. Had to ask.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate the question. Council, any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, I will also need a motion on this.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would move that we approve Item No.8, request for reduction in fees for
Pinebridge Subdivision, pursuant to applicant's comments.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the request. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Discussion.
Rountree: Though I will vote in the affirmative on that motion, I'm somewhat concemed
to a bit of an arbitrary approach to this. I would suggest that we have staff review this
issue and come back with either an ordinance amendment or some guidance that takes
care of this in the future.
De Weerd: An excellent suggestion, which we would have gotten to after the vote, if
you hadn't of done that now, so -- and we do, we need to put that in perspective. I think
this application has been somewhat delayed for a good period of time because of this
and so we do need to clarify it. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 140f49
De Weerd: Thank you. Anna.
Canning: The last time this issue came up I got similar instructions and I did go back
and I looked at the fee structure and what we discovered is it's just these large projects
that really throw it out of whack. Part of the problem is that we require the conceptual
and, then, the detailed CU. So, we will completely revamp the fee ordinance and bring
it to you, along with the new zoning ordinance that will be necessary, because, like for
conditional uses, for instance, they are no longer coming all the way up to you, so we
need to amend the fee appropriately to reflect that the P&Z will be making the decision.
So, there will be a wide restructuring of the fee structure and there is no more
conceptual versus detailed CU. So, I think we will have a better tool for coming up with
appropriate fees for you. And I would also like to state for the record that some -- that
the delay in processing with regard to the fee was not as much as other reasons
regarding the conceptual site plan, so --
De Weerd: Which have all been worked out?
Canning: Yes. And they are ready to go.
Item 9:
FP 05-015 Request for Final Plat approval for 2 office building lots on 2.44
acres in a R-8 zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.8 by
Brighton Development, Inc. - west of Locust Grove Road and north of
Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We already called roll and moved on this one, so let's
move forward. Item 9 is FP 05-015. I will start with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for two building lots
on 2.44 acres. They are currently zoned R-B, but they were approved as a use
exception for a planned development and we have asked that the applicant submit a
rezone application for CoN, so we can get the proper zoning on the property and they --
that is currently in process. The final plat is in substantial conformance with the
approved preliminary plat and staff is recommending approval. And there is a letter
from Mr. Turnbull saying they are in agreement with the conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Council? Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we approve Item No.9, FP 05-015, subject to staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 15 of 49
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 9. If there is no further discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
FP 05-016 Request for Final Plat approval of 50 single-family residential
building lots and 9 common lots on 23.71 acres in a R-4 zone for
Bridaetower Crossina Subdivision No. 11 by Primeland Development,
LLP - west of North Linder Road and south of West McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Item 10 is FP 05-016. Start with Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for 47 single family
residential building lots, three commercial office lots, and nine common lots on 23.71
acres in Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. That's the preliminary plat that's before you
right now and as you will see, the final plat is in substantial conformance with the
approved preliminary plat. Staff is recommending approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant in agreement with all staff comments?
Canning: Oh, I'm sorry. I do have a letter from the applicant stating they are in
agreement with the conditions of approval. They did note some concern about the
drainage areas with problems they have been having out there, but they will work with
staff to address those issues.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, with the letter from --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 10, FP 05-016, subject to staff comments
and working out the drainage issues.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
FP 05-017 Request for Final Plat approval for 47 single-family residential
building lots and 2 common lots on 17.53 acres in a R-8 zone for
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 16 0149
Paramount Subdivision No.5 by Paramount Development, Inc. - south
of Chinden Boulevard and west of North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 is FP 05-017.
Canning: Madam Mayor, sorry about that. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this
is the -- this one has 47 single-family residential lots, too. That must be a magic number
today. This is the fifth final plat for Paramount Subdivision, It includes 47 single family
residential building lots, two common lots, on 17.53 acres of land and the preliminary
plat is shown before you now. This is toward the north end of the site just before you
get to Chinden Boulevard. And as you can tell, the preliminary plat -- final plat is in
substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Staff is recommending
approval. I do have a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with
the conditions of approval. We have been discussing the configuration of two lots in the
northwest corner and the design of the flag and driveway associated with those lots, so
staff is still working on that, but any answer that they -- or any solution that we come up
with will be, essentially, the same as what's before you now.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Item No. 11, FP 05-017, Paramount Subdivision No.5.
Donnell: Second,
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve Item 11 and a second. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from March 1 2005: PFP 04-008 Request
for Preliminary/Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 8.02 acres in an 1-
L zone for Nola Subdivision by Bergey Land Surveying - SWC of East
Pine Avenue and North Nola Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is a continued Public Hearing from March 1 st, on PFP 04-
008. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a combined request for a
preliminary and final plat approve for four building lots on eight acres in an I-L zone.
The property is located on the southwest comer of Pine Street and Nola. The
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 170f49
preliminary plat would create four lots, the large one that is currently occupied by Oak
Harbor Freight, and, then, three smaller lots that front onto Pine Street. I'm just going to
briefly hit on some of the issues that were discussed during the -- well -- okay. The
Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of this application to you.
They held a hearing on March -- no. They held a hearing on February 3rd. The
applicant's representative Angie Comish testified in favor of the application and the
Planning and Zoning Commission took testimony -- Josh was presenting the
application. The big discussion items, which is what I was trying to get at, were two.
One was a multi-use pathway and currently the multi-use pathway is generally shown
coming up to Pine and, then, it -- there is one that angles off onto this property here,
which was the one that you just granted the reduction in fees on, so we will see the
continuation of this multi-use pathway down to Pine. It doesn't follow a natural feature.
The issue is -- currently shown as coming up Nola, but once Locust Grove is fully
improved, they will close off the Nola grade crossing of the railroad tracks. There will be
a cul-de-sac here and a cul-de-sac here. So, they don't want people walking across it
when they are not letting people drive across it either. They don't want a separate
pedestrian access there. So, there is a need to shift this pathway. It comes up through
the new -- kind of around the new ACHD facility. There is a need to shift it onto Locust
Grove. So, the question was where is the appropriate -- how do we get those multi-use
pathways. That was the major discussion item at that time and, then, the future ACHD
requirements regarding Pine and Locust Grove. This is kind of a key intersection at this
point. The Commission did recommend adding a site-specific condition number six that
basically said give us a blanket easement on this Locust Grove site and somewhere
where we can put a ten-foot multi-use pathway. In reviewing this application today with
the Public Works director and the city attorney, we felt it was not appropriate for the
Council to add that condition. John Priester, the county surveyor, does not want to see
-- or basically will not allow unspecified easement locations. You can't have a blanket
easement, you have to pinpoint it on the plat. So, that condition that the Commission
added would not be acceptable for recording purposes. We looked up the construction
plans for Locust Grove and they do provide a seven-foot wide sidewalk within the right
of way along Locust Grove. Similarly, there will be a seven-foot sidewalk on Pine Street
within the right of way. Well, I don't know if that one is in the right of way. I'm assuming
it is. It is. I'm getting a nod -- an affirmative nod from the applicant. So, we think that
although seven-foot sidewalks are not a preference for a multi-use pathway, in this case
where ACHD is constructing it already and it's in the works, we feel it would be
acceptable for this project at this time. I believe that's the -- really, the only outstanding
issue for the Council at this point and so I will end staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? If you will, please, state
your name and address.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 180f49
Com ish: I'm Angela Comish and I live at 600 Eastman Street in Boise, and I just
wanted to add in a little bit of detail. Anna is filling in, because Joshua is the one that
has been following this project all along and Josh's wife just had a baby and so Josh is
the one that's able to present it, but, unfortunately, the day before his wife had a baby
he and I went into a long conversation about this whole easement idea and about what
could we do with this idea of a meandering easement that we wouldn't have defined and
we talked with ACHD and talked together and I agreed that that seven foot sidewalk that
ACHD has planned, it's within their right of way and I believe there is at least two to
three feet of right of way also behind that sidewalk. So, if at some point the city wanted
to talk with ACHD, there would be some sufficient space to actually pull that sidewalk
away from the curb, if you wanted to do that, or widen it to ten feet or meander it slightly
within that. And so he and I had agreed the same thing, that, basically, it reaUy didn't
make sense to put a nebulous, kind of arbitrary easement on that, that we agreed that
there was at least seven feet and, if not, ten feet, possibly, to fit a sidewalk in that
space. And so Anna wasn't party to that, because Josh had taken off and probably
hadn't conveyed that information to her and I apologize, I didn't realize you didn't know
that, so I just wanted to note that there wasn't anything that was still out there, he had
kind of resolved that and, then, the next day he was gone, so that's that. If you have
any questions or anything.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions?
Rountree: No.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Comish: Thanks.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Seeing none, Council, if you have no further comments or questions, I
would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 12. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 190f49
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, we have got a set of draft findings for this as well?
De Weerd: Oh, yes, sir, you do.
Wardle: Which portion of that would need to be amended to remove the blanket
easement?
Canning: The site specific condition number six. And I think that's one where you could
probably just go ahead and recommend deleting it and we can get them over to be
signed.
Wardle: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No 12, PFP 04-008, for Nola Subdivision and to
approve the Findings with the deletion of site-specific condition number six.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion for Item 12 is to approve with the amendment as stated. Is
there any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ. 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Stor-It by Avest LP
- 355 North Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13 is a Public Hearing on AZ 04-033. I'll open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request solely for
annexation of 15.92 acres and they are requesting CoG zoning. The site is currently
developed as a storage area for Stor-It and you will see that the front half of the site is
developed, but the rear half is not. They do receive City of Meridian water and as a
condition of obtaining that water they were required to annex when they were
contiguous, so they are now contiguous and available for annexing. They have
submitted a conceptual site plan for their further development of the property, as shown
here, and this site plan is only provided for your purposes. They have not asked for this
detailed conditional use approval at this time. Staff is recommending a development
agreement associated with this and the -- we would suggest that the following items be
included in that development agreement: Ten Mile Road, which is on the east side of
the property, is within ACHD's five year work plan and the right of way will be required to
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 20 of 49
complete the plans that ACHD is preparing. Staff is recommending that the applicant
dedicate the right of way as set forth by ACHD as a condition of the development
agreement. And, then, prior to issuance of any building permit or certificate of zoning
compliance on the subject staff is recommending that it be reviewed for landscaping,
parking, setback requirements back here. We are also recommending that prior to
issuance of any building permits or certificates of zoning compliance that the required
right of way shall be dedicated to ACHD. And, then, finally, the Comprehensive Plan
designates a multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Drain -- or Ten Mile Creek and so
we are recommending that the development agreement require the applicant to
construct a ten foot multi-use pathway to the parks department standards. Prior to the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant did raise concern with the last
item that I just spoke to, so that was the primary item of discussion -- or one of them at
the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. They did conduct that hearing on
February 17th and the multi-use pathway was discussed, particularly should we -- I
think the developer -- or the applicant was in favor of just giving the easement and not
developing it at this time. We explained that the standard process for the city is to build
those short segments of pathway, so that we can connect them, eventually, and we
were -- staff was not in favor of not having it developed and the Planning Commission --
and that's what was in the staff report and the Planning Commission agreed. So, they
did require construction of the pathway. With that, I will end staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Anna, do we not have any special landscape
issues with these gateway corridors? With this being at the Ten Mile, with a future
interchange there, I guess -- I thought we had specific landscape requirements for entry
corridors.
Canning: We do. The entryway corridor ends at Franklin. I didn't get you many
bearings. I'm sorry. This is Franklin. This is Ten Mile. Here is the railroad track. It
does end at Franklin Road currently. The landscaping -- and the applicant can explain
this a little bit better, but I do believe that he and Joe discussed the deficiencies in the
current landscaping, as compared to our code, because Ada County doesn't require
nearly as much landscaping. I think the conditions of approval as worded were --
specifically mentioned landscaping as one of those, because I think that was a concern.
They are built fairly close to the right of way and when ACHD takes additional right of
way there will not be much property left there to landscape along there. But I'm sure
that the applicant can address that in more specifics.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. If you will, please, state
your name and address.
Callaham: Craig Callaham, 6170 Shandee, Meridian.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 21 of 49
De Weerd: Thank you.
Callaham: The owner is in agreement with what was -- the conditions that were placed
at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and they had a few concerns with the
path still, mainly in that the concern about indemnity of the public walking down through
the middle of their property and falling into the creek and going out onto the railroad
track and things like that, but those are all things that can be addressed in the
development agreement, I believe. And as for the landscaping, it is developed under
the Ada County rules and so they understand that it has to be upgraded to meet the
current rules of the City of Meridian.
De Weerd: So, they understand that, but there is different setbacks and -- thinking of
buildings there. So, what do you mean by they understand that? What are their plans?
Callaham: There is an existing sidewalk along Ten Mile and, then, there is probably in
some parts 15 and some parts 20 feet of landscape area before you get into an
ornamental iron fence there that can be landscaped.
De Weerd: Okay.
Callaham: As well as along the sides of the railroad track and along the future pathway.
De Weerd: Thank you. I just had one other observation, you know, we don't always
have this opportunity, so -- but there is an entry corridor and you have your uncovered
storage on the southeast comer. Is there a way that that can be landscaped to kind of
shield what's being parked there?
Callaham: If we could go back to the conceptual plan, one of the ideas is that we get
some buildings -- you can seek along that front part trying to get a building in there to
help shield it.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Callaham: Any storage units, the buildings kind of become your fence, your screening
fence, they kind of block the view, then, you don't see the cars that are parked outside
or anything like that, so --
De Weerd: Thank you. I appreciate that. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much.
Callaham: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 22 of 49
De Weerd: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Okay. Council, there are no other questions or information needed?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no more requests, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 13.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion or motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 13, AZ. 04-033, annexation and zoning for
Stor-It and to also approve the findings pursuant to staff and applicant comments.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve Item 13. If there is no further discussion, Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development for office, retail and daycare uses in an I-L zone as
required by CUP 04-009 and a request for a building height modification
from the previously approved 40-feet to 52-feet for DBSI Realtv CorD. by
DBSI Realty Corp. - north of West Overland Road and east of South
Linder Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14 is a Public Hearing on CUP 04-055. I will open this
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Meridian City Councii
March 15, 2005
Page 23 of 49
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this site is located on Overland Road
west of Meridian Road and this is Stoddard coming down south here. It doesn't go
north on Overland Road. The request is for, essentially, a modification of the previously
approved planned development and the request is to allow office, retail, and daycare
uses and I-L zone and for a building height modification from a 40 foot limit to 52 feet.
As I mentioned before, this is the previously approved planned development. You will
see, though, that only one building right there, which is Western Electronics, has
currently been constructed. The other ones are all shown as future buildings. This site
has been modified to have kind of two twin towers, so to speak, of 52 height -- 52 feet in
height. Here is an elevation of those buildings. The previous planned development
specifically required conditional use approval of office, retail, and daycare uses and so
that's why that's included within this application as well. The two buildings will be about
60,000 square feet each. We did review the parking and landscaping requirements and
have worked with the applicant on those items. Did want to point out that they have
added an additional driveway cut from the original application. ACHD has -- had
recommended not allowing that one. They did appeal that request and I believe they
can give you an update tonight. My understanding is that ACHD did not grant their
appeal on that issue. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on
February 3rd. They have recommended approval with the conditions of approval that
have been attached in the findings. The key issues of discussion were the height
measurement of the building and whether it was 52 feet to the very top of the building
and it is and the access points as required by ACHD and, then, the landscape plan
requiring future approval. So, as I have said, Staff has worked with the applicant on the
necessary changes to the landscape plan. To our knowledge there are no outstanding
issues before the City Council and with that I will end staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Yancey: Yes. My name is Wayne Yancey. I'm at 2621 Autumn Way, Meridian, Idaho.
And we are in concurrence with the findings and recommendations of staff.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you very much.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 24 of 49
Rountree: What's going on with the -- it appears to be kind of a boulevard type of
access in the middle, but what's happening on the outbound side? It seems to lose its
translation in your graphic there.
Yancey: On which?
Rountree: That would be the middle access -- yeah. On the west side there.
Yancey: This is an existing, divided private drive. ACHD denied our request for an
additional -- or for two additional drive curb accesses, so it would be our intent -- and
they had no preference to which one. It would be our intent to construct the western
most drive and they -- their recommendation was to allow for a 36 foot width on that
curb cut. But this -- this drive is existing up to about this location right now and so these
two buildings would be served by this drive and the drive on the west. The intent would
be for the -- the divided drive to continue through the property to the north,
approximately to the freeway that's located right here.
Rountree: Thank you.
Yancey: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Hearing none, any further information needed from staff and the applicant?
Bird: I don't, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing nothing else, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 14.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to close Item 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
March 15,2005
Page 25 of 49
Wardle: Anna, just a quick clarification. The applicant had mentioned that ACHD
upheld their denial of the curb cut. You mentioned that the Planning and Zoning
Commission was also recommending that, and so to approve the findings we wouldn't
need to change anything?
Canning: Correct.
Wardle: Okay. With that, Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve Item No. 14,
CUP 04-055, Conditional Use Permit for DBSI Realty Corp. and to also approve the
findings pursuant to staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 14. If there is no further discussion or
comment, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: PP 05-001 Request for an amendment of the
Preliminary Plat for phases 7 & 10 of Saauaro Canvon Subdivision
consisting of 21 single family residential building lots on 6+/- acres in a R-
4 zone by Farwest - 6210 North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15 is a Public Hearing on PP 05-011. I will open this
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is an amendment to the previous
approval for Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. The entire site for Saguaro is shown here
and, then, this is the portion -- this is the approved preliminary plat and this is the
portion that's being reconfigured. Note the five-acre Boyack property. As you may
recall, they did request that this be left as a single five-acre property. It does have a flag
frontage extending out to Meridian Road and, then, you can see the angle on it and the
angled street, whereas everything else is pretty much north-south in this area. The
owners of -- the Boyacks have decided to go ahead and develop at this time, so the
primary purpose of this amendment is to develop that property and here is the five acre
piece right there. You can see that the amendments -- the previously angled streets,
they have asked to amend these seven and also with that, so that they can kind of
straighten out the roads and make it similar to what the rest of Saguaro Canyon looks
like. So, in this amendment they are proposing 21 new single-family residential lots on
approximately six acres. The lots range in size from 6,808 square feet to 20,861 square
feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission did -- held their hearing on February 17th
and the applicant's representative, Mr. Dave McKinnon, testified in favor of the
application. They also -- you know, all of my staff put in this little comment that says
they took oral and written testimony, but I don't believe anybody else spoke against the
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page 26 of 49
application at that time. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the
removal of the 24-foot flag lot extending to Meridian Road and that was in the original
Saguaro Canyon Subdivision approval that that needed to be removed when this
property was further developed. And, then, clarify -- clarification of the required street
section was per the Meridian fire department. The fire marshal changed the standard to
read 33 feet face of curb to face of curb and on a rolled curb we are unable to measure
what the face of the curb is at that point, so we did change it back to the former
standard, which had been back of curb to back of curb. So, that was one of the key
changes to staff's initial recommendation. And, then, they did add -- they deleted a site
specific condition number two and, then, they added a site specific condition number
two, which references item number eight, page eight, of the development agreement for
Saguaro Canyon and I believe that was for a -- I forgot to look that up, but I believe that
was in reference to the 24 foot side lot. The other change was just filling in the numbers
on one of the fire department comments. They had been left blank. So, it was just
filling in the numbers to read the proposed 21 lot subdivision, with an estimated 2.9
residents per household, it will have a total isolated population of 66 residents, so that
was just kind of a clerical cleanup. With that I will end staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Anna could repeat what the size ranges from of the lots?
Canning: They range from 6,808 to 20,861. I believe the 20,000 square foot lot is
probably right here, just as you enter Ventana Subdivision. Is that the right name?
Ventana. Yeah.
De Weerd: Councilman Rountree?
Rountree: Madam Mayor. If those sizes are current, how can it be zoned R-4?
Canning: They had a planned development.
Rountree: Okay.
Canning: The overall gross density of Saguaro Subdivision was for 3.09 acres -- I mean
3.09 units per acre. They did do a planned development, which included reduced
frontage requirements, cul-de-sac length, modifications to minimum lot size,
modifications to the minimum house size.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I heard you say that the flag lot that we have had numerous discussions
about over the months has been removed, but what's the fate of the flag-pole, if you
will? I mean who is going to claim ownership of that? Is it going to become a linear
weed patch? What's going on there?
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page 27 of 49
Canning: The specific -- the specific condition of approval in the original Saguaro
Canyon was that they needed to sell it to one of the two property owners. At the
Planning and Zoning Commission the applicant's representative did testify that they
talked to Mr. Priddy about purchasing that property.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. We have read the
recommendations and agree with the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning
Commission and ask if you have any questions at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: We knew you would be back.
Rountree: We knew this would happen.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: When you separated that piece out. We just didn't think you would be back
so soon.
Rountree: You wouldn't take our advice.
De Weerd: Yeah. How can you comment on that?
Bird: Didn't you have a comment, Dave?
De Weerd: Okay. Council -- I'm sorry. Is there anyone who would like to provide
comment or testimony on this application? Okay. Any further information from staff
before we close the Public Hearing? Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 15.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. the motion is close the Public Hearing on 15. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 28 of 49
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve PP 05-001, Saguaro Subdivision, and to include staff and
applicant comments.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 15 and we won't say the name of that
subdivision --
Bird: Saguaro.
De Weerd: Name it something different. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will
you call roll.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Just a clarification. We are
approving the attached findings also in that motion. Thank you.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-016 Request for a Rezone of .27 acre from R-4 to
C-T zone for SerendiDitv Place Subdivision by Susan Howard - 1305
West 1st Street:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PFP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
of 4 single family attached residential building lots on .27 acre in a
proposed O-T zone for SerendiDitv Place Subdivision by Susan Howard
- 1305 West 1st Street:
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 16 and 17. I will open those two Public Hearings for RZ
04-016 and PFP 04-009. I will start with Anna's comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this project is located on Cherry
Lane. Not Cherry Avenue, but Cherry Lane and West 1st Street. Cherry Avenue, not
Cherry Lane. I got that backwards. Sorry. This is the not-carrying-much-traffic Cherry
Street. Anyway, it's located on the northwest corner there. And what the applicant is
proposing to do -- there is an existing home. They are proposing four attached single-
family homes on the property. So, they would remove the existing home and, then,
there would be two structures, so they would be attached, but on separate lots for each
one. So, it's a four-lot subdivision that is before you today as a preliminary and final
Meridian City Council
March 15,2005
Page 29 of 49
plat. Then, they have also requested a rezone to Old Town along with this project.
Okay. The lots range in size from 2,331 square feet to 4,050 square feet. And the
minimum square footage of each residence would be 1,100 square feet. The future
homes on Lots 2 and 3 would share a common drive. And, then, four would take
access from 1 st Street and Lot 1 would take access from Cherry Avenue. Okay. There
was a site specific condition of approval in the initial staff report regarding fire hydrants
and, essentially, it was unless otherwise allowed by the Meridian fire department, they
needed to provide corner -- a hydrant at the corner of Cherry Avenue and 1 st Street.
Since that time the applicant has been working with the fire department -- and I will have
an update on that condition of approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard
this item on February 17th. Kevin Harris, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor.
There was one speaking in opposition. And the key issues of discussion were the
applicant requested to pay a well development fee, rather than install pressure irrigation
systems. And, then, since that time the issue of the hydrants has been resolved also.
The Commission did amend site specific condition number four on page ten of the staff
report by removing the requirement for the pressurized irrigation to serve each lot and
that in lieu of that requirement each lot would be required to pay the well development
fee. There is an e-mail, I believe, from Craig -- or between Craig and Kevin that
discusses the hydrant issue and, basically, the applicant was able to satisfy the
Meridian fire department that they had -- yeah -- that they had enough fire hydrants in
the area and one would not be required for this project. I believe the way the condition
is currently worded, it would not need to be changed, because it says unless otherwise -
- no. Unless there -- unless otherwise allowed. So, there is enough discretion there
that we don't need to change the condition of approval. With that I will end staff's
presentation.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Harris: Kevin Harris. Business address is 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. I'm
speaking on behalf of the applicant Susan Howard tonight again. We are in agreement
with all the conditions of approval on the subdivision and we ask that you approve us
tonight. If there is any questions for me, I would be happy to answer them.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Could you give us some design detail on the proposed housing?
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 30 of 49
Harris: Design detail as in what type of houses or --
Rountree: Do you have an elevation? Any information?
Harris: Correct. At the Planning and Zoning hearing we did give a photograph of the
type of housing that Susan would like to put up on the site. I don't know if Anna has that
photograph still.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, that did not
make it into my records. The clerk's office probably got a copy of the photograph, if you
want to take a brief -- ah. I can put it up on the --
Harris: That's the type of unit, except they will be attached. We have got some real
positive feedback from the neighbors in the subdivision that like the idea.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you very much. Okay. Is there
anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council, what
would you like to do?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no more testimony, I move we close Items 16 and 17, RZ 04-016 and
PFP 04-009.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 16 and 17. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve RZ 04-016, Serendipity Place Subdivision, and to
incorporate staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 16. If there is no further discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 31 of 49
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea,
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 17.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PFP 04-009 for Serendipity Place Subdivision and to include
all staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve Item 17. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for retail uses in a CoN zone for The Shoos at
Cherrv Lane by High Point Equities, LLC - SWC of West Cherry Lane
and North Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Item 18 is a Public Hearing on CUP 04-054. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this project is located on Cherry
Lane and Ten Mile and it located right next to the Grocery Bag Subdivision, which has
the Albertson's market on it. You can see it's a small, triangle shaped property,
currently vacant. The request that's before you tonight is for conditional use approval
for a planned development to allow two structures on the site. As you know, our current
code only allows one structure. So, that's the primary purpose of the planned
development. It's already zoned CoN and already annexed into the city. As this was
being processed there was two site plans we were looking at, because the applicant
was working with some potential tenants and he was narrowing down his choices, so
the staff report talks about two site plans. At the Planning and Zoning Commission they
did just -- were able to focus on one site plan and that's the site plan you see here
before you. The site plan is for approximately -- the first building, A, would have 6,050
square foot of retail and, then, the second building would have 3,250 square feet of
retail. You can see that this -- the retail building A, the western most site is set up for a
bank, with the three drive-thru tellers. The general traffic flow would come into the site
from the north, swing down and, then, go back around the northem buildings. There is
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 32 of 49
also, you will note, a drive-thru on the south side of the southern building and, then, it
enters into the Albertson's parking lot. They are removing a number of the existing
parking spaces in the Albertson's parking lot -- let me look that up. I believe it's six
existing spaces, but, then, they will develop 25 additional spaces. So, there are
reworking this area, basically. And, then, the rest of the site had 27 parking spaces --
one more down here that would make 28. And, then, three parking spaces that are
mostly within the Albertson's lot. That is the site plan that the Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed at their hearing on February 17th. They have recommended
approval of this project. The applicant's representative Brent Dixon testified in favor of
the application. There were several community members that testified in opposition.
The key issue of the discussions were the appropriateness of the drive-thru facility,
particularly -- or most specifically the one on the southern most building. The impact on
surrounding properties, particularly, those folks in Rod's Parkside Creek Subdivision.
And the improvements and changes to the site layout in order to facilitate a more
functional site. And, then, screening for the property owners across the Eight Mile
Lateral. And, then, the reduced street buffer along Cherry Lane. They are not able to
meet the full buffer -- street buffer requirements. The existing street buffer on Cherry
Lane does jump significantly from property to property. It goes in to about five feet in
some areas and, then, some have required 25 feet. They are asking a reduction to the
20 feet -- to 20 feet in this area. There are specific provisions for unusually shaped
properties to allow a reduction in that buffer requirement, particularly when the -- kind of
the average width -- or length or depth of the property, which in this case would be
around here, is -- when the buffer would be substantial in relationship to the average
depth and it specifically allows a reduction in that buffer requirement. This evening the
applicant has given me a site plan -- and I will put it up in just a second -- that reflects
the changes that the Commission wanted to see. Staff has not had a chance to review
the site plan, but I do think it would be helpful for you to look at and also for the
neighbors to comment. So, just a moment. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as
you can see, the applicant has reworked the drive aisle a little bit coming out of the
bank, which I was concerned about. They have also eliminated the drive-thru on the
south side of the southern building. They have kept the same number of parking
spaces, although they still have a compact spot here and I thought they were going to
put a plaza there. Again, staff has not had a chance to look at this, although it's a fairly
simple site and they seem to have met most of what -- the conditions that were asked
for. I wouldn't recommend -- I would recommend keeping the -- the findings are
specifically related to the former site plan, but I think this gives you an indication of -- in
meeting those conditions of approval, this is probably the site plan that staff would
review for a certificate of zoning compliance.
Bird: The date on it?
Canning: The date is today's date. But, again, I'm not sure I would -- depending on
how the Council goes, I don't think I would recommend putting that in the findings,
because staff hasn't reviewed this. With that, I'll end staff's presentation. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 33 of 49
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Anna, run me through how the -- after you come through the drive-up at the bank,
how are you going to get back out? Are you going to make a u-turn there or a hard
sharp right or do we go through Albertson's parking lot now?
Canning: I think the latter answer is about all you could do. I don't think there is enough
turning radius with a large car to get back out to Cherry Lane.
Bird: So, I take it that's only going to be an entrance, then, that deal there?
Canning: We have not discussed making it an entrance only. If you were -- if you were
parked in the stalls, you could back out and go out that way. It would just really be the
drive-thru traffic, unless they wanted to park and turn around. They would probably find
their way out through the Albertson's parking lot.
Bird: Anna, I think that's a pretty narrow drive-in, 28 feet, to be having two-way traffic.
Especially when you have got -- if you don't make it one way in, you're going to have
cars -- I don't care what -- trying to swing out and get -- go back out that way from the
drive-thru.
Canning: The swing out is certainly a concern. The drive aisle -- we only require 25
feet by code. It is wider where it connects to Cherry Lane.
Bird: I agree 25 feet -- 28 is probably wide enough, but not in that circumstance. I
mean you have to got to take each circumstance and look at it as to what width you
need. I mean you're going to have people -- I don't care what you say, unless you have
it designated, you're going to have people trying to get out and swing back out that way
and you're going to swing out into the other lane, I don't care how small of car you got.
That's the only thing I -- and we can ask the applicant when he comes forward what kind
of idea they have.
Canning: That was discussed and that is a concern, although I think we just envisioned
they wouldn't -- we didn't have this much discussion at P&Z.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Dixon: My name is Brent Dixon. I live at 23675 Southwest Robison Terrace,
Sherwood, Oregon. 97140. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for
having this public meeting this evening. I am currently in the process of purchasing the
land adjacent to Albertson's. This property right here is roughly 50,000 square feet. It's
zoned commercial. It has the same zoning designation of the Albertson's store adjacent
Meridian City Council
March 15.2005
Page 34 of 49
to it. Unlike the Albertson's store, though, it doesn't have the Conditional Use Permit,
which Albertson's was granted in I think 1996 when their store was approved. There
was actually some -- quite a bit of discussion at that time in terms incorporating this site
into the overall Grocery Bag Subdivision. The property owner at the time Wally Levan
and the developer just couldn't agree on price and so it was left out. But I believe the
City Council at the time recognized that this day would come when we all are here and
as a condition of approval for the Albertson's project, a granted -- an easement was
granted to this parcel right here and so there is -- in fact, there is an existing
development agreement in place currently between the Albertson's, the adjacent shop
right here, and this is considered parcel three in the Grocery Bag Subdivision. It does
have the access that we have outlined right here. In terms of the types of retail use,
right now I'm in discussions with a bank, which would be right here. Just some
clarification. The way the banks like to have their drive-thrus now is they like to have
one drive-thru where they have the teller window, they like to have a drive-thru next to
the teller window for their ATM machines and, then, they like to have a drive-thru lane,
which is just basically a pass-through lane. You mentioned some concern regarding the
turn radius right here. I can tell you that my architect and engineers have looked at this
and they tell me that this is sufficient, but I would be open to working with staff in
addressing this issue further, if staff deems that this is not sufficient. We do have a 30
foot wide drive aisle right here, because what tends to happen is you have got cars that
-- you know, somebody wants to make a right-hand turn, somebody wants to make a
left-hand turn and, then, you have to -- you have to have sufficient room if somebody is
making a right-hand turn in. And so that's what the 30 feet gives you is enough space
for, really, three cars. Twenty-eight would be a little tight for three cars, but there would
never be three cars that are passing through here at the same time, so I think 38 feet is
sufficient. In terms of types of use, I mentioned a bank. I'm also in discussions right
now with a cell phone company. I could see an ice cream parlor coming here. A
Hallmark type shop. A quick sandwich, Subway type use. There is some certain
obnoxious uses that I would be willing to -- as a condition of approval shy away from. I
don't think this is the right spot for a fuel center. I don't think it's the right site for a
contemporary fast food restaurant in the sense of a McDonald's or a Taco Bell. As a
condition of approval, the Planning Commission asked if we would be willing to give up
the drive-thru right here and we were willing to do so. Not happily, but notwithstanding.
As well as a condition of approval that -- there was some concern -- we are going to
hear about it in a moment from some of the neighbors as far as noise and lights go.
And some of these were -- were similar to the concerns raised when the Albertson's
originally was approved several years ago and part of that was mitigated by the erection
of this masonry wall and we have agreed to continue the wall up the southern edge of
the property and so -. and, then, also remove the drive-thru. Questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a question. If you want two-way traffic there, is there any way you can bring
your landscaping around to where you narrow that exit from the bank over to the far --
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 35 of 49
as far east as you can get it, so that you're in that -- where they are actually turning, you
would be into where the little curve is right there? Take that --yeah. Can we make
them line up single file -- because I know if you got it wide enough for two cars, two cars
will try to get through there.
Dixon: Yeah. That's something we tried to do where we recognized here it was
sufficient for three cars and, then, we narrow it to two cars, so I think your question is
could we narrow it even further to force the car right along here to be able to make that
turn.
Bird: Yeah. Especially, because, see, you have got the little jog there that gives you a
little more width.
Dixon: To answer your question, I think we would certainly be willing to look at that and
as a condition of approval would ask that staff be granted, you know, to be able to
review that and approve that.
Bird: I would have no problem with that. That's the only question I had.
De Weerd: Okay. Anyone else have a question for the applicant?
Dixon: I have one further question. Is there a chance for rebuttal following some of the
neighbors?
De Weerd: Yes. You will have the last word.
Dixon: Okay.
De Weerd: Well, actually, the Council will.
Dixon: Council will. They always get the last word. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have several people signed up to testify or not, just
to indicate their support or opposition. Stan Kelly is signed up against. Would you like
to provide testimony? If you will state your name and address.
Kelly: I do have pictures. Stan Kelly. 3492 West Fir Creek Court.
De Weerd: Okay. You can hand that to staff. If you will just wait a moment while she
loads that.
Kelly: While she's loading that -- because I can go through those really fast.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 36 of 49
Kelly: The concerns that I have is making exceptions for -- because they want to put
that much -- they have even increased the square footage from the P&Z meeting, but
they want to narrow the berm and I went out and measured all the rest of the berms that
are on that intersection and the one in front of St. Luke's Medical Center is 30 -- is 32
feet at the narrowest and 51 feet on Cherry Lane. The one -- yeah, just -- those first two
didn't turn out. There we go. That's the wall that they have agreed to continue, but --
and I think that's the canal right of way. Okay. We need to slow it just a bit. This is the
back of St. Luke's Medical Center. This is the side of St. Luke's Medical Center. You
can see trees. And this is 26 feet. This is 51 feet out in front. This is 32 feet at the
narrowest place. This is -- goes to 51, but the narrowest place where that bank is is 32
-- can we stop it?
Canning: Sir, if you could tell me how to stop it I would be happy to.
Kelly: Okay. All right. This is the berm they are planning on tearing out between
Albertson's and the Levan property. That's 26 feet. Those trees are all six inch. There
is 26 feet there, so that's how they get -- this is along the canal. They are planning on
cutting all the trees down. There is a big -- see a big old tree, a poplar tree, or
whatever. Most of our bedrooms are on the -- on the second -- see, our bedrooms will
be eye level -- even with a six foot stone fence, will be eye level with whatever is built
there. And so noise and lighting is a concern. And what I would suggest is those trees
-- those pine trees and deciduous trees make better neighbors over the years and so
you have required St. Luke's -- or St. AI's Medical Center that's on the other corner, you
have required the other commercial businesses to have landscape barriers between the
neighbors. So, basically, I'm not really asking for anything but the 26-foot wide one they
are tearing out to get their parking spaces, to put another one inside the canal right of
way. I think that it might not help us for 15 years until the trees grow up, but at least it
would be some hope and we just think it's way too -- okay. You can end it. There is the
Levan property. But it looks like you have asked Idaho Central Credit Union to have all
these requirements and, basically, on the same size property that Idaho Central on the
other corner has to have, they are trying to put three big -- a bank and two big
businesses all on this small lot, so -- and the other concern would be --
De Weerd: If you can summarize, please.
Kelly: Okay. I will summarize real quick. The other concern -- and this was a concern
that Commissioner Moe had -- was that entrance at the -- on the canal side on the
neighborhood side, would become a raceway, you know, especially if stacking goes
from Ten Mile and Cherry Lane, a raceway to where people would cut through there to
enter the parking lot, you know, to get to Albertson's, rather than if you had the entrance
where it currently is to the driveway for the Levan property, it would eliminate at least
the cutting through there and I think it would eliminate some of this -- well, if you had the
entrance over on this side, rather than on the neighborhood side, which if you put a
berm in there, there is really not room. And, then, I don't think -- any new business in
the past ten years, I don't know of any that's got 20 feet in the front. It seems like they
are all at least -- at least 25 to 32. So, I know there is some five foot things, but that's
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 37 of 49
on neighborhoods and, of course, if you look, everybody in their backyard, because of
the noise, has planted big trees all along, even on their property, so you don't have that
buffer -- buffer zone, you got a common area and, then, people plant trees in their
backyards. So, my concern is noise and lighting and plus the whole esthetic thing. I
think if you required the same thing they are tearing out there, you would really help the
neighbors if you grew up trees and stuff. That's alii had.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the --
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: For Mr. Kelly? Thank you. Okay. I believe there is a Mike Oddle. I don't
know. I couldn't read your writing. I'm sorry. If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Oddle: Mike Oddle. 3416 West Elm Creek.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Oddle: I live right behind the building -- retail building B. I appreciate Mr. Dixon's
revised plan with the drive-thru missing.
De Weerd: Boy, that three minutes went fast.
Donnell: You're done.
Odd Ie: I guess my only concern now is the lots and the buffer zones. The canal
easement is 60 feet. It's 60 feet behind Albertson's, from Albertson's back fence to the
neighboring fence in the subdivision. When it gets to this property, they never did take it
from the farmer, so because of the tree line there, they just never pursued the buffer
zone, because the trees were there. So, they use the right of way on the other side of
the canal. With his proposal he's, I guess, been granted from the irrigation district going
all the way to the edge of the canal, so now we don't have that buffer zone there, plus,
you know, he's getting smaller buffer zones in the front. That's -- like I said, changes
are nice, If they close up at a reasonable hour, I can live with that. I mean it's not too
bad.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much. And there is an M. Chris something.
Chrisman: Mary Ann Chrisman.
De Weerd: Okay. Mary Ann Chrisman has signed up against. And, please, state your
name and address.
Chrisman: My name is Mary Ann Chrisman and I live at 3440 West Elm Creek. I am
also directly behind retail B and I was very much involved with the Albertson's years ago
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 38 of 49
when they put their facility in. But what was more concerning was after Albertson's put
their building in and I don't know if the Council are aware of the problems that occurred
afterwards, it was so serious -- the lighting situation was so serious, our neighborhood,
as you know, has the elementary school and most of us have younger children all
around that area and when Albertson's went in, the lighting was such a serious problem
that all of us had to get blackout shades and it still wouldn't work, our kids couldn't sleep
at night. So, it got so serious that myself and several neighbors put a whole coalition
together and met with Albertson's and over a period of six months they ended up taking
all of their lighting out of there and reducing it. So, my concern here is shared with the
rest of us, as far as the berm, and Albertson's also -- they put in such small trees and so
far part, it's going to take such a long time for it really to have an effect, but my concern
is what's going to be in B. Are we going to have another lighting problem like we did
with Albertson's, because taking it -- if you remove part of the berm, it brings it that
much closer and, then, with the noise level and if there is any lighting concerns, we just
don't want to go through what we did years ago, because it was quite serious and so I
don't have a -- I don't have a concern about the project being there, only that we are
real sensitive to what goes into B and have some pretty strict limitations on lighting
specifically and the type of business that's allowed in B. And some real concern about
the landscape, so that our children in our neighborhood won't go through what all of us
went through back then and J don't know if you all remember that or if you were aware
of what was going on.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I don't think -- that came through while -- well, yes,
Councilman Rountree is old enough to remember.
Rountree: I can remember when it was a wheat field.
De Weerd: We appreciate your testimony.
Chrisman: Thank you.
De Weerd: I have Brandon Juarez signed -- Juarez. Sorry. Signed up for.
Juarez: Yeah. For.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Juarez: Brandon Juarez. 935 South Island Glen, Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Juarez: I am -- I have been friends with Mr. Dixon for about 15 years now and I'm the
designer on the project, so I thought I could probably clarify a few things and also I'm for
the project, because I designed it. We -- Brent is a great guy, offered -- before we went
to the zoning commission I -- Brent offered and did a neighborhood mailing for a
neighborhood meeting, which he was at and, unfortunately, we could have solved a lot
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 39 of 49
of these problems, but he's still willing to solve problems. No one showed up, I don't
think. But since the last meetings when the neighbors showed up, we have tried to
solve their problems for them. Brent was really kind in reducing all those kind of things
that the neighbors want, the drive-thru and the wall and at much expense and so I just
wanted to speak to any of the concerns that the neighbors had tonight, I'm sure Mr.
Dixon will be able to solve those problems and speak to those issues. The front
setback for a building in the City of Meridian is 15 feet, which conflicts with the
landscaping setback, which is 25 feet. We put our -- we have asked for a five foot
variance on the front setback to the driveway, not to the building, to allow -- the reason
we are asking for that is because of the irregular-shaped lot and that's why we were --
submitted that to Anna and she was able to approve that in her findings and so the front
landscape buffer is really only reduced by about five feet, but the building setback is,
actually, more like 20 -- let's see -- 32 feet setback from the front property line, rather
than the required 15 feet on the front. That speaks to the front. The trees in the back,
we have met with the irrigation district numerous times -- interesting bunch. We really
like them --
Rountree: Oh, now come on.
Juarez: But it's very difficult to work with them. They are nice people. They are
requiring us to cut all the trees down there. They don't want any of the trees in the 30
foot setback between the canal -- the setback runs from the center line of the canal,
which I'm not really showing on there, but if you can envision a line in that center of the
canal to where the wall is indicated, that's 30 feet and we are not reducing that setback
at all. I have heard previous testimony tonight that we are reducing that somehow.
That's all Levan property all the way to the centerline of the canal, but the canal has an
easement that goes 30 feet to the wall. So, we are not reducing that at all.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Juarez: That's -- thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Juarez: Any questions?
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Did the folks at the irrigation district give you a reason why those trees need to
come down?
Juarez: Yeah, they did.
Donnell: I mean I assume it's for them to drive along there and keep the canal clean.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 40 of 49
Juarez: Exactly. That's their reasoning. Their reasoning is they want to be able to
keep that canal clean. There is an apple tree there that they hate, because it's -- apples
fall into the canal, there is a bunch of trees there that they pointed out to us when we
met with them that they really didn't like and we would be -- I'm sure Brent could speak
to that issue -- be willing to plant any trees that we would be allowed by the canal
people to plant there to appease the neighbors.
Donnell: Madam Mayor, follow up?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Donnell: So, if the neighbors were -- which I heard them say that they hate the fact that
the trees are going to be taken out of there and I don't blame them a bit. If they were to
approach the irrigation district requesting that those trees stay -- I know that along an
irrigation kind of runoff ditch that I lived on trees were planted all along there. Now,in
the event that the irrigation people have to go along there, you know, then, trees go out
at the folks' expense, but until that occurs those trees are there and are beautiful, so --
Juarez: Right. Yeah. I don't -- I can't speak to that. I mean if the neighbors want to do
that, that's fine, but I don't know what the agreement is going to be and I can't really
speak for Brent and what he wants to do, but I'm sure -- he's a very nice gentleman, so
he would be willing to do anything.
Donnell: Nice work.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I thought I heard you say something about you would plant substitute trees,
as opposed to what the irrigation folks think are nuisance trees? And has anybody
given thought to -- some of those trees have been there a long time. Years, as a matter
of fact, and having dealt with the irrigation district before, they like to give orders, but
you don't necessarily have to abide by them.
Juarez: Right. Right. Like I said --
Donnell: That's on record, Councilman Rountree.
Juarez: Mr. Dixon is a very kind gentleman, so he is very -- always trying to appease all
the parties in the development, so he can probably speak to the -- what they wanted
and what -- you know, what the neighborhood -- the neighbors might, you know,. agree
to. There might be -- I mean I'm just -- as a suggestion, there might be a different tree
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page410f49
we can put there that would appease the irrigation people, wouldn't drop too many
leaves or whatever, but --
De Weerd: Apples.
Juarez: Yeah. But not apples. Yeah, They don't like those floating in the canal.
De Weerd: We try to avoid the bad apples.
Juarez: Anything else?
De Weerd: It's not even late. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
provide testimony on this application?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did want to point out there was
some testimony that there was additional square footage. If we assume that their retail
A-1 really isn't 22,207 square feet, that there is a typo somewhere on there -- it appears
to, actually, be less square feet than -- by about 220, 230 square feet than the one that
the Planning and Zoning Commission saw. I just wanted to clarify that this is not
increased square footage.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Sir, please state your name and address.
Virden: My name is Mike Virden. I live at 3487 West Fir Creek. Right behind the
project here.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Virden: And just from my dealings with, you know, from a capitalistic point, it's -- they
are getting a lot of square foot -- a lot of building in a very small area, so I'm assuming
that the parking easements are being burdened by Albertson's, because I would
assume that to have 8,000 square feet of building in this small parcel that it's going to
require more than the amount of parking spaces that they are going to be allowed to
sustain and I think that, with the traffic and the way our neighborhood sits in relation to
this in terms of the children traffic to Albertson's or even to school and to create another
very aggressive easement into that parcel is going to change the complexity of our
neighborhood a little bit. And if there is an easement with Albertson's, then, maybe that
entrance into this parcel should be considered as that is their easement and that would
solve a lot of the problems, which I think this entrance is going to create. If that -- I don't
know if that kind of makes sense, because -- I mean that's a whole lot of commercial
building to be put in a very small place. I'm not even sure that Albertson's has that
much commercial space next to them, with their extension that they have on their side
towards our neighborhoods. I just think we are just -- we are creating a huge amount of
action in such a small place and the proximity between the crosswalk for our kids to
school, you know, is pretty close and, you know, getting to Albertson's as well, is -- you
know, for the neighborhood type of a thing, you know, we do with our kids, but, you
Meridian City Councii
March 15,2005
Page 42 of 49
know, I'm all for something there. Obviously, it's zoned commercial for a reason, but I'm
not so sure this is what they had in mind in terms of the use, especially creating, you
know, a pretty aggressive entrance into this small parcel with this much commercial
development in it. I guess that would be my biggest concerns and, obviously, you
know, with the rest of the neighbors in terms of lighting and some type of a setback
away from our canal ditch would be, obviously, nice, too. But that's my -- my biggest
take on it, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for --
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Virden: Thanks.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? If you will, please, state your name and
address. You can pull that down.
N. Kelly: Okay. Nancy Kelly, 3492 West Fir Creek Court.
De Weerd: Thank you.
N. Kelly: And I just wanted to mention two things. One, about the neighborhood
meeting, it was on Valentine's weekend, it was the 13th and a Friday, really bad night
for any of us to go, so I just wanted to kind of clarify that. If it would have been maybe
on a Thursday or something like that, where we weren't going to plan something -- a
Valentine's outing, we would have attended that. The other thing I was thinking about
was resale value of our home. I was looking at the property, we are -- we are right west
of everything, so -- we are a two story house and so I was thinking when we decide to
move, which we may do eventually, and one of the reasons we like that neighborhood
was because of the resale value and being able to sell our home -- it's already hard to
sell your home when you're right on Cherry Lane, but, then, if we have lots of lighting
and other things like that, that would shine into our home, it just seems like that -- that
may make our price come down, so that's just kind of a very personal reason why I'm
thinking that I don't know if I want lots of lights right there, so that's about all I have to
say,
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? If there is no further
testimony, would the applicant like to come up for -- they call it the rebuttal, but I hate
that word. For your final comment.
Dixon: Yeah. I will be brief. One of the neighbors mentioned how they like to walk from
their neighborhood over to the Albertson's and this might be a little bit problematic if
they are trying to get into Albertson's. We can add a -- we can add a gate somewhere
right here, if we'd like to, that way the neighbors could walk along this easement right
Meridian City Council
March 15. 2005
Page 43 of 49
here and, then, access a gate. The other question was in reference to the trees. The
neighbors are absolutely right. Some of these trees along the canal easement are
beautiful trees. I would love to keep those trees and would be open to partnering with
the neighbors and approaching the canal -- the irrigation company. I have talked to Bill
and John several times and I feel I have got a little bit of a rapport and would be willing
to see if we can make some exceptions for some of these trees, because it's clear that
they have been there for years and years and years and there is right now -- the
irrigation company does most of their access along this side of the canal right here
where there is a wide road and so, hopefully -- hopefully they will let us keep some of
these trees. There was also some questions about -- about the easement right here.
This is a 30-foot easement and it extends all the way up, then -- and, then, we have a
bit of an encroachment on the easement that we have already approached the irrigation
company about for this rock wall that the Planning Commission had asked us to put up.
I don't know how it -- I don't know how this rock wall would go in relationship to the
trees, if we -- if we try to keep the trees and, then, you require a rock wall, I might ask
for some flexibility -- to grant flexibility to staff that if we are able to keep some trees
there, then, maybe we can make some adjustments with the wall. The narrow -- the
narrow berm has -- up here 20 feet, that has to do with the depth of the lot, particularly
on this west side. The lighting that was referred to, I would like to know what -- the
outcome of some of the neighborhood meetings that you had several months ago with
Albertson's and I would, you know, be willing to submit myself to some of those
outcomes. It sounds like it was favorable in terms of lighting. Right now I'm a little bit
familiar with your ordinance on lighting and believe that there is things that you can do
from an engineering perspective with reflectors and directional lights, the lighting and
different candle light wattages to minimize some of that light pollution that the neighbors
are concerned about and I'm wi/ling to do those things. Parking was another issue. The
-- right now, given the number of parking stalls in the Albertson's lot, it's 302 parking
stalls. They have 57,000 square feet, roughly, with the shop space adjacent. They are
overparked by 18 stalls. With the addition of the 9,000 square feet, the parking that we
have here, these nine, nine, eleven, three, as well as this area right here, the overall
ratio in aggregate for the entire development is identical, it's overparked by about 18
stalls. Let's see. What else. Noise. Some of the things that we can do for noise,
basically, is the type of tenants you attract to the area. I'm told by Anita Levan that often
that the Albertson's big refrigeration trucks park along this property line right here and,
then, they leave their trucks running for hours on end and that creates a lot of noise and
that goes away with this site plan, because there is really no way for them to park
anymore, so I think that helps a little bit in that regard. And I think I have addressed
everything. Any other questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 44 of 49
Wardle: Two questions. One was I heard you say that you would like to keep the trees
and certainly I agree. If that's not a possibility, would you be willing to work with the
irrigation district to possibly replace some of those if they need to be --
Dixon: Yeah. We can do two things. Well, first of all, if you look on the -- from the
Planning Commission meeting, item number five, the applicant shall work with city staff
on the placement of additional trees on the property, which adds up to a caliper
measurement of eleven. So, I think there was already a recognition by staff that, gosh,
we want to do something in terms of adding additional trees to this development. So, to
answer your question we will abide by that -- by the staff recommendation. And, then,
the second question was can we put trees up that might not be apple trees that the
irrigation canal would be more apt to want to live with and the answer is yes. And we
can work with city staff on -- on really defining what that amount would be.
Wardle: And my second comment goes to lighting and certainly the height of the
parking lot lighting, as well as the ability to directional-ize them down is something that
you can certainly work with staff on, but I think one of the concerns is how you treat this
building here and the lighting for the rear of being close to the neighborhood there.
Dixon: Yeah. This light -- this rear light here -- because there is no really entrance on it
-- I guess it depends on if -- if we have -- if a retailer at 10:00 o'clock at night takes their
garbage out back this way through a back entrance, would there be some sort of
building lights along the perimeter or along the edge of this building right here and my
sense is that there probably would be, but we would position them, you know, low
enough that they shouldn't be a problem. Not to exceed ten feet. Brandon? Okay. We
could do that.
Wardle: Okay.
Dixon: One item and that is on the rock wall -- or the masonry wall that the Planning
Commission had asked us to construct. In the -- as a condition they said along the
entire property line. I'm a little bit worried the way that's been worded, because the
entire length of the property line would take it up to here, which creates a safety concern
for cars as the exit and so we would be willing to take it up so far as the setback would
deem it safe for cars for ingress and egress.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions? Thank you very much.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, regarding the last item, the concrete
masonry wall, we would not allow him to put it within the sight vision triangle, so I think
that there are sufficient protections for that. Staff does have a little bit of concern about
the tree issue. Just that I don't -- if they are not going to let him keep existing trees that
aren't the trash trees, the likelihood of them letting him plant trees is probably pretty
small. We haven't seen a lot of success in that area, but as Charlie -- or, I'm sorry,
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 45 of 49
Councilman Rountree probably worded it best, but -- so, I think they are probably more
likely to keep some trees than get new trees, probably.
De Weerd: Well, since the easement's on the other side of the ditch, that's not a reason
to clear those trees. I know their concerns are the roots and the ditch bank. That's
generally what their concern is, but it's been there for --
Rountree: It hasn't been an issue for over 20 years.
De Weerd: Exactly. Okay. Council?
Bird: I have no more.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing nobody wanting to talk, I move that we close the Public Hearing CUP 04-
054.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion or any information you need further from staff? Will I have a
motion, then? Are you alive?
Bird: We are awake.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 18, CUP 04-054, Conditional Use Permit for The
Shops at Cherry Lane, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments, with regard
to specifically the entrance and the width of the northwestern most entrance, as well as
the ability to work with staff approval on both parking lot and building lighting and
additional landscape measures and not to approve the findings at this time, but to come
back for those.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 46 of 49
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 18 with the changes as stated. Is
there further discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just a question. Having heard the motion, probably for Mr. Nary, is there a
variance request -- is there a variance required for the -- to meet the setback in
landscaping, so narrowing of the landscape is not a variance?
Canning: Councilmember Rountree, can you -- we can't hear you.
Rountree: Thank you, Keith. The narrowing of the landscape berm in front, though they
meet the setback requirements, that's not a variance?
Canning: No, sir. It's alternative compliance and they have subrnitted separate
approval. I generally make those decisions if it's not coming to you, but if it's coming to
you, then, I look for your action.
Rountree: Just wanted to make sure we don't miss --
Canning: Yeah. No. And it was not a discussion item by the neighbors at the Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing.
De Weerd: So, did your motion address the trees?
Wardle: I believe it did with the additional landscape -- working with staff, neighbors,
and the other public entities.
De Weerd: Okay. Does staff have enough information from this motion to prepare new
findings?
Canning: I'm a little unclear on what you want as far as additional trees or if you want to
keep the trees or -- did you want them in the easement?
Wardle: The motion stated, really -- you have already addressed the additional caliper
inches to mitigate on the site with the site-specific condition. I'd like flexibility to allow
the current trees to stay or additional trees, if allowed by the irrigation district to be
planted. And so to have that as an additional flexibility for compliance.
Canning: Council -- Mayor and Councilmember Wardle, did you mean the 11 caliper
inches could be planted somewhere in the easement if allowable or did you want
additional calipers --
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 47 of 49
Wardle: I don't want to require additional calipers, but would like to somehow allow that
to happen if it were to - does that make sense?
Canning: Okay. Yeah.
Wardle: Okay.
De Weerd: So, you're asking for permission? I thought the discussion was just to leave
them on the site.
Bird: If possible.
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. I will be interested to read this finding.
Wardle: I'm really looking for an allow-ability for staff to allow flexibility to work with both
the neighbors, the irrigation district, and the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Is there any further discussion or clarification needed? Anna,
do you need anything further?
Canning: Just so I make sure I understand. I understand the trees issue and the other
one was lighting requirements for parking and structures and the width of the entry aisle
for the -- basically the drive-thru?
Wardle: Yeah, To address Councilman Bird's discussion with the entry aisle.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Thank you, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anything further? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Thank you. And thank you all for staying with us tonight. The next item is
our delinquency list. Pursuant to Meridian City Code 9-1-21, delinquent water users
shall have the right to request a pre-termination hearing prior to water service being
disconnected. No water users having requested such a pre-termination hearing for
March 15th, 2005, water service for the attached turn-off list will be terminated on March
16th, 2005. The total amount of the turn-off is $36,536.63.
Meridian City Council
March 15, 2005
Page 48 of 49
Donnell: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve the turn-off list as presented in front of you. If
there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) and (f):
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 20 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-
2345(1 )(c) and (f). Do I have a motion?
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho Code 67-2345(1 )(c) and (f).
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to go into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Donnell: So moved.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay all those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: I would also like to hear a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Donnell: Second.
Meridian City Cpuncil
March 15,2005
Page 49 of 49
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye!
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:34 P.M.
M
~~/ tJÇ'
DATE APPROVED
~þ~~
WILLIAM G. BERG J ., ~I Y CLERK