HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 03-29
Meridian Citv Council Meetina
March 29. 2005.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00
P.M.,Tuesday, March 29, 2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, and Christine
Donnell.
Members Absent: Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Brad Watson, Anna Canning, John Overton,
Kenny Bowers, Doug Strong Tara Green, Ted Baird, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
~ Shaun Wardle ---LChristine Donnell
- Charlie Rountree ~Keith Bird
----1L- Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open our regular City Council meeting and
welcome you all here tonight. It is March 29th, for the record. 7:00 o'clock. Mr. Berg,
will you, please, start with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.2 is our pledge of allegiance and we will be led today -
- well, I will introduce Steve Sedlacek, he's the Sanitary Services Corporation, and he
will introduce who is leading us in the pledge. If you will, please, rise.
Sedlacek: Do you want introductions here?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Sedlacek: We have got our group called the FROGs here, that's the Future Recyclers
Of Garbage. The group was started at the Crossroads Middle School with the science
and ecology class there. They couldn't make it today, so we have got their honorary
members. They are not quite middle school yet. We'd like to lead the pledge of
allegiance.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts, with Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle:
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 2 of 72
De Weerd: A timely reminder to recycle. And how could you not after seeing those
future recyclers. Okay. Item No.3 is our community invocation. We will be lead tonight
by Pastor Burton Roberts, who is with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. If you will, please,
take this moment as joining us in the community invocation or as a moment of silence.
Pastor.
Roberts: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Shall we pray? Almighty God, we pause to thank
you tonight for the privileges that we have living in a country that is under God and we
thank you that we can be thankful in our hearts for your many blessings to us, including
the privilege of living in this beautiful City of Meridian, Idaho. Tonight, Father, we ask
for your wisdom, your guidance, your strength, in each decision that is being made
tonight, may it truly be a wisdom that comes from the heaven above to strengthen our
thoughts and our processes that we might truly find in you the strength to be all that we
need to be to make this a continuing improving community, that we might all truly
continue in that strength. We ask all these things in Jesus' mighty name, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve this revised revised agenda. In the Consent
Agenda the resolution number is 05-466 and in the regular agenda Item 21 is 05-1135
and 05-1136 is No. 22 and 05-1137 is Item No. 23. With that, I move that we approve
the revised agenda.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED. THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of March 1, 2005 City Pre-Council Meeting:
B.
Approve Minutes of March 1,2005 City Council Regular Meeting:
C.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
04-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for retail uses in a C-N zone for The Shops at
Meridian City Coundl
March 29. 2005
Page 3 of 72
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
Cherry Lane by High Point Equities, LLC - SWC of West Cherry
Lane and North Ten Mile Road:
D.
Water Main Easement for Red Robin by Eagle-Fairview
Investments, Co. LLC:
E.
F.
Water Main Easement for Jade Plaza:
Emeraencv Manaaement Joint Powers Aareement:
G.
Development Agreement: RZ 04-018 Request a Rezone of .74
acres from L-O to C-C zone for Kinetico Qualitv Svstems of
Treasure Vallev by Irma Jean Phillips - 544 West Cherry Lane:
H.
Chanae Order No.5 to extend the curb and autter for Storev
Park Phase II Construction:
,.
Chanae Order No.6 to widen and pave for Storev Park Phase II
Construction:
J.
Assessment Aareement for Boondocks Fun Center at 1385
South Blue Marlin:
K.
Easements for Construction of the Victory I Meridian Road
Waterline with Evans:
Overland Road Water and Sewer Desian with Civil Survev in
Coniunction with ACHD:
Award bid for Flushina Stations Construction to Star
Construction:
Water Main Easement for GravstoneBuildina (L 1 I B4
Silverstone Business Campus) by Sundance L TP:
Sewer Service Contract for the North Siouah Sewer Project:
License Aareement for the North Slouah Sanitary Sewer
Proiect:
Chanae Order No.1 for the North Siouah Sanitary Sewer
Project:
Award Bid and Contract for Meridian Senior Citizen Center
Uparades by KMO, Inc.:
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 4 of 72
S.
Resolution No. 05-466 Resolution Vacating a
Portion of the Golf Course Easement Located on Lots 44, 45,
46 and 47 Block of Spurwing Subdivision located on the North
Side of Chinden Boulevard, Approximately % Mile West of
North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No.5, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda, including Item No. S, which is
Resolution No. 05-466.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: The Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all --
Bird: The clerk to attest. I'm sorry. I haven't done it enough.
De Weerd: I know. You could practice.
Bird: I need practice.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
Mayor's Office
1.
Appointment of Traffic Safety Commission - Jim Fisher:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.6 under Department Reports we have had a quorum
issue on our Traffic Safety Commission. Jim Fisher is here with us tonight and I would
like to appoint him. Jim has stepped in, actually, for a couple of the board members.
One for the school district for -- to step in for Wendel Bigham and Elaine Estacio, he
also helped her out. So, he will not be a new face to the commission, but would be a
great addition and, then, we can count on him every time. So, Council, I would
appreciate Jim Fisher, an appointment to that Commission.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 5 of 72
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the appointment of Jim Fisher to the Traffic Safety
Commission,
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, The motion is to approve Jim Fisher on the Traffic Safety
Commission. Do you agree, Jim? Thank you. All those in favor -- oh, well, we'll vote
by --
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
2.
Appointment of Fire Chief: Ron Anderson
De Weerd: It's also my pleasure tonight -- I wasn't going to make this appointment of
our fire chief until Friday, until I heard that the Mayor of Nampa needed to announce
that he had an opening and so rather than Nampa announce our fire chief here in
Meridian, I thought it would be good to put that on the agenda and make that
announcement earlier than we had anticipated. We went through a national search for
a fire chief. We had 17 applicants as far east as Marco Island and they were all very
qualified. We are very fortunate to have that selection. And it is my honor to
recommend to the City Council and ask for your approval of my appointment of Ron
Anderson. Ron brings seven years of fire chief over in Nampa and a lot of additional
years. I didn't bring his resume with me. So, Ron has been very active with the fire
chiefs association at the state level. He also has good legislative experience and both
Council Member -- or Councilmen Bird and I served with Ron, as he was a City Council
member -- and I won't say it, Ron. He also beat me, you know, but I don't hold grudges.
We are very honored to have him and, Ron, do you have any statements you would like
to make before I ask for approval? Okay, I will ask you afterwards.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With great privilege -- I have had the privilege of nominating your nominations for
two people and this is by far one of the best and I would like to appoint Ron Anderson
as our fire chief.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 6 of 72
Wardle: I would like to second that motion and welcome Ron to the position and the
changes and all of the challenges that our department is going to face this year and in
the coming years and gladly second that motion.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you, Council. Chief, do you want to make any comment?
Anderson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would just like to say that I appreciate the
confidence that the few folks have in me and I appreciate the support that I believe
exists on behalf of the Mayor and Council and the department heads and I hope I won't
let you down and I will do my very best to lead the department into the future and
through some trying times, but I think it's going to be fun and exciting and I'm looking
forward to it and can't wait until next Monday to get started, so thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. I would like to take a moment to also recognize Chief Kenny
Bowers. Before this meeting we had a transition team, Last year as I was coming into
office I asked over 30 citizens, businessmen, and leaders of this community to help with
the transition and look at 13 different areas that we wanted to focus on. We gave an
annual update to that team. I think it was the way we should best recognizes the work
they did and responded to each one of their recommendations and Chief Bowers
presented the fire departments and there were seven recommendations, all seven of
them have been met and continue to be focuses in that area. I would like to recognize
Kenny, He has been the foundation our fire department was built on. He has seen it
and led it through tremendous growth. In 1999 we had one old fire station. Now, we
have three new ones, a main station, and a fourth station that will be coming on line at
the end of the year. We have -- I believe when Kenny was chief I think there were two
full-time firefighters and today we have 30. By the end of the year we will have 42. So,
as you can see, there has been a lot of change over that period of time and I appreciate
Kenny's leadership and we are looking forward to a long-term relationship, because he
will stay on with the department and use his expertise and his historical background of
the department to the best utilization of his skills and, Kenny, I would like to take this
moment to thank you and we look forward to seeing the additional work you and your
department do in the future. Well, I appreciate you at least giving me the opportunity to
say a few words. I have one other thing. I love a full house and I assume that most of
you are here because you love Meridian and we do, too. Tomorrow at the state
legislature, in front of the transportation department, there is a bill up for discussion. We
hope it gets out of committee and that's the Garvee bonds and that's Senate Bill 1183, I
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 7 of 72
believe. We need you to call your legislators. Two of our representatives sit on that
committee. Representative Mike Moyle and Representative Shirley McKague. They
are both members of this transportation committee. If it doesn't get out of the committee
it dies. This transportation bill means a great deal to Meridian, because it will fund
needed infrastructure improvements to 1-84 from Meridian Road to Caldwell. It will add
needed interchanges. One of those slated for Meridian -- or at Ten Mile. It also will
fund improvements to Meridian interchange. These are desperately needed and they
are not in a funded year right now. So, without this type of out-of-the-box, nontraditional
funding that our state is looking at, we will not move forward like we need to as a state,
not just in this region, but also as a state. So, if you will, please, call your
representatives. The number is -- is that -- Anna, did you write that down? Is that 333-
1100?
Bird: No. 332-1000.
B,
Parks Department - Doug Strong
1,
Update on Chateau Park Irriaation:
De Weerd: 332-1000. So, again, thank you for -- hopefully your phone calls and, if not,
patience for allowing me to make announcements that I can do as chair, It's pretty fun.
Okay, We'll get onto business. Okay. Item B is the parks department. Doug Strong,
Or Elroy.
Huff: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I appreciate being able to meet with
you tonight. It's regarding the -- an update on the Chateau Park irrigation. I have some
handouts and I will give you one of those. It's one page. And, then, I will discuss that.
Donnell: Just a minute, Elroy. So, Ron, you're going to leave early tonight, because
you know from now on you're going to have to sit over there? Is that right? Excuse me,
Madam Mayor. I had to give him a bad time.
De Weerd: It starts early. Thank you, Elroy.
Huff: You bet. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to give you an update on
the Chateau Park situation, we have had an irrigation problem there since construction
on that park. To make a long story short, we had a little strained relation with the
irrigation district back then and we think we have got that worked out. However, in the
case of working that out, we have some costs to upgrade that system, which is part of
the agreement that we had with them that we would do when we did come into that
system. We did, upon closing the deed to that land, we did pay to Dan Wood,
Incorporated, for the upgrade of the pump station, so that we would have the ability to
go in that pump station, The system that we have been using at this point has been
very limited, so we need to make some changes on that, so we don't have a problem
irrigating that site that I had a problem with last summer. We will have to watch that
really close. So, I need to get away from being able -- from watering about 24 hours a
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 8 of 72
day to -- or 23 down to an eight, nine hour water window on that. So, anyway, in
conjunction with that, you can see the cost that I have labeled here and I left something
out by accident, but on item number three it talks about the pump house and the intake
pipe. There is some other things that are involved with that. When that line comes 900
feet down to the park, in with that we also get an upgrade for shoulder season watering,
which is what we do in the spring and the fall before irrigation comes. That will be
upgraded to make sure that that is adequate. So, there is a whole bunch of things
rolled into that figure there of 19,000. So, that's where I am with that in order to get that
park right. Sorry, Christine, I did not have an opportunity to meet with you about this
beforehand and that was my fault. But does Council have any questions on that?
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? We did give you notice I think a
couple months ago that this would be coming up. Unfortunately, working with Public
Works, Elroy also found that last year we did not have all the water that we were
allowed. So, that has been resolved as well. So, any questions? Okay.
Huff: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, excuse me. Also, working with the
irrigation district on that, I got some really good help from Bruce Freckleton out of Public
Works and we worked on the water rights for that and we did, really, end up with a good
water right. And sometimes that language for individual parcels is written just a little bit
different and we kind of come out on the top of that. So, we ended up with more water
than I thought we were going to get on that site from the Irrigation district. So, that
part's worked out well.
De Weerd: Good.
Huff: So, I'm just here tonight to now request funds from impact fees to get this project
started and get it done. I have a couple things I need to get done before irrigation
season in the next week or so, so I need some action on that if I can get it tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. I need a motion.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I would move that we approve this expenditure, so that we can do this
irrigation upgrade.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the numbers that are in front of us here on
the memo dated March 27th, 2005. Is that correct?
Bird: Madam Mayor? Could we -- with Mrs. Donnell's permission, could we just round
that off to not to exceed 40,OOO? That way if Elroy -.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 9 of 72
Huff: That would be fine.
Bird: -- gets -- if Elroy got something that at least it would be covered, a little extra,
without having to come back with a bunch of change orders.
Donnell: The maker of the motion agrees.
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion is up to 40,000 dollars, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
c,
City Attorney - Bill Nary
1.
Proposed Solid Waste Collection Ordinance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item C, our city attorney.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is two items on our report tonight.
The first is the solid waste collection ordinance. We had submitted that -- I don't find it
on the web page. I don't know if it made it on your disk, if you have a disk, instead of
the website. We did transmit that last week. It's not a significant number of changes,
but, really, more of a shell for the SSC group tonight. Mr, Sedlacek is here and can
probably fill in a little bit more on some of the changes that have been. This has gone
through the solid waste advisory committee as well and that's why it's before you to
review, but I, again, apologize, I thought it was already transmitted to you, but if it hasn't
I will make sure you get it before it comes in front of you for review for passage. But Mr.
Sedlacek probably has some additional information he could provide you. This is more
of an update to our current code and cleaning up some language and also adding some
policy statement sections to the beginning of the code as the basis of the authority for
why we -- why we have franchise fees and why we have this program in the city. But
Mr. Sedlacek may have a little bit more to add to that.
De Weerd: Steve. If you will state your name for the record.
Sedlacek: My name is Steve Sedlacek with Sanitary Services.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sedlacek: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that's exactly right. This
ordinance modification is simply to clean up and make sure it represents the scope of
work that we .provide the citizens. For example, last year we added a mini roll off
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 10 of 72
system that customers can use, so we needed to address that in the ordinance and put
-- you know, put weight limits and clean up some language, so this is something we'd
like to do every three or four years, just review the ordinances and make sure they are
up to date and keep things current.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay,
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Did you have a copy of that ordinance, Steve, there?
Sedlacek: I do. I have red lined --
Donnell: Since we didn't have that --
Bird: We have seen it.
Donnell: Did we see that? It wasn't online and that's where I go.
Bird: It was in your box.
Donnell: It's in this pile? Then, I will look at it.
Nary: Madam Mayor, I'll make sure to have it transmitted electronically as well to all of
you this week and we can put it on the agenda next week if you're still not ready yet.
We certainly can delay it a week. But I will make sure it's on the agenda.
Sedlacek: There is no great rush to approve this, if you want to have time to review it
and ask questions, that's fine,
Donnell: I just haven't had a chance to even look at it and I don't see it here.
Nary: My apologies, Madam Mayor. I will make sure that gets electronically sent to all
ofyou,so--
Donnell: Okay. Truly it's not in this pile.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 11 of72
Sedlacek: There was a second issue.
De Weerd: Okay.
Sedlacek: Were you going to discuss the household hazardous waste expansion?
Nary: Why don't you.
Sedlacek: All right. The City of Meridian collects - or we, on behalf of the City of
Meridian, collect household hazardous waste on the 4th Tuesday of every month. We
are the single largest collection event in the county and it's getting so big we are starting
to have to add -. our subcontractor is adding more and more staff to keep up with the
volume of waste coming in. To alleviate that we have the opportunity to add a second
collection day. We can now have the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of every month and that's
because Garden City that was collecting on the second Tuesday is getting out of the
program for whatever reason. So, we can pick that day up. We presented that to the
solid waste advisory committee and they think that's a good idea. We believe it's a
good idea. It will, in the short term, eat into your recycling revenue a bit, about 750
dollars a month more. It's not a big amount, but it provides a greater service to the
citizens and you're going to end up paying higher costs anyway, you may as well
increase the availability of the program to the citizens.
Nary: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the solid waste advisory
committee at the last meeting discussed it and I think, as Mr. Sedlacek said, the
discussion, basically, was between having increased staff and service on the one day a
month, which would probably cost us more money, or to have the second day, which
would provide greater -- probably greater service to the community and so the
committee's recommendation was to go forward with the second day.
Sedlacek: Right. Unless there is an objection by the Council, we'd like to move forward
with that. And we would start that in May.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Do we need a motion?
Nary: I don't believe you need a motion. I think it's part of the charge of the committee
to go forward with that, so, no.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Steve.
Sedlacek: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: So, Council, do you feel comfortable that this ordinance change come up
and be presented at Public Hearing?
Donnell: Yes.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 12 of 72
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: I do.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, we will go ahead put this up for Public Hearing.
Nary: Next week.
De Weerd: Next week.
Nary: Put it on the agenda next week. We don't have to hold a hearing. It doesn't need
a Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: It's not amendments for fees.
De Weerd: Put it on the agenda.
Berg: Thank you.
2,
Draft Ordinance for License Alcohol Establishments and
Prohibitina Two License Establishments within the
Same Premise:
De Weerd: How is that? Okay. Item 2.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the other item on the agenda is an
ordinance request that this Council asked me to prepare a couple of weeks ago in
regards to some licensing issues that we have -- that we are having locally and
regarding two licensed alcohol establishments within the same premise. What I would
ask you to do is -- as you can see, Items 8, 9, and 10 deal with similar issues, not the
exact same issues, but it might be better to either set this matter over until after you
have had that discussion or you can certainly set it over to next week if you want to, but
rather than take this matter up before these other ones -- this ordinance won't affect
these applications that are before you tonight. So, this ordinance may be best served,
like I said, at the end of our agenda or at next week's discussion, if you'd prefer.
De Weerd: Thank you. Since I was playing with my computer -- I do know -- Anna, do
you have any comments to add to this at this point?
Canning: I think that the next discussions with regard to the specifics will help the
Council decide what they want to do as far as amending the ordinance, so -- or the
liquor license ordinance.
Meridian City Councii
March 29, 2005
Page 13 0172
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe we need to take Mr, Nary's advice and let's just bring this back as a
department report next week and let's go through these here and see what we decide or
if we decide anything on these, do that, and, then, we can certainly look at the
ordinance next week and bring it back.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: That would be my preference.
Item 7:
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
De Weerd: Okay. Well, there were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Tabled from March 29, 2005: Approve Liauor License for Backwater
Saloon:
Item 9:
Approve Liauor License for Top Shelf located at 127 East Idaho
Avenue:
Item 10:
Approve Liauor License for Eddv's located at 501 South Main Street:
De Weerd: So, I will go ahead and move onto Item 8. It's tabled from March 29th. It's
a liquor license for Backwater Saloon. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think for the sake of time and ease, it
may be best to open all three items -- or begin with all three Items 8, 9 and 10--
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: -- for the purposes of discussion. These, again, aren't necessarily public
hearings, but you do -- I would recommend that you hear from the applicants. Just to
lead off this discussion, the staff, myself, Captain Overton, and Planning Director Mrs.
Canning, met with the applicants -- well, a couple of the applicants yesterday and their
legal counsel in regards to these. What I would be recommending as the attorney on
this is that you -- we can give you a staff update on the staff's position on these
particular applications, They are somewhat distinct applications and the legal issues
are somewhat distinct between these. Hear from the police and hear from the planning
department as to the concerns that they have and my recommendation would be to
allow the applicants a few minutes, ten minutes, whatever Madam Mayor thinks is
appropriate, to explain their circumstances and why their applications are before you
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 14of72
and what their reasons and what their needs are and, then, you can balance those in
making a decision. Mr. Brian Donesley represents two of the applicants that are here
tonight. I don't know if he's going to speak on their behalf for both of them or if they are
going to speak individually. Mr, Beeler is the applicant for the Top Shelf license and,
again, I don't know if he's speaking for himself or he has a representative. There are
two distinct issues before you on these applications. One is what this ordinance that
was before you momentarily was trying to address and this is an application -- this is the
application that is before you for the Backwater Saloon and for Top Shelf. These are
both applications to have a licensed liquor establishment encompassed within another
already licensed liquor establishment. We haven't faced those types of questions
before and the reason that they hadn't come up before is because there has been some
change in enforcement on the state level. I did put in a call today to Lieutenant
Clements of the Idaho State Police, he is the administrator for the alcohol beverage
control division currently and they have changed their policy and their practice and
enforcement in the last -- I guess six months to a year that he's been the director of that
and that's why these applications are in front of you. The only legal issue in front of you
tonight is currently under our city ordinance it can be interpreted in one of two ways.
Bars and other alcoholic establishments on all the zones that they are allowed to be in,
indicate that they require a conditional use. It can be interpreted that having a
conditional use application process can basically flush out whatever public issues may
be present. There may be issues of the number of persons that will be on the premises,
the parking requirements, whether there are any other planning and zoning types of
issues, whether they are compatible with the neighborhood. That's the general purpose
of why you have conditional uses, Historically in Meridian we haven't faced this type of
issue before, because no one we are aware of has actually asked to do it in this
particular fashion, but the only other type of licensed establishments that we normally
require that the applicant actually reapply with each -- with each application is with day
cares. That's the only other license type that we deal with, Generally, conditional uses
run with the land. So, under a traditional analysis, if the facility -- for example, the
Backwater Saloon's application is to be contained within the current Whitewater Saloon
facility, they already have a conditional use to operate. So, under traditional analysis
they wouldn't require a second one, because it would run with the land, Again, this is a
licensed establishment, so it's a little different. Certainly, you have the freedom as the
Council to interpret your own ordinance differently in regards to these types of facilities.
That's the legal issue before you, On the other application for Eddy's, it's a little bit
different. It is in an area -- it's a restaurant that is applying under the state law that
allows for licensed liquor establishments to have a restaurant certification and the state
has particular requirements to meet that -- to meet that certification. That's what Eddy's
Restaurant is applying for. It's applying to be located within the Mugsy's restaurant
that's up on Main Street over near the water tower. That area doesn't have a
conditional use, because under our current ordinance it doesn't require a conditional
use for a restaurant. So, therefore, the conditional use doesn't apply, the issue is -- the
issue before you is whether this application for Eddy's is a restaurant. Under our
current ordinance -- and I'll let Mrs. Canning be more specific, but under our current
ordinance generally restaurants are only defined as a business that primarily serves
food. We don't have any particular requirement that the state does as to what makes a
Meridian City Coundi
March 29, 2005
Page 15 of 72
restaurant versus what makes a bar. Again, as the Council you are free to interpret
your ordinance and establish what those standards of what does that mean when it
says primarily serves food and I think what the planning staff is looking for is what that
direction is. Is it -- is it the most appropriate measure is to use the state standards and
requirements that exist under the state law and do a restaurant certification and,
therefore, allow this facility to operate in that -- in that same location. I think the
information you should have before you from Eddy's -- this is a second licensed
application for Eddy's -- has a menu attached to it, has a floor plan attached to it, and
there is some other licensed information that's provided that was provided to the state
for that certification. Those are the two legal issues that you have in front of you to
decide and I'm certainly free for any questions that you might have, but I certainly want
to give Captain Overton and Mrs. Canning the opportunity to give you information on
their concerns from their department.
De Weerd: Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Before we begin staff and public discussion, I need to disclose that the
applicant on Item No.8, Mr. Gary Bates, stopped by my office about a week and a half
ago, discussed some of these issues, and I informed him that this was the public forum
to discuss those decisions and so wanted to put that on public record.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird,
Bird: Yes. I would like to also -- Item No.9, Top Shelf, Mr. Beeler called me today. I
talked to him on the phone regarding this.
Donnell: And Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Nobody called me.
De Weerd: No one called me either. Anna, did you have anything to add here?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only thing I will add is that I think
Bill -- Mr. Nary went through most of the concerns that the planning staff has. The two
definitions that we are working with -- and that's really what it boils down to is these two
definitions. One is for a restaurant, which talks about preparation of food and that's their
primary business and the other one is for a bar that explicitly excludes a restaurant
where the principal business is serving food. Now, when Mugsy's went into the location
it was formally a restaurant and we had lengthy conversations about would you be
changing the floor plan, would you be, you know, changing the arrangement of the -- or
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 16of72
increasing the number of places at the bar or increasing the size of the bar and, no, he
was using the existing bar, he was using the existing floor plan, he was using the
existing kitchen. So, I approved Mugsy's locating in that facility as a restaurant and,
then, the bar was kind of an accessory use to the restaurant. . So, when the first Eddy's
application came in where it just described a small portion of the building where the only
business was a bar, my comment was that it needed conditional use approval, because
a conditional use was required in that zone, because it wasn't talking about a restaurant.
Now, their second application amended it to include the kitchen facilities that are in
Mugsy's at this point and they have also included a menu. The principal business here
is neither selling liquor, nor selling food, so it leaves me in a quandary as to where to
go. If we want to move toward a new definition of bar, I think that would be helpful.
One of the things I have learned this week is that there is a specific distinction on the
physical liquor license where there is a little check box for a restaurant certificate and if
they request that restaurant certificate as part of their liquor license, they are required to
meet some additional standards. One is that 40 percent of everything they --
consumable purchases that they make. So, that would be the food that's used to
prepare the items that they are selling and the liquor that they are purchasing to sell by
the drink, 40 percent of all those sales need to be tied to the food end of it to qualify as
a restaurant. And, then, there are some other -- that is my understanding -- and I just
learned this yesterday, so my understanding is that enables them to have children in the
facility during different times, so that they can have a wider clientele. So, that's the
benefit they get from having that restaurant certificate, it opens up their facility to more
folks. But it also has that -- some strings attached to it as well. If we want to move
toward that definition, that's fine. I think we are always going to struggle with the folks
that want to be allowed as a restaurant, but that push the boundaries of a bar, There
are always going to be some folks that are just a restaurant that happen to have a bar
and there will be people that are pushing the boundaries, that's just the way it goes, So,
if we come up with a definition that seems to be better than the one we have, I'm happy
to implement that. I just -- this would be a new way to go if we want to go with this
restaurant certificate that's on the liquor license, I think that's all I wanted to add on that
discussion.
De Weerd: Anna, is it typical that you would have two eating establishments that share
the same kitchen and share the same space?
Canning: Actually, it's not terribly uncommon, but I have heard of it. Sometimes -- well,
Sun Valley isn't a very good example, but there is an example, there is three or four --
their kitchen serves three or four different restaurants. They have, actually, two
kitchens that serve three or four different restaurants, but that part doesn't bother me,
because when we look at zoning approval, we look at the land and if the land hasn't
changed in the use, then, I wouldn't be that concerned whether it was two people using
one kitchen or one person using that kitchen.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 170f72
Nary: Just to supplement that, it's certainly not uncommon in a hotel that you may have
a common kitchen and more than one restaurant or food facility that uses the same
kitchen. Part of -- just to give you a very thumbnail -- Mr. Donesley, if he's going to
speak, certainly knows a lot about this area of law, but a lot of the evolution of the liquor
licensing laws in the state have come from the '30s and '40s and some of them haven't
been very well updated over the years either and since Mrs. Canning mentioned Sun
Valley, that was one of the areas where they did make some changes in the law to deal
with the fact that some cities weren't very large, didn't have a large enough population
to have more licenses available, so they allowed in those places, like Sun Valley was
the example, to create all of the facilities under one roof and in the past, if some of you
remember, the Sun Valley lodge area used to have all one roof that encompassed the
entire facility, including all of the shops and everything else that went around it, that
would allow them to have one liquor license for all the facilities that they had within it.
That's something to consider as to the ordinance that you set over to next week in the
consideration, In some situations those things make sense, sometimes they don't. The
issue becomes more on the availability of these licenses and them being used in the
community and that's what I think the applicant's are going to speak to as to why these
particular types of applications are in front of you and what -- the problem with the way
the ordinance -- or the state law is in trying to put these into place and make them
actually usable.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I assume the applicants are here. Is Mr. Donesley
going to speak on behalf of both Items 8 and 10?
Donesley: I'm Brian Donesley. I'd like to make just some short comments on behalf of
Mr. Eddy and I think this would have some application as well to Mr. Bates. Mr. Bates is
with the Backwater. Mr. Eddy is with Eddy's.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, we'll give you --
Donesley: I have represented them both. Tonight I think Gary has asked me to make a
few comments, but, essentially, he'll represent his own interest and I would like Mr.
Eddy to address Mayor and Council, Mr. Bird and Mr. Nary and associated staff. But I
will be very brief.
De Weerd: Please state your name for the record.
Donesley: Brian Donesley.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Donesley: I'm a lawyer here in Boise. By way of background, I once was the liquor
chief and I was once the lawyer for the Department of Law Enforcement, now it's the
ISP, and I have been involved in this -- these licenses for many years and I have done a
lot of licenses, including in Meridian and I have represented Chilli's and Applebee's and
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 180f72
Goodwood and all of those historically all over the state, frankly. This is an evolving
thing. The law is very complicated; it's very strange, because if you look at it it doesn't
make any sense. As I described in the meeting yesterday, you turn a screw over here
and something explodes over here and we have to be careful. There is -- these issues -
- there is nothing new here. The personalities change, the words remain the same,
What we are talking about is not one roof over numerous bars on the same licensed
premise -- premise being a building licensed, run by the same operator. In fact, these
are different operators. Well, the Backwater is going to -- is two separate licensed
premises in the same building. They are separate. They are distinct. They may share
some facilities, bathrooms, they may be - there may be an agreement to provide
services back and forth, which isn't unusual, it's -- it may be unusual, but -- if we are
looking at the broad scope, but it's not unheard of, clearly, to be having somebody
provide services for another licensed establishment or the premise or sharing
bathrooms or even sharing kitchens. The Hoff building for years has more than one bar
downtown. There is more than one bar in -- over here on Cherry Lane where the
Whitewater is now and there is a Mexican food restaurant in there. Across the street,
the Italian place, as I understand it, there is an active license over there. There is a lot
of inactive licenses laying around, by the way, and we don't know exactly where those
are and part of the problem -- that's part of the problem with the ABC, they are now
requiring that we identify where these licenses are and they want us to start using these
licenses and bring them active, so that the state, the city, and the county know where
they are and, by the way, can assess appropriately and properly so, the licensing fees.
If there is an inactive license with a state license, but they haven't licensed with the city
for ten years, you're losing revenue. I, for many years, asserted that I thought that we
ought to be seeking to bring those licenses current with all licensing authority and I
believe the state law requires that. In any case, Mr. Nary, who is an old friend and
associate as attorneys, I think has it right that there are some issues and there is some
questions and that the state has made some changes in enforcement, but those
changes have focused on trying to activate these licenses, so that we know where they
are and we know what they are and we can deal with them appropriately.
Notwithstanding, back to the Italian place across the street, I think there may well be
two licenses in there, if not now, then, pretty soon. We are seeing Sun Valley, they
have more than one license now, they are all under the same roof. The Red Lion
Riverside, the gazebo, they built a roof over to the pool side gazebo 25 years ago, so
they could sell off a license and make revenue. They had two licenses there. There are
many examples. The Bank of America Center, I think there is at least two licenses in
there. Two licenses under one roof is not unusual. Sharing kitchens is not unheard of.
It really doesn't raise the issue -- or raise an issue that ought to be problematical. The
two situations that I am here to address are very different. Gary Bates will describe his
at the Whitewater and I have helped him with that and we have done everything the
state has required, we have tried to do everything the city has ever required and now,
for whatever reason, we are here tonight and we want to explain what we are doing.
These people have put together businesses, their business is what they will describe to
you and their intentions are as will be described to you. The Mugsy's is separate from
Eddy's Place. Eddy's Place, the new licensee applicant, is asking you to approve a
license on their zoning based as a restaurant. His intention is to sell food in there and
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 19 of 72
he will sell as much food as is necessary, frankly, because the issue isn't about
ultimately today having a profit-making food service restaurant, as a practical matter, it's
about providing the maturing, the growing of a license that can be used in future
development and, honestly, without this kind of accommodation in the law by the city --
the state's already issued their license. They are not in the picture. They don't have an
enforce -- they don't have a dog in this fight and I have talked to Lieutenant Clements
many many times. He's okay with all of this. He issued the licenses. The city that now,
in light of the proposes with regard to the growth and the kinds of policies that you want
in Meridian, I think that these ordinances may properly be reviewed, I would suggest
they should be reviewed in the light of bringing proper, appropriate, and good
development. Today, as it stands, we have 90 days to get a state license in effect. We
have a possible 60 days, 150 total. We can't get a Conditional Use Permit that fast,
which means that we will run through the entire liquor license list, nobody's going to
bring a business to Meridian. Nobody is going to bring an Applebee's. I won't. I won't
bring a Chilli's, I won't bring anybody like that here, because I cannot possibly get it
done, if I need a Conditional Use Permit, because the process for doing that is not
expedited sufficiently to allow me to assure my client that I'll have them a license, they
can get the loan - the loan in place with the New York banks, they can buy, lease, the
property, they can build a million and a half dollar building, they can hire 40 people, they
can get it up, they can get the licensing done, and I have to be able to promise that
there is a license awaiting them at the end of that. You need a building. You need a
business to get a license, you need a license to get a business and a building. It's been
this way forever. We had waiting lists. Those waiting lists are people who are filling a
need. My clients are real estate developers, real estate restaurant entrepreneurs, real
estate and restaurant operators.
De Weerd: Mr. Donesley, I'm sorry, could you, please, summarize. I thought you were
being timed.
Donesley: Okay. Well, I think I just -- I think I really just said what I wanted to say.
Thank you.
De Weerd: I appreciate that.
Donesley: And I would simple ask now Mr. Bates and, then, I think Mr. Eddy will want
to address the group. If there are any questions, I'm happy to respond as you may
wish.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions at this time?
Bird: I do not.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I guess the first one on there is Backwater Saloon.
Who is that? Mr. Bates?
Bates: Yes.
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 20 of 72
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name.
Bates: I'm Gary Bates. I, actually, brought a resume. I just want to, I guess, tell you a
little bit about myself before we get started. And thanks for taking the time to hear me.
I'm a person very much like you, I own one-third of Mitchener Investments. I'm a real
estate broker. I have dealt in planning and zoning issues. I, actually, own another
liquor license, which you approved, which is the Bill and Lynn's Back Room. I, actually,
broker liquor licenses. I have liquor licenses for sale. So, I'm pretty involved and
knowledgeable about this, but I'm also just -- I'm a businessman, I'm a lot like every one
of you, I mean I'm a father, I'm a grandfather, I go to bed at 10:30, I get up at 5:00, I
work hard, I don't drink, I don't smoke, I'm just looking for opportunity and ten years ago
I applied for a liquor license and I don't know how much you know about all this, but,
basically, they -- they don't tell you when you're going to get it. It's based upon one
license for every 1,500 people. I, actually, looked over the history of Meridian and
thought that I would be getting it in 2010, approximately 2012. So, it came much earlier
than I expected, but they give you zero days when they issue the application, they just
mail you a letter. They give you 90 days to put the license into effect. When I started
looking at how that is all put together, I -- you can't get there from here in Meridian. The
Conditional Use Permit process is not -- is not very friendly to doing that in 90 days. I
mean I went to the Limelite Room, I went to -- I looked at the Wooden Nickle to
purchase that, that would have been annexed into the city. I looked at the Heritage
building next door, by the time I got around to that they had ripped the restaurant portion
out. I looked at different facilities that I could, actually, get into, because I have been to
planning and zoning a number of times. Every time I found a building I went to them to
see if that would work and in each and every instance they told me that I would have to
find a building that was zoned properly. One of the properties I looked at, which,
actually, makes no sense to me, but was the Thomas Bill furniture store. At the time
there was another facility in there, they had a beer and wine license. Zoningwise I could
have put a liquor license in there, because I had heard that they were a little bit iffy on
their financial end of it, I chose not to go there, but you just kind of have to go where the
law tells you to go. I have done nothing wrong. I follow the state law, the county law,
and the city law to the letter. I have been to Planning and Zoning and they told me what
I needed to do. The state told me what I needed to do. And so we wind up with these --
I guess kind of closet bars, if you will, only out of necessity. That was -- that was what
had to happen, according to all the rules and ordinances. Licenses are matured. They
have to operate for a period of six months, they, then, cannot be sold or transferred for
a period two years, You kind of have to crawl before you can walk, in that you have to
get the licenses, Mr. Donesley said, before you can actually go into the process of doing
the business. From an economic standpoint, if I started today to open a business to get
limited partners, to get financing, to get buildings, et cetera, et cetera, I'm looking at 12
to 24 months. I have a license right now that is -- that I'm brokering for someone else in
Meridian and a -- it's a Mexican restaurant and they are trying to buy a piece of land that
they won't even -- their due diligence period runs through July. They will have 90 days
after that in order to close and, then, they start to build. The first thing they did was buy
the license, they tied up the license. So, it's almost like they have to put the cart before
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 21 of 72
the horse, but here we are trying to work within all the ordinances and it's just -- what's
happened is the state conflicts with the city, but when the state did their laws back in the
'30s and '40s, zoning wasn't probably an issue. You probably could have walked into
Meridian and opened a bar on any corner in town. It's just that they now conflict and it's
really nobody's fault, it's just that there probably needs to be a central committee or
something that kind of oversees all of the ordinances and state laws, somehow
funneling them down, so that everybody can get a license in a way that is appropriate. I
have -- I mean if -- the people that are currently here, the Mexican restaurant that I
talked about, the Goodwood barbecue, the Ram, I think somebody else is coming in --
Red Robin. All of those people bought licenses before they ever made a move to
Meridian and if we are not able to develop and mature these licenses, as Brian says,
you will never get those businesses, because they won't wait ten or twenty years to get
the license on a list. So, we are just here trying to do kind of what -- which told us by
planning and zoning, by the state, by the city, and I guess I haven't done anything
wrong --
De Weerd: Mr. Bates, I don't think anyone said you were doing anything wrong.
Bates: Well, it's -- to tell you the truth, from the very beginning, the state treated us like
criminals almost. They -- for whatever reason they wanted to put road blocks in our way
and I'm looking for opportunities, not obstacles.
De Weerd: I think what I have found in talking to Lieutenant Clements is he
understands now more than he ever has the predicament that the code put new license
-- new licenses waiting to mature in and he has also indicated he is very willing and
open to work with the city, if we have someone who really wants to put it into use and to
give them the time, frames, too. We have worked with him, because we see this as an
economic issue, as well in bringing businesses who want to put them into use, because
that's what they are actually there for. They are to put into use and not to put on a shelf
or in a drawer somewhere else. So, I agree with what you're saying, maybe for a
different reason. We have also worked with him to look at the legislation, so that it does
allow for the legitimate person that's wanting to put it into use for a business, for the
reason it's out there, and there is legislation out there. Unfortunately, it did not get
introduced this year and Senator Bunderson is going to be introducing that, then, next
year -- it does take into account the time frames and, yes, I agree, getting a Conditional
Use Permit or if you had to annex and zone and get the Conditional Use Permit, it is a
timing process and the city wants to work with those that want to go through that
property. So, if -- we don't have you in front of us today, accusing you of doing anything
bad.
Bates: I mean I have spent -- just on the Backwater Saloon I spent 9,000 of my own
money, I've spent hours, days, months, out here looking at money, trying to figure out
how to get this done and talked to Planning and Zoning, et cetera. I'm almost 11
months into the process and I have done everything that I was told to do by everybody
that I talked to and now I'm running the risk of not being approved. It's disconcerting.
Meridian City Coundi
March 29, 2005
Page 22 of 72
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
DeWeerd: Okay, Thank you.
Bates: Thank you.
DeWeerd: I guess Mr. Beeler.
Beeler: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council.
De Weerd: You have five minutes. If you will state your name, please.
Beeler: My name is Doug Beeler, 556 West Navajo Court in Eagle. I have got an office
-- I have been in business here as a financial advisor since 1989, so I have seen the
growth that we are talking about. I don't know how much more you can hear about this
issue tonight. Basically, what we have all done, obviously, to get to this point, is to go
through the approval process with the state, with the county, with the Central District
Health Department and those people to get through the process, get through the first six
months, which are stringent rules and, then, after that it gives us time to go ahead with a
business plan and get some long range plan completely as far as the future business,
however you want it to go, Obviously, long term financially, these licenses are in little
areas like this and -- it's not going to make anybody a lot of money, but at least it's a
starting point for us to get onto bigger and better things as far as different locations and
things like that. I, too, have spent lots of dollars with attorneys and meeting with
Lieutenant Clements and those people and they have all gone through the process and,
obviously, we wouldn't be here if we wouldn't have the county and the state's approval
already. So, my situation is -- it's not very complicated, we just have a room inside the
127 Club, which would be monitored and maintained. Have a bar and tables and chairs
and those types of things in there. Small establishment. But it will be a nice little cozy
little place to visit. I don't know if I really have anything more to add than what you have
already heard tonight, besides that.
De Weerd: Any questions, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do. Doug, what - how do you -- how do you plan to meet ADA and all the
requirements that do come -- I believe bars are under ADA, too? Am I not wrong?
Beeler: Well, yeah, the 127 Club meets all of those. Since we are already inside the
127 Club, in order to get to our place, you have to be inside of that building.
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 23 of 72
Bird: Are you going to be enclosed?
Beeler: Yeah. We have -- the doors are --
Bird: There has to be a number of exists and stuff?
Beeler: Uh-huh.
Bird: Into the bar or exterior? If you're enclosed you have to be -- I believe you have to
go to the exterior -- have an entrance to the exterior.
Beeler: Well, our -- our door is right by the back door of the bar. I mean it's -- so, our
opening opens into the 127, which goes out the back door.
Bird: And you enclosed that back door for your part?
Beeler: No. That back door is being used for both businesses.
Bird: So, for both entities?
Beeler: Right.
Bird: I'd have to look at the code, but I don't know if that's legal or not.
Beeler: Well, like I said, it's been inspected by Central District Health and everybody.
Bird: Essentially -- this is ADA. They do sanitary.
Beeler: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other--
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Okay, So, since nobody called and talked to me and this --
Beeler: You would have told on me if I did.
Donnell: Right. They did anyway.
Beeler: Yes, they did.
Donnell: And I'm so new to all this and I have been trying to understand why one would
apply for a license in -- for one little room. So, let me see if I can just put this simply for
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 24 of 72
me and see if, in fact, it is the way it is and that the reason to apply for one of these
licenses in an already existing location, is so that you would reserve it for a future plan
of opening up another business that you can transfer that license to?
Beeler: That's correct, because you can't -- yeah. With the time limit with the state, you
can't really go through the whole process. You have to get that license activated in a
certain length of time and that doesn't coincide with the time it takes to actually open up
a business, go through the Planning and Zoning, conditional use ~-
Donnell: So, this is just a buy and save until?
Beeler: Temporary hold in place, whatever you want to call it. Obviously, it is an intent
-- it is a business, we've spent a lot of money doing this process already, so it's just a
matter of where can we go from here once we get over this hurdle.
De Weerd: The problem is you get on the list and six months put it into service and you
can't sell it for two years, so if you can't put it into service in that six months, you can't
sell it to someone who wants to put it into service, because it has to mature for two
years, so it's kind of a conundrum.
Donnell: It certainly is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Eddy.
Eddy: My name is Mike Eddy. I reside at 7988 West Arapaho Court in Garden City.
De Weerd: Thank you,
Eddy: And I will just make a few remarks. We have just about beat this thing to death.
We were talking about the cart and the horse thing, you know, and back and forth a little
bit, but I did want to make a couple of comments. Vince'$ Restaurant in southern
California where my mother worked when she was probably 18 or 19 years old had six
stools and now they have four restaurants, So, you can grow your business from only a
few stools. I don't know if I will make that with two seats in my particular instance, but I
may. About eight years ago, nine years ago when I signed up for a liquor license I was
the owner of Harrison Hall Brew House in Boise and Wool and Mill in Bend and decided
to go to Hawaii for a brewery over there, instead of building a restaurant over here. I
probably should have built the restaurant here, as it turned out. But I am in the
restaurant business and have been in the restaurant business and may well do that
again, I can't make any promises that I'm going to open a restaurant, but I do want to
have the opportunity to go through the exercise to analyze it and I can't do that in the
time frame that's allowed me by the state and so we are looking for having you guys
help us develop minimum standards for us to not make huge investments into places
that aren't going to be our ultimate locations for business, We don't want to make poor
business choices in order to make good business choices later. So, I think especially
with restaurants, we need some minimum standards, what you guys are going to
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 25 of 72
require from us in the business community in order to go through this license perfection
process, so that we can, then, go on to do the things that takes six months or a year to
plan and another year or so to develop. That's kind of what this is about. But I'm going
to work with Mike at Mugsy's on a couple of special menu items and, actually, get some
people in the door, so watch out for us. I think, really, that's all I have. Everything else
has probably been said, so if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them
or if you have any questions of the attorney, I would be happy to have Mr. Donesley
back up here.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do.
DeWeerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sir, I know you're under a time limit, all three of you are. If we was to put like a
year time limit on -- I have a real problem right up front, I'll tell you, of putting two
licenses under one roof. Now, I understand hotels, motels, and everything are different.
Large deal. But we are talking about small bars and restaurants that -- where we are
wanting to put two licenses in. If we was to put a time limit like allowing it for a year or
you have got a two-year table with the state, could you live with that?
Eddy: A year may not be enough time to actually open the doors. Two years would
certainly be long enough to open the doors. One year I'm sure I could identify a place.
I'm not sure -- I'm pretty sure I got trouble-opening doors, especially if I have to build a
new building. That would be difficult.
Bird: And the end of two years you could sell the license.
Eddy: You could sell or transfer them.
Bird: You could sell it or transfer it in two years and, you know, a lot of people -- let's
face the facts, a lot of people buy a license to sell to make profits --
Eddy: Sure. I understand that.
Bird: -- anymore, it's -- and, you know, in Meridian -- in Boise. It used to be -- and
Garden City. But it isn't anymore, because the population is growing fast. But two
years I think would be very fair, if we was to decide that way, I mean I could go the time
limit --
Eddy: I could live with that.
Bird: -- I hate to have an open end.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 26 of 72
Eddy: I understand. That's fine with me. It certainly fits my personal criteria, but
whether that's the best decision across the board for the community I don't know if I can
comment on that.
De Weerd: Well, in two years it would mature.
Eddy: If I can respond also to the issue about the big hotel being different than the
small restaurant facility. I don't know that having another restaurant within another --
with an existing restaurant with a very limited liquor cabinet is going to bring more
people in the door. It's going to affect the neighborhood, if it's going to affect anything
drastic at all, so --
De Weerd: Now, Mr. Eddy, in your case you are saying you're a restaurant going into a
restaurant and so this is a little bit different for you? Is Mugsy's a restaurant?
Eddy: Mugsy's is a restaurant.
De Weerd: Doesn't it allow smoking?
Eddy: No, I don't think.
De Weerd: Is it nonsmoking?
Eddy: I'm certainly not going to -- my wife would kill me.
De Weerd: And I won't even go in there, because I thought it was smoky.
Eddy: In fact, if you're a chess player you might want to come back, I have got a nice
chessboard set up. Have you been inside?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I don't have the patience. Yes, Anna.
Canning: Mugsy's, as I understand it, does have the restaurant certificate and I wanted
-- I forgot to mention something earlier. Mr. Eddy has revised -- I don't know if that's the
right wording, but he's asked the state to revise his liquor license to have the restaurant
certificate. He currently does not have it. So, I would ask that if Council is inclined to
approve it tonight, that they condition it upon him having the restaurant certificate or
going through the conditional use process for the bar.
Eddy: That's fine.
De Weerd: Okay. And you have done that?
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 27 of 72
Eddy: I have misunderstood several things in this process at the state, county, and the
local level and I'm pretty good at forms sometimes.
De.Weerd: You're a part of the government yourself, so --
Eddy: I have been on both sides of it. But this is really complicated. When I first
started making the application eight years ago, I thought, gee, this will be a fairly
straight forward process. Over the years I have found out a little bit more about it, but I
was like seventh on the list, so I was like the last license chosen for this round and I had
no idea this was going to happen right now and combined with Lieutenant Clements
change in the interpretation of the same law that's been there for a long time, I was
caught up in the middle of a dynamic situation with rules that are changing. As a
businessman, I don't mind jumping through the hoops, just don't move them while I'm in
the air, you know. Just make a level playing field where we can all operate and make
the hoops so we can understand them and find them and, generally, we are pretty
happy to comply, so--
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I believe Mr. Bates wanted to comment on the two year time
frame, if you -- that was a particular concern to him the other -- our meeting yesterday.
De Weerd: Thank you for running my meeting for me.
Canning: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know if you saw him.
Bates: I just wanted to make a quick comment. The two-year thing would work very
well for me. I signed an two year lease on both Bill & Lynn's and with the Whitewater
and I had to pay for that privilege and so amortizing those costs, along with attorney
fees and everything over the two year period would work better for me than if it were six
months or a year, I guess, so that's alii wanted to say.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would like to hear from Captain Overton on the police part of this.
De Weerd: Captain.
Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I kind of feel responsible, because I
brought this before you here over a month ago when we first discovered that we were
having applications for more than one license under one roof. Part of the problem, of
course, is we are faced in the police department with the enforcement of those liquor
laws and had very few answers at that time for how this was going to be run. One of
the foremost problems that still is a minor problem, but I think it's an easy enough fix, is
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 28 of 72
the facilities that they are applying for, they turn in a map on their application, much like
you have attached, for what their facility is going to be, but what we need in law
enforcement and code enforcement is a map of the facility specifically outlining where
each license is and where it's not, so we can enforce the law. We have to look at the
worst case scenario, which is the potential for one of those licenses being suspended
and no alcohol being in that part of the premise. The second issue we had to deal with
was trying to understand what the intent was in trying to bring two licenses under one
roof. And I think, especially after our two and a half hour meeting yesterday, I
understand and I'm pretty comfortable with that idea and the position they have been
put in. The reason they are here isn't for anything more or less than the enforcement or
the change in the enforcement done through ISP through Lieutenant Bob Clements and
I spoke to him several times on the phone as well. I think everybody involved in this has
spoke to him. I don't see a large public safety issue with how it's being applied for. The
one that got passed us that's in existence right now, which is the Bill & Lynn's Back
Room, I have had our officers there on multiple occasions to check on it. That facility is
locked with a buzzer on the door. When our officers went in there to do a bar check,
they knocked on the buzzer, an employee from the bar came over with a sign -- they
have a signed agreement that Mr. Bates had entered into with Bill & Lynn's. They
opened it up for us to inspect it. They keep it locked, because they know full and well
it's a separate establishment, even though it's - these are all really more or less large
closets, but the -- they are true to their word so far in how they have been run and I
give my -- my hat's off to them that they have done exactly what they said they are
going to do and in the application for the Whitewater or the Backwater, again, we are
talking about a six foot by eight foot room, but we are also talking about it being locked
with a buzzer on it, so that people can't walk from one to the other, which was my major
concern initially was having these two establishments under one roof. I'm fairly satisfied
with what they have told us, that their issues -- or our issues have been addressed by
them in how they are applying for these licenses. I think they know that initially we are
going to give them a little extra police protection, as we make sure that everything is
being followed in accordance with state law. But, again, I also acknowledge that they
are put in a tight situation due to the state. So, I really don't -" unless you have any
questions for me, I don't see this as much of a public safety concern as we did initially,
based on the little bit of information we had at that time,
De Weerd: And I appreciate staff working this through with the different stakeholders
here. It did give a clearer understanding of it and as well it did answer the enforcement
issue that was first raised is if one lost -- or their license was suspended or even lost,
what would happen, and because when you co-locate they do define the space, then,
liquor couldn't be served in the one area, but it could be in, I guess, the closet if that
were the last place. So, there is a separation and so I appreciate all the time that was
spent trying to figure all of this out.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr, Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 29 of 72
Nary: Certainly, as part of this application, if the Council is inclined to grant them, you
can ask the applicants to provide that level of detail, so the police department has --
because, as Captain Overton stated, all they have provided is the description of their
premise for their licensed establishment. But, again, because of the unique
circumstances of being wholly located within another establishment, it may require that
definition. I can't imagine the applicants having a concern of being able to show which
portion of this facility is the Backwater and which portion is the Whitewater or which is
the Top Shelf and which is the 127. But you can certainly put that level of specificity if
you wish to grant that. You know, you've hit on it a little bit and, again, as I said at the
beginning, that the laws that we have here are very cumbersome and difficult and that's
just the nature of the beast here, but, you know, you have an anomaly here that the
state has imposed some time limits upon these types of applications of the six month
and the two years and at the end of the two years it says if the state has decided on the
front end to provide some direction on actually establishing a business, but at the end of
two years they really don't care, I mean you can sell it, you can lease it, you can do
whatever you want with it. So, it does seem to be sort of both ends of the issue and
that's where, I think, if falls, unfortunately, to the city to try to manage how do we
enforce within that time period of those two years. I don't know that this problem is
going to go away. Just so as you're aware, as we grow and these -- as we get licenses
as the city's population grows rapidly, we are probably going to be faced with this again,
so you might want to consider that in both these applications, as well as that ordinance
you're going to review again next week. Obviously, at some point our population will flat
line a little bit more and you may not see them quite as rapidly, but this was a unique
circumstance. It's just the numbers that were released all at once.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, excuse me, I have a question -- a couple questions for staff.
Anna, I have heard from the applicants that meeting the time line for the state is difficult,
if not impossible, in our current conditional use process; is that true?
Canning: Yes. It take four to six months, which would be 120 to 180 days.
Wardle: Okay. And just a follow-up question. Where are liquor licenses allowed within
our zoning designation? Do they require conditional uses?
Canning: They require conditional use in -- where ever they are allowed. I'll have to
look it up. I think it's mostly the CoG and maybe the C-C district. I haven't looked it up
recently,
Wardle: But my question was they do require a conditional use?
Canning: Yes.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 30 of 72
Wardle: Mr. Nary, a question for you of your review of the state statute. If the
applicants fail to place this license within their required temporal state, what happens to
that applicant -- or to the application?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, the state has
the ability -- and I think that's, again, been the problem -- the state has the ability to
revoke it if they are not placed into use in a timely fashion. I think part of the testimony
you have heard is that in the past it sort of depended on the timing and choice of
enforcement and I think Lieutenant Clements has stated, as Madam Mayor stated, that
the state's willing to work with folks, but, again, it's not very clear. The statutes have
some pretty specific time limits in them and it appears, under the state statute, there is
nothing that tells me there is any such thing as an inactive license. It says if it's not
being used it's supposed to be forfeited, but the state has also created some other rules
that allow them other time in which to get it reactivated. For example, in Boise a couple
of years ago there was a neighborhood bar in the Kootenai Street area that burned
down. Obviously, it would be a pretty onerous sanction that your bar burned down and,
then, you lost your liquor license the next day, because you couldn't operate any longer.
So, I think that's the intent of somehow allowing some time period in which to reactivate
it, but, again, the statute doesn't really guide that and I think that's the problem here, is
that it is an interpretation and enforcement issue and these applicants are trying to sort
of navigate through those things. But to follow up on your question to Mrs. Canning,
when I did look at our city ordinance, again, that's the question before you tonight, there
are not principal permitted placed for bars. They all require conditional uses. The only
issue before you is whether or not if the facility already has one, does it run with the
land, or does a second one -- is a second one required. That's where I think the issue
of concern is for these applicants is if you do require it, they can't meet the state time
limit, they run the risk of losing their license.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further question? Well, Mr. Eddy, you would have to come up to
the microphone. We like to record every word.
Eddy: Mike Eddy again. You have already got my address. Is that okay?
De Weerd: No.
Eddy: Just my understanding is that if you're operating a bar, you have to get a
Conditional Use Permit, but if you're operating a restaurant with a liquor license as an
accessory use, you may not need to get a Conditional Use Permit in some zones?
Nary: Correct.
Eddy: Okay. That's alii had,
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 31 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. Council, what would you like to do? Any discussion or further
information you need from staff or the applicants?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just a discussion point and it appears clear to me that we have
two very conflicting statutes and -- or not conflicting statutes, but two time lines which
would be nearly impossible to meet under the best circumstances without allowing such
uses such as this. And I have heard testimony from the applicants that they have been
on this list for a number of years and gone to significant lengths to make this happen, so
I would be uncomfortable not approving these based on those facts. As an opinion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with some of what Shaun said, but I also believe that we are already
putting in CUP deals. I go like Anna, I think that the CUP goes with the land. I don't
think you have to get a CUP for every little nitch inside the building, but I -- I feel that
probably under the existing ordinance that we don't have any other way to go, but would
I even want to go any other way. I brought up the two-year time limit. I don't even think
we can enforce that. I just think we need to look at the existing thing and change it
over. These guys are going to be grandfathered in and I hope ten years from now we
don't have two bars -- or licenses hanging in establishments, but maybe we will, so I
would move that -- do you want this on a separate one?
Donnell: Madam Mayor, before there is a motion --
Bird: Okay.
Donnell: A comment.
Bird: Go Ahead.
Donnell: Okay. So, at first when this issue was brought before the Council, it seemed
to me in my thinking that it was a way to circumvent the law, that it was a way to hang
onto a license so no one else could get it and that you just keep someone else from
having that license and therefore cut down on your competition. This was my thinking.
I think that's pretty good thinking, actually, but after listening to the information this
evening and I particularly appreciated Chief Overton's remarks. It sounds as if they are
doing everything that they can do in order to, in fact, grow business and to provide
opportunities for other businesses and so I, too, would be in favor of approval of these.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I guess we will take them one at a time.
Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Item No 8. Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 32 of 72
Bird: I move we approve the liquor license for the Backwater Saloon,
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 8. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 9.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird,
Bird: I move we approve the liquor license for Top Shelf, located at 1.7 East Idaho
Avenue.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, I doubt there is any further discussion. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary,
Nary: Before you get to Item 10, so that it's clear, I think I'm clear with the direction of
the Council, but if we could have on the record, if it is the Council's desire that the
interpretation of the ordinance that you want the staff to follow is that the conditional use
permits for these facilities run with the land and no second Conditional Use Permit is
required for these types of facilities that have been before you, if you would make a
motion to that effect, that might be helpful. Secondarily, on the one for the next -- Item
10, I think -- and Mrs. Canning can correct me if I'm wrong, because she will -- is if you
would want the staff to use that their interpretation states -- the state's interpretation of
what is a restaurant as guidance under our current ordinance, as to determine whether
or not this applicant is a restaurant, then, that might be helpful to be able to issue the
license, if that's where you're going.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 33 of 72
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I go to No. 10, then, I will make a motion, if the other Council agree, that--
that as of now CUPs stay with the land, not with the building.
Nary: Except for day cares.
Bird: Except for day cares.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is that CUPs stay with the land, with the exception of day
cares. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mrs. Canning did Mr. Nary state what you were needing information on?
Canning: Yes, ma'am,
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Lucky guess.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg,
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just to emphasize that we wouldn't issue a license
for this next item until we get the appropriate license from the state that does have the
restaurant acknowledged on it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion. Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move we approve Item No.1 0, liquor license for Eddy's,
located at 501 South Main Street, and to include comments from the clerk about the
restaurant designation.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, The motion is to approve Item 10. Mr, Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea,
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 34 of 72
Item 11:
FP 04-084 Request for Final Plat approval of 33 single family residential
building lots and 3 common lots on 10,07 acres in a R-8 zone for Arcadia
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 5995 North Jericho Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us through this whole thing. Okay.
Item 11 is FP 04-084,
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat for Arcadia
Subdivision. You may recall it's located -- I don't have a vicinity map. It's located south
of Chinden Boulevard off of Jericho Road, about a half mile West of Locust Grove
Road, and the plat has 32 single family residential lots and, then, three common lots,
one large one in the center there, The gross density is 3,28 dwelling units per acre and
the net density is 4.95 dwelling units per acre. The plat is in substantial compliance with
the approved preliminary plat. Staff is recommending approval. The applicant's
representative Mr. McKinnon has requested a modification to Condition No. 16-A.
Currently it says include a fencing plan in compliance with Meridian City Code 12-4-10
and 12-13-15-9 and, then, it states: Fencing is required along the micro-path in Lot 6,
Block 4, and a six foot solid material fence is required around the perimeter of the
subdivision. He would like the first part of the second sentence struck, that being
fencing is required along the micro-path in Lot 6, Block 4, and -- so, he has requested
that that be struck. We went back and checked the minutes and Councilmember
Wardle specifically stated that if there were to be fencing, it needed to be consistent
with code, but they did lose the option that there did not have to be fencing. So, the
code is a little ambiguous, but the motion was not. So, we are okay with that
modification to that condition,
Wardle: Does that end staffs comments?
Canning: That ends staffs comments. I don't have a letter from Mr. McKinnon,
because I think he anticipated commenting on at least that item, if not more.
Wardle: Would the applicant --
McKinnon: Hi. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, representing the applicant
tonight. Everything Anna said is right on. We have read the staff report and we agree
with it and I may want to ask Brad to probably grab the microphone real quick. He's--
okay. Because I'm going to ask him a question here real quick. We agree with the staff
report. We just had one concern and part of the concern is going to tie to Public Works,
that's why I asked Brad to get on the microphone. There is a requirement on this plat to
put in a pressure reduction vault and what that entails is putting in a large concrete vault
on the property and putting in two water lines that come together of different pressures
and inside that vault you put in some mechanisms, just basically called the guts of the
vault, where the two pressures come together and there is a valve in between and they
put that requirement on there, because we are at the edge of two of these different
pressure zones and we went through and got an estimate as to what the costs would be
for that and it's around 31,000 bucks and it's an awful lot for a 33 lot subdivision, so we
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 35 of 72
sat down and met with the Public Works Department and said we are willing to pay our
fair share. This is affecting everybody and this will benefit everybody in the area, not
just our project, we will pay our share and we would like everybody else to pay in and
they said we can't make that -- we can't agree to that, we have to go forward with the
recommendations of approval under the approved conditions of approval and so we
thought we would come and ask you tonight if it's possible that we pay our fair share,
but not necessarily pay the additional cost for everybody in that area, because this is
benefiting more than just us. There is precedent for this, When Woodbridge
Subdivision was approved, when the second phase came in, it connected with the high
pressure line coming back from St. Luke's and the City of Meridian agreed to pay for
that, rather than put that on a larger development. Woodbridge could have absorbed
those costs a little bit better with 280 units, but with this project being only 33 units and
it's affecting a larger area, we'd ask if you could reduce that or let us work with your staff
to have the city help pay for that in the future. If you have any questions at this time --
and maybe Brad can clarify what the pressure reduction vault is and what the guts are,
but we are more than happy to pay for the vault, just the guts get to be pretty expensive.
The vault itself is about 5,000 dollars.
De Weerd: Mr. Watson.
Watson: Madam Mayor, Council members, staff has worked -- or at least communicated
with the applicant on this issue. That's the extent of my knowledge. I'm sorry. There is
a lot of things going on. I'm sorry, I do not know the circumstances. I would point out
that on Woodbridge the city -- we were -- the Public Works Department was directed to
make that connection against our recommendation, but, nevertheless, we did make it
and, then, the city funded that. Whatever the case, we will continue to work with the
applicant on this PRY, pressure reducing vault, as we have with other applicants along
that boundary. We do have the reimbursement agreement mechanism with the new
ordinance, so we can look into some of those things to see if there is some costs that
they can recoup.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. McKinnon, when you say agree to pay your fair share, is what Brad's
describing with the new mechanism for repayment something that you would agree to?
McKinnon: I haven't reviewed your new -- your new repayment method. I think you
wisely got rid of the latecomers agreements, I just don't know the extent of how that
works. If I knew more about it, I might be able to comment on it. It seems like it's -- if
we have to pay it up front, I don't know how it gets -- how it gets compensated for in the
future with future development, so I would have to plead a little bit of ignorance on that.
Wardle: If that was a direction from the Council to work with staff on that, would you be
comfortable with the approval of the final plat at this time?
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 38 of 72
Wardle: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: So, as I understand it, it would be to have the applicant work with staff and
bring back a recommendation separate from this final plat approval? Yes?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion, then?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I will move that we approve Item No. 11, FP 04-084 for Arcadia Subdivision
and to direct staff to work with the applicant to bring back the item during the discussion.
Bird: And 16-A as stated by staff.
Wardle: Yes. Thank you. And to include the applicant and staff comments in regard to
16-A.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for the teamwork on that Item 11. Okay. If there is no
further discussion, the motion is to approve Item 11, with the amendment as stated. Mr.
Berg, will you call roll?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12:
FP 05-019 Request for Final Plat approval of 104 single-family building
lots and 14 other lots (including a neighborhood park) on 36.04 acres in a
R-8 zone for Champion Park Subdivision No.3 (preliminary platted as
Parkstone Subdivision) by Hillview Development - West Ustick Road
and west of Eagle Road:
Meridian City Councii
March 29, 2005
Page 37 of 72
DeWeerd: Okay. Item 12 is FP 05-019.
Canning: Madam Mayor, this is a final plat for Champion Park Subdivision. They are
proposing 104 single-family residential lots and 14 common lots on 36 acres. The gross
density is 2.89 and the net density is 4.83. Did they put the wrong one up, Sheri?
There we go. It's on two pages. Sorry. The gross density -- the net density is much
higher, because there is a large park included on page two of this. The proposed -- the
preliminary plat is shown circled here and the final plat as proposed is in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat. I will mention quickly that this was part
of a PD, a planned development, that allowed for reductions to front setbacks and for
side setbacks and minimum lot size, minimum street frontage, minimum house size, and
block lengths to exceed 1,000 feet. There are eight fewer lots than were approved on
the preliminary plat. Staff still deems it to be in substantial compliance with the
approved preliminary plat. And on this project the applicant has provided a letter stating
they are okay with all the conditions of approval, but, then, there are some concerns,
though, with item number 35 and I believe Mr. Nary has the -- I believe Mr. Baird has
just provided me with the alternate wording for that. The issue at hand is that the --
well, we would like number 35 to read: The applicant shall enter into an agreement for
conveyance of parkland. Period. The development agreement requirestransfer of the
park prior to the filing of the final plat. Both city and developer agree that a more orderly
transfer of the park property can occur after the plat has been recorded and that
substantial compliance with the development agreement requirement can be achieved
by requiring an agreement for conveyance of the parkland as a site-specific condition of
approval. So, that would be the request for item number 35, is that it makes it clear that
what we are trying to do is meet one of the conditions of the development agreement,
so they would be meeting that, but we would prefer to take over ownership of that after
it's a platted lot. In the future we have talked about how to word these things, so that we
don't get into the same predicament. We are just trying to kind of apply a new standard
to something that was already approved, So, this was a fix for that problem.
DeWeerd: And has that wording been shared with the applicant?
Canning: Just has. I'm sorry, We have discussed the issue. I think they are in
agreement, but they just don't want to convey it beforehand, because they don't want to
have to mess with multiple -- I'm sorry. They don't want to have additional ownership --
owners showing up on the plat. They would prefer to keep it under the current owners,
so they would not want to convey it at this time, but an agreement for conveyance, I
believe, would meet their needs.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? See, you knew we were going to get you up
somehow. If you will, please, state your name and address,
Stiles: Sheri Stiles. Engineering Solutions. 150 East Aikens in Eagle, Idaho. This item
number 35 is also related to item number six, a request for an addition of a note as item
-- or note 16. They have asked us to add a note that says Lot 12, Block 11 is to be
conveyed to the City of Meridian for a public park. In our discussions with John
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 38 of 72
Priester, the Ada County engineer, he has indicated that just by having that note on
there at the time you record your plat, it is a conveyance, similar to a public street, and I
have printed off from. Ada County website John Priester's interpretation of that and we
did not want to get into a situation where we had to have the City of Meridian be on the
certificate of owners for reasons because of homeowners associations and
assessments and a lot of different things and so I guess we would also ask that we
would be able to work on that requested note 16 under item six of the staff report, if that
doesn't turn out to be the best way to do that, and I just wanted to add that. I would like
to give to Mr. Nary and to the city clerk what I printed off from the county's website
about their conveyance.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Staff would agree that that note should not be there and we are not opposed
to it being completely removed.
DeWeerd: Okay. Thank you.
Stiles: And -- thank you for that. I think it is the park's department intent and the
developer's intent that once that park impact fee agreement gets finalized, that the city
won't necessarily want ownership of that until the improvements that have been agreed
upon have been completed to your satisfaction. So, I did talk to Mr. Strong today and
he seemed to indicate that that was acceptable to him as well. So, you will be seeing in
the future the impact fee agreement.
De Weerd: Okay,
Stiles: The development agreement that talks about there is going to be some
exchange of impact fee monies because of the donation of the park land and those
types of things that everything else looked great and I appreciate staff for their
willingness to work with us on this.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: No.
De Weerd: Thank you, Shari. Okay,
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 39 of 72
Wardle: I want to make sure I get this right. I move that we approve Item No. 12, FP
05-019, Champion Park Subdivision No, 3, to add the included reference item number
35, as read by staff, and to delete note number 16 as referenced to item number six.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 12. Were those all correct? Okay.
Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
FP 05-020 Request for Final Plat approval for 33 single-family residential
building lots and 1 common lot on 7.69 acres in a R-8 zone for
Paramount Subdivision No.6 by Paramount Development, Inc. - east
of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is FP 05-020.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this the final plat for 33 single-family
lots and one common lot on 7.69 acres. This is final plat number six for Paramount
Subdivision. The preliminary plat area is shown here. As you can tell, it is in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat. The gross density is 4.29 dwelling units
per acre and the net density is 5.5 dwelling units per acre. And the plat is in substantial
compliance, as I noted before, and we do have a letter from Mr. Turnbull stating that
they have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with the conditions of
approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the final plat for Paramount Subdivision No.6 and to include
staff and applicant comments.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do I have a second?
Donnell: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 40 of 72
De Weerd: The motion is to approve Item 13. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14:
FP 05-018 Request for Final Plat approval for 45 single-family residential
building lots and 1 common lot on 13.56 acres in a R-4 zone for Fulfer
Subdivision No, 5 by Kevin Howell Construction, Inc. - north of West
McMillan Road and east of North Ten Mile Road:
DeWeerd: Item 14 is FP 05-018. We will start with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat for Fulfer
Subdivision. This was originally platted under Lochsa Falls and, then, Mr. Howell
acquired it and combined it with the Fulfer Subdivision immediately to the east. So, it
was under a previous preliminary plat application. The final plat that's before you is 45
single-family lots and one common lot on 13.56 acres. The gross density is 3.3 dwelling
units per acre and the net density is 4.52 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has
sent back a -- kind of a commented version of the staff report. There is not a separate
letter from them. They raised comments on, in particular, item number eight regarding a
20 foot wide easement centered over the proposed sewer main -- where is Mr. Watson
when I need him. And I know that his staff has -- Mr. Lee had asked that it be -- instead
of centered, that it be five on one side and 15 on the other way. The way the condition
reads, though, is centered and I believe that Public Works has stated that they -- it will
be centered. So, I don't think there is any changes necessary. I would feel more
comfortable if we could ask Mr. Watson. It's just on the sewer easement, the 15 and
five versus the center. You agreed that it should just be the center; correct? And Mr.
Lee agreed to it as well. So, as it stands, the conditions of approval are okay and they
are in agreement with the conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay,
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we approve Item No. 14, FP 05-018, request for
final plat approval for the Fulfer Subdivision No.5, taking into consideration all of staffs
comments,
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 41 0172
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 14. If there is no further discussion,
Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15:
FP 05-021 Request for Final Plat approval for 41 single-family residential
building lots and 3 common lots on 11.6 acres in a R-8 zone for
Settlement Bridae Subdivision No, 2 by Capital Development, Inc, -
southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15 is FP 05-021.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for 41 single-family
lots and three common lots for Settlement Bridge Subdivision No.2. The preliminary
plat is shown here. It's between Locust Grove Road and McMillan Road to the North.
And the final plat looks like some Mayan creature ready to eat us. It is in substantial
compliance with the preliminary plat. This was part of a PD that had reduced lot size,
reduced lot frontage, longer than -- long cul-de-sac length and, then, a sidewalk
variance along McMillan Road, which would not pertain to this particular one. This final
plat does have two fewer lots than were approved with the original preliminary plat.
They wanted to relocate a small amount of open space as well. We did feel that it still
was in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat and are
recommending approval. I do not have a letter from the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay. The applicant is here. If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Yorgason: My name is Dave Yorgason with Capital Development. Our address is 6200
North Meeker Place in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason: I apologize for not sending a letter. I had a busy day today. But we did
agree with all of the staff report comments and just request your approval tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council -- we could have saved you a trip. You could have just called and
said I agree.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 42 of 72
Yorgason: It would have been good to see Mr. Watson, though. So, it's good to be
here tonight.
De Weerd: It is always good to see Mr. Watson, isn't it?
Canning: Mr. Yorgason only gets to call me on Fridays. It's a standing rule we have, so
Yorgason: At 4:00 o'clock.
Bird: Mr. Yorgason, have you got the camouflage fencing up yet?
Yorgason: The camouflage fencing is not installed, Mr. Bird. I will always be
remembered for the camouflage fencing. Or Christmas tree fencing or whatever else
might be --
De Weerd: That was hedge fencing.
Yorgason: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think I'll sit down now.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Council, do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 05-021, Settlement Bridge Subdivision No.2, and to
include applicant and staff comments.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, I have a motion to approve 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg,
will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea,
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: VAC 05-002 Request for a Vacation of existing power
lines, sewer, irrigation and storm water drainage easements for Boise
Vallev Commons by CSHQA - 2400 East Overland Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 is a Public Hearing on VAC 05-002. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments,
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 43 of 72
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request to vacate previously
recorded easements at 2400 East Overland Road. The site is currently being
developed as Boise Valley Commons or Destination Place and this is where the new
Majestic theater is going in on the west side of that property. The applicant is
requesting vacation of easements. They are outdated easements and there are four
specific ones as outlined in your staff report. One is for a power line, one for sewer, one
for storm water, and two for irrigation. Most of those will be relocated through the new
platting process. We have not received notarized consent from the individuals. Most of
them want to wait until they have the new easements in place before they will do that.
The Planning and Zoning Commission did consider this at their February 17th hearing.
They have recommended approval to the City Council. There were no -- no public
testimony was provided on the application and there is no Commission changes to the
staff recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Commission did add a --
recommended one additional condition of approval and that was per the signature of the
final plat for Boise Valley Commons slash Destination Place Subdivision, the applicant
shall submit evidence to the Meridian planning department that the requested vacations
have been approved by all required agencies and authorities and it lists Idaho Power,
Ada County Highway District, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or their assigns. And
with that staff will end our presentation and answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Is the applicant here. Please state your name and
address.
Schaffer: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is Gene Schaffer with CSHQA Architects,
Engineers. My address -- or office address is 250 South 5th Street in Boise, The
applicant really has no concerns about the conditions of approval and would stand for
questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. I'm glad to hear the slash, because I saw that Boise Valley
Commons again. I swear that was renamed, right? Okay. Council, do you have any
questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Gene. Okay. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 16, VAC 05-002.
Donnell: Second.
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 44 of 72
De Weerd: The motion is to close 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAC 05-002, Boise Valley Commons of existing power lines
and to include staff and applicant comments.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve 16. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PFP 05-001 Request for a Preliminary/Final Plat
approval of 5 building lots on 5,28 acres in a C-C zone for Bonito
Subdivision No.2 by Kimball Properties - SWC of South Eagle Road
and West Overland Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 17 is a Public Hearing on PFP 05-001. I will open the Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a combined preliminary/final
plat for Bonito Subdivision. My understanding is that you did not receive the
recommendation and the findings in your packet, but you should have received them
today. Of course, I apologize for staff not getting that done, There is not a good
excuse, But noticed that Mr. Guenther hurried up and got them done before this
hearing, so they are before you. If you'd like to proceed, I feel fairly comfortable this
was going from what was three lots in a previously platted subdivision to five lots in a
previously platted subdivision. Okay. With one nod up there, I will go ahead and
continue with the presentation, then. This is a request for five building lots on 5.28
acres. As I mentioned before, this was originally platted as three lots in the first
preliminary plat for Bonito or what is now called EI Dorado Subdivision and that was
preliminary plat 01-002. The Planning and Zoning Commission did hear this item. I
guess I can point out the lots. This is -- this is a portion of an existing lot and this is a
portion of an existing or -- lot or all of an existing lot and, then, these three are really in
this central area. There is two on either side of a flag lot that extend to the center. The
Planning Commission did hear this item on March 3rd, They have recommended
approval with conditions and at that Public Hearing Jonathan Seal spoke in favor of the
project. There was no one speaking in opposition or commenting and there was no key
Meridian City Councii
March 29, 2005
Page 45 of 72
items of discussion. The Commission did delete a site specific condition number six
regarding preliminary landscaping, because it was already completed under the Bonito
Subdivision final plan, the original, and to our knowledge there are no outstanding
issues for City Council and staff is -- will answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I don't, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Please state your name and address.
Seal: Yes. Good evening, Jonathan Seal with W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito,
Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Seal: Good evening. I'm in agreement with the staff report. I would just ask one
clarification and it has to do with item number five in the site-specific conditions. It says
here that a perpetual vehicular cross-access agreement shall be applied within the
subdivision, which is fine. What I'm questioning is that said cross-access shall be
depicted on the final plat and I just wanted to make sure -- my question is that I am
assuming that that would be of a note, because I don't think you can physically depict
cross-access easements on a plat, so I just want to make sure I think it's maybe the
term depict, so --
Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, he's right, that -- Mr. Priester will only allow
those if they are specifically designated in certain locations and they can't do that until
they have a tenant. So, it shouldn't be graphically depicted, but can be referenced to
either a note or through your CC&R'S.
Seal: Okay, That would be fine. Otherwise, you're in agreement and I will sit down,
unless you have any questions.
De Weerd: Counsel, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone
who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close Item No. 17, PFP 05-001,
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 46 of 72
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we find -- approve the findings on PFP 04-001, Bonito Subdivision No.2
and to include staff and applicant comments.
Wardle: Second.
DeWeerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 17. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18:
Continued Public Hearjng from February 15, 2005: CPA 04-003
Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change
approximately 48 acres from Industrial to Mixed-Use Regional for Ten
Mile Development. LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle
Road and East Pine Avenue:
De Weerd: Thank you. I will -- Council, I will just open Item 18 and wait until you have
a discussion and a vote on that, before I open the other hearings. Okay. I will open up
the continued Public Hearing from February 15th, 2005, on CPA 04-005. I will open this
with staff comments, Oh, yeah. Sorry.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for -- hey, look,
there is more. This is a request for a Camp Plan amendment and the area is generally
shown by the outline, but it's really just -- the Comprehensive Plan amendment affects
this portion that I'm outlining on the western end of this site. So, they have requested a
change from the industrial classification to a mixed-use category. Staffs concern is that
we felt as if the mixed-use category was providing the buffer from the industrial property
to some of the more retail oriented uses. Further north on Eagle Road. There was
office uses on the north side of Pine Street and, then, you had industrial across Eagle
Road. So, there were a number of varied uses going around here, but we felt as staff
that the mixed-use designation was providing that kind of transition from the industrial
area to some of the other areas. In particular, I have been concerned about the loss of
our pre-zoned industrial area in the city. That is a valuable asset to the city. We have
lost quite a bit. Most of this area that I'm outlining along Eagle Road on both sides of it
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 47 of 72
is currently zoned I-L, but has been allowed to develop as retail and office uses, with
only a few industrial uses existing further west along Fairview Avenue. So, we have
already lost a fair amount of our industrial resource. There was quite a bit of discussion
at both the Planning and Zoning Commissions on that issue. We discussed other areas
that may be appropriate for industrial properties and the issue was raised that the
asking price for this property was too high to consider a retail use there, but staff would
like you to remember that that asking price is based on a commercial zoning
designation. So, they are asking for commercial property prices and that's why you can
only afford to do commercial property development. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of this Camp Plan amendment to you. They
heard the item twice. That was on December 16th and January 20th. Dave McKinnon,
representing the applicant, spoke in favor. Mike Ford representing the Yanke family
also spoke in favor of the applicant. Mr. Mark Jensen, representing RC, Willey, across
the -- kitty-corner across the railroad tracks. They commented with concerns regarding
the Eagle Road traffic. That was at the December 16th hearing. At the January 20th,
again, Mr. McKinnon and Mr. Ford spoke in favor and the -- I think I have outlined most
of the key issues of discussion at that time. There have been subsequent discussions
between staff and Mr. McKinnon and the property developers and at the last one, my
understanding is that they have come forward with some ideas for that -- this industrial
-- for this area that they are asking for the Comp Amendment on, that may be applicable
tonight, so I think I will just leave my presentation at this point and let them present that.
I think they were willing to consider a broader range of uses and I guess my question
would be if -- to the applicant if they have opened that up, Is the Comprehensive Plan
amendment still necessary? I do have with me tonight a list of all the uses that are
allowed or conditionally allowed in the I-L and it is a wide range of uses. It's not just
heavy manufacturing, it's a lot of light manufacturing, some -- some more intensive
uses, like lumbar yards and things like that. Land intensive uses. But there are a
number of allowed uses and I can put those on the overhead projector for the Council, if
you'd like, if the discussion seems to be going that way. So, at this point the applicant
was going to come back with a new plan, so I'm not sure what that plan is.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. What are the uses in the designated -- they are trying to
change it to the mixed use.
Canning: They had requested CoG zoning.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay. So, not a mixed use.
Canning: Well, again, I think that's part of what they may have decided to change the --
and they were kind of going out of the Comp Plan amendment application and into the
others and this is a tricky issue, but the original application was all retail uses proposed
and, then, it was modified. The second one had a little wider range of mix of uses in the
mixed use area. We were still seeing retail in the industrial area, but the Comp Plan
amendment, again, is only for this. They are requesting that this industrial area be
amended to be mixed use. And, then, the question as to whether it's really mixed goes
to the next application as well.
Meridian City Coundi
March 29. 2005
Page 48 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. But are some industrial uses allowed in the mixed-use regional
designation?
Canning: Yes. If you will give me a moment, I can pull out the Comprehensive Plan, if
you'd give me just a moment.
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead, Anna, while you do that, and ask the applicant to
come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dave McKinnon, 735
South Crosstimber in Meridian, Idaho, representing Ten Mile Development, LLC,
tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKinnon: Now that I have got that out of the way -- first and foremost, we met a
number of times with the Planning and Zoning Commission and I think we met three
times, actually, and there was a fourth hearing that we actually postponed, so we have
been going through this process for a little bit of time. We appreciate your staff and we
appreciate all the work that your Planning and Zoning Commission put into it,
volunteered their time for it. We are really happy with the outcome of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. It was a four-one vote for recommendation for the Comprehensive
Plan amendment. So, let's jump right into it. The reasons why Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of this has to do with five different issues that were
listed in their conditions -- or their Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. The first
one was that existing and future uses of the city are not supported with the I-L zone or
the industrial zone. These are found on page three of their recommendation. The
reason for that is we have the Blue Cross building, which is a big office building. Behind
that we have the property owned by the Yanke family, it was part of Gem Tone Five,
that's why Mike Ford was in the testimony. He's here again tonight. This property,
when it was subdivided, was subdivided and approved for office uses and he doesn't
want to see industrial across the street from his nice office uses. At the same time, Blue
Cross, Blue Shield doesn't want to see a lot more of industrial to happen right here
either. Anna pointed out we have got a lot of area zoned industrial that's not being used
for industrial. There are some industrial uses up there, but also some heavy retail uses.
Everyone's favorite, Krispy Kreme, Starbucks, Kinkos, that type of use, Fed Ex, are all
up here as well in the industrial zone. Across the street in the industrial zone you have
ShopKo and you have -- not Wal-Mart, but the other -- Bed, Bath and Beyond, those are
all in the I-L zone today. So, the I-L zone does not allow for retail, although that's where
all that retail is at. Anna pointed out that I-L is pretty flexible. I agree I-L is pretty
flexible, there is a lot of flexibility in all the different zoning designations, but the CoG
zone is a lot more flexible and the CoG zone will allow for light industrial uses, Case in
point would be Silverstone and EI Dorado, both of those projects are zoned CoG and C-
C. That's where we see all these types of uses going in right now. Michael's of Oregon
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 49 of 72
is an industrial use. It's in a CoG zone. It can be allowed through a Conditional Use
Permit. The other uses are in the area. Obviously, this is the old Elixir site, Club
Wholesale used to be here a long time ago back to the two-lane road when Eagle was
here. Nothing is constructed on this site, the McCall property. McCall Oil. This old rail
spur that was never constructed ended up being one of the little spite strip piece of
property and that's something that we will probably be incorporating into this in the
future. It doesn't have a whole lot of use as it is right now, Dennis Baker's project, it's
now in, can't make a whole lot of comment on it, but he's not asking for I-L zone there
either, so up on the whole north side and on the west side and to the east side it's not
industrial, so that's the reason why they said they didn't think industrial made sense
here. The second item was that the majority of the property is designated as mixed
use. This is all one big piece of property. There is 44 acres -- 40 acres, give or take a
few hundred -- a few thousand square feet, that's in the mixed use zone and, then, all of
a sudden, without a property break, you have industrial and so they split zoned this
property on the Camp Plan, they felt it would be better for it to be all one, so you could
develop it all together, rather than having to develop part of the land as industrial and
part of it as mixed use. The third thing they said is that the other locations in west
Meridian may be more compatible with the I-L designation. Commissioner Zaremba or
Chairman Zaremba asked us at the first Public Hearing about this, he said where else
would we put industrial land in Meridian. And so - Anna, do you have the Comp Plan
on your -- I need a little bit bigger, I guess we got the map. Ten Mile interchange area -
- I can go grab the Comp Plan. But in the Ten Mile interchange area there is a piece of
property that has industrial on one side and commercial on the other and, then, right
behind the commercial and the residential -- and commercial and industrial land, the city
Comprehensive Plan says we should put mixed -- we should put medium density
re¡¡idential behind the commercial and behind industrial right next to 1-84 and we felt that
that was more appropriate to be zoned I-L in the future and that that may be a place
where industrial uses could go. It was more appropriate, because it was closer to the
interchange. You don't have to deal with the traffic on Eagle Road right there. They just
asked where another place could be and we suggested it. At that time I wanted to claim
that that was my idea, but I talked to somebody else who knows a whole lot more about
industrial than I do and he said this is the place to do it. This makes more sense. The
is not as valuable. Anna just mentioned that the land is only that price because the
zoning. That's not exactly the case. There. Okay. We have got industrial on the north
side of Franklin and on the -- thank you. Over here we have got commercial and we got
industrial on this side and, then, right in between it we put mixed -- we put medium
density and we said that's probably a better place for the industrial right across from
industrial, rather than saying let's put industrial right across from medium density
housing. So, in the future there is another opportunity there. Like I said, I talked to an
industrial user and an industrial developer and he said that's the place. Anna said this
land is only valuable because of the zoning designation. That's not quite the way it
works. This land is very valuable because everything else is developed around it.
There is a lot of vehicle trips that go by here every day. It's worth a lot of money. Just
in the last couple weeks we had a multi-national company and a publicly traded
company in different countries, a Fortune 500 company, came inhere and said let's look
at this area here for industrial, we'd like to do some manufacturing and retail. They
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 50 0172
found out what the value of the land is, based on appraisals, across-the-fence-type
values, they said we can't afford it. It's not -- it's not our type of project. In addition to
that, they said we have got some concerns with being able to get our trucks out onto
Eagle Road and so there was some concerns there. The fourth reason for making their
recommendation was that the cost of Pine and we will get to that. A new light. I will get
to that, too. And improvements and the property value of this land makes non-industrial
uses more appropriate. When we first had our meeting with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, they said we don't know what's going on with ACHD and when we first
met with ACHD, ACHD said Pine is to be a 70 foot wide road and, then, we said, wait a
second, we have got Dennis Baker's project coming in, we have got this project coming
in, Pine on the other side of the road is going to be five lanes,. it's already five lanes,
you're going to need a five lane road on Pine. And so going through the design, ACHD
finally, when they made their decision, said we need Pine to be a five lane road, but we
are not going to pay for it. And so in order to make Pine a five-lane road and meet the
conditions of approval, we are having to donate that land and improve that land.
Additionally, the traffic studies said that we needed to put in a traffic light at Hickory and
so we are having to put up 105,000 dollars for the traffic light at Hickory. If we have to
donate a million dollars worth of land, plus improvements, plus a traffic light, there is no
way to recoup that cost of the land, plus be able to find someone to go in there on a
piece of property that's worth a lot of money. This property is worth what it is, we are
not making a great deal more land. The fifth and final reason was the five lane Pine
road. They said in the future Pine is going to be extended through Dennis Baker's
project, Nola, eventually to Locust Grove, it's going to be five lanes. This is going to
become a major east-west corridor in Meridian and is probably more appropriate for it to
have a commercial type of use, rather than industrial use. This will take traffic off of
Eagle Road, get people to Locust Grove. Locust Grove overpass, as you all are aware,
they have got it scheduled for 2007 and we are sure hoping that happens. I live in
Woodbridge, we have got my neighborhood torn up right now in order to get in and out,
because they are doing the improvements, as Shaun knows. And they are doing -- so,
they are tearing it up and they are making it happen and so this is going to be a major
project for the developer, plus for the city, because we need to have that other east-
west connector to get to that north-south and this is it. Franklin was just widened.
Fairview is busy. This will give us another outlet for that. Pine doesn't get widened
unless -- all the way through unless this project happens, That's how it's going to
happen. So, a lot of the reasons why it doesn't make sense anymore. I talked to a
number of real estate agents and I have talked to a lot of commercial brokers, all of
them -- like I said, I'm not an expert at it, but they are and they said that just doesn't
make sense industrial anymore. The value of that land is too much, especially when
you put a five-lane road on one side and Eagle Road on the other -- the other side of it.
The City of Meridian is going to grow. Eagle is a busy road. But this is an area that
goes more towards the commercial side than industrial anymore. It's just worth too
much money for the industrial. Anna said a couple other things and, then, I'll go ahead
and sit down, like Jon said he would, I'll do the same thing. Anna said she's concerned
with the loss of the I-L. I'm giving you another place where you can put the I-L and I
have pointed out there is I-L uses are going into the CoG zone anyways and Anna can
show those I-L uses and the CoG uses and they all work together and I think it gives
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 51 of 72
more flexibility as to what you can do with this piece of property. When we get into the
next two hearings we can talk about the mix of uses that can go back there. It doesn't
have to be all retail. We will be able to put in a mix. Whatever use forces that to
happen will go in there, If Citi Bank said they wanted to go in there and could afford it,
we would make it happen. Anna talked about the wide range of uses. I already
addressed that. And, then, she talked about the mixed-use zone and, Tammy, you kind
of hit on that. Is there a mixed-use zone. The Comprehensive Plan doesn't say you
have to pick certain zones. Here is mixed use. Here is the different zones you can pick
within that. It can be I-L. It can be CoG. It can be CoN, C-C -- it can't be Old Town
unless it's in Old Town, but there is a variety of different options available. So, we are
basically looking at should this remain as I-L, which is not as flexible as CoG. The I-L
zone would preclude any multi-family, it would preclude office, it would preclude retail.
You couldn't do that if it was zoned I-L and so we think that it's appropriate for this to be
changed to the mixed use regional. And I would ask if you have any questions at this
time.
De Weerd: I'm glad you took a breath.
McKinnon: Thanks.
DeWeerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Donnell: No.
Bird: Boy, I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide
testimony on Item 18? If you will, please, state your name and address.
Ford: Mike Ford. Post Office Box 5405, Boise. 83705. Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council, I do represent the Yanke family. We own the property right here, Gem Tone
Three -- two, three, and five. This piece here has actually been subdivided now. It
doesn't show on that map. In favor of the applicant's request. To me it's simply a thing
of the use of this property is market driven. In the 1970s, if the people are old enough
to remember Park Center and river run was a gravel pit and some industrial buildings.
The market demanded a different use, About that same time Union Pacific was making
a lot of money in those days in their real estate division up when development came out
here, bought this ag ground, it was ag at that time, bought this ag ground and planned
on industrial uses and at that time it made a lot of sense for what they were doing. Up
when Tom Wright and his group went out, bought the property, Tom was -- marked the
-- we hit the '80s and we hit a down time in our economy and stuff. Tom sold some of
this off to industrial uses at that time, although Tom had the foresight even then to see a
higher and better use for this and that's why he came over here and tied this up also.
But with the Eagle Road improvements and this sort of this, it's just -- like I say, it's
market driven is what has changed this. I personally don't want to see industrial and I
know there is industrial industrial. I developed Lane Industrial Park there. I developed
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 52 of 72
rail site industrial park there. Love all those people that bought lots from us, but I don't
want to see those metal buildings sitting here. The CoG zone would give the owner
flexibility that if a Michael's of Oregon type of business came, it would be an esthetically
pleasing building, but it would still be an industrial use inside, they would have the
flexibility of doing that in a CoG zone. If you try and shove I-L down their throat, we are
going to end up with some of these kind of buildings in there and I don't believe that
that's best for the neighborhood at all. Some of these industrial uses that are up there
right now -- we own this property where Diamond Lines trucking is. He's telling me,
Mike, as soon as you want me out of here, find me some place else, I'd like to get out of
here. Yellow Freight I believe is in the same position. It's very difficult for them with
their trunks and everything getting out onto Eagle Road today. It's only a matter of time
before you will see this turn into a higher use than the industrial that it's being used for
today, That's alii had. I would be glad to answer any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Ford: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Okay.
Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or for staff?
Bird: I don't.
De Weerd: Any final comment? Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 18, CPA --
Donnell: Second.
Bird: -- 04-003.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes, Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 53 of 72
Bird: I don't hear everybody jumping around. I don't want to sit here all night, so I'll
make a motion that we approve CPA 04-003, Ten Mile Development, LLC, with staff
and applicant and public testimony included.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 18. If there is no further discussion --
you know, I did think it was very generous of you to offer to change someone else's
property to industrial. That was pretty inventive.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for clarity's sake, because this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, we will
have to bring it back as a resolution and do that, so we anticipate having that -- well,
certainly we have to do it that way, no matter how you make a motion.
Bird: I know that.
Nary: That would be fine.
Bird: That's why I didn't put it in,
Nary: Yeah.
De Weerd: That is what the motion was, wasn't it?
Bird: Yeah. Bring the resolution back.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I will go ahead and open the Public Hearings on RZ 04-
017 and CUP 04-051. I will open these two with staff comments, And, Anna, do you --
would you like the applicant to give the overview first?
Canning: Madam Mayor, from what I can tell, there is not any real change, so I'll
muddle through.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Coundi
March 29, 2005
Page 54 of 72
Canning: And I think that came through on the last testimony, too, is that they are really
not proposing anything different after that meeting than they were before, so I think we
are okay, Just a moment, though. I got to find my staff report.
De Weerd: Actually, why don't I call a five-minute break.
Canning: Thank you.
(Recess.)
Item 19:
Public Hearing: RZ 04.017 Request for a Rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L
& L-O to CoG zone for Ten Mile Development. LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc.
- SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue:
Item 20:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Conceptual Planned Development for commercial I retail uses for
approximately 615,430 square feet of building areas in a proposed CoG
zone for Ten Mile Development. LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of
North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue:
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the meeting back to order again. And, again,
we are -- we have a Public Hearing, it is open on Items 19 and 20. We will start with the
applicant to first describe the project.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Dave McKinnon again. 735
South Crosstimber. Just a quick staff report and I'll let Anna jump in and I can
proselytize, as she calls it. Overview of the project. Initially we looked at this project
and said this makes a great location for some retail. We came in with an application for
650,000 square feet of retail. We have been through a number of different iterations at
first. We went through an A, B, and C after that and met with the staff and said let's find
something that works conceptually, There is a few things we decided conceptually that
we needed to have in the project. Three accesses to Pine, north-south accesses that
run through the project. And just so you know, Machine Avenue is right here and this
will be part of Dennis Baker's project, so it will come up here. Mike Ford from the Yanke
family owns this piece right here and there is some discussion about purchasing that
and incorporating this with this project. One of the other conditions that we knew had to
be in the conceptual site plan was the number of accesses out onto Eagle Road. This
site plan that you see in front of you right now has three accesses. After working with
ITD and receiving a letter back from ITD, ITD has limited us to two access points, Pine
and Commercial Avenue. Commercial Avenue lines up with Commercial across the
street. In addition to that, there is a 50-foot wide easement for the Ned McCall oil
property, runs right through here, and that was the subject of a lot of discussion. Having
talked with Ned myself, he wanted to keep this clear and open. This one access is a
right-in, right-out only per lTD. I gave a letter to Anna today from ITD that said you have
two options, one Pine and, then, we will pay for these other access points, or you can
have the Commercial one, as long as it's right-in, right-out. As you all know, ITD plans
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 55 of 72
on putting in barriers or a median in Eagle, so they won't be able to make left-hand turns
anyways. That's the location. The other things that were incorporated were a traffic
light at Hickory and Pine. We knew that had to be incorporated as well. There was also
discussion about mixing the uses at the last Public Hearing, the multiple public
hearings. We decided at that time that a hotel would add a variety that's seen on the
original plan, so we added a hotel. In addition to the hotel there is a number of
restaurants. And we have added a pond for drainage back here, some additional
amenities. There is a pathway system that goes throughout the project. There is a five-
foot landscape buffer adjacent to the rail line. We have put in some pedestrian areas in
order to get to the rail line for future transit. And those are all things that we wanted to
incorporate. In addition to that was just the number of boxes, as Mike Ford eloquently
put it, market's driving this. Right now we don't know exactly how many units we are
going to have in here, how many buildings, that's something the market drives. A good
example tonight was coming for EI Dorado and having to change those lots around,
because the market's driving that. Somebody said they wanted more land and so they
had to combine it. We are not exactly sure yet. This is a conceptual plan. Keep in
mind that this will be coming back to you for a detailed Conditional User Permit on every
building that comes in. So, the major points were what we have to deal with with ACHD
for these three access points, ITD granting us two access points, Pine and Commercial,
landscaping, the pathways, the amenities, the drainage pond, and having some sort of
boulevard type of effect through there. Those were all the major things, plus keeping
Commercial's 50-foot wide easement throughout. Those are the major points of the
conceptual CUP. Again, it's conceptual. The market will dictate. You will see this
again. Every project that comes back in here on this site, every use, you're going to see
again as a detailed Conditional Use Permit. So, what we are asking for tonight is just
approval of a project with those basic design features, landscaping, obviously,
Everything in accordance with the City of Meridian requirements. That's the staff report.
Anna may have something more before I proselytize, so -- I'm done. Unless you have
any questions that I can explain for you at this time.
De Weerd: We will save them.
McKinnon: Thank you,
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to thank Mr. McKinnon --
although I don't think I would have added the market material as a staff report, but you
take what you get, I suppose,
De Weerd: Be careful what you ask for.
Canning: Yeah. I did want to comment on one other thing that I know that they talked
about was on this Main Street, there was also quite a bit of staffs discussion,
particularly Mr. Hawkins-Clark was concerned that to really create that atmosphere,
these buildings would need to be two story along there and that was all tied to this
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 56 of 72
transit station and, then, the question, I believe, that came up at just their meeting last
week was, you know, what does - what's entailed by having a transit station there, what
kind of uses need to occur here, is it -- is it a land that needs to be dedicated to the city,
is it just some space that needs to be made available in the building? So, it was left I
think fairly open ended as to what it means to have a transit station. We do want to --
as the Comprehensive Plan and as planners for the city, we are not here just to react to
the market, we are here to plan for our community and one of those things we have
planned for is this transit station in this general vicinity. So, this would be the
appropriate location, Now, we haven't necessarily figured out exactly what that means
at this point. Does that mean we want to preclude it from -- at this time or allow
something to go forward that won't accommodate that transit station? I think the answer
is no, because it is on the Comprehensive Plan. So, I think we do need to discuss that
more. I'm not sure that the applicant has more information on that that maybe he can
provide during his presentation. The other issue that I wanted to talk about -- there was
this -- I don't know if you pointed out -- this is the hotel location. It does seem rather
minimally landscaped at this point and I think Mr. Hawkins-Clark added some conditions
in there about kind of greening up the general area around the hotel. Did I say
restaurant? I meant hotel. Just too many bars, liquor licenses with restaurants. I'm
sorry. This is --
De Weerd: No. Those are closets.
Canning: - the hotel.
Donnell: Anna, point to that again.
Bird: The liquor licenses come later.
Donnell: Oh, right there? That's a hotel? Conceptually?
Canning: That's the hotel. Conceptually. And, yes, this is a conceptual plan and we
know that things do change and one of the really emphasis that we had on the zoning
ordinance rewrite was to move away from planned developments and conceptual plans
and allow a little more flexibility in meeting these concept plans as the platting gets
done, particularly on commercial and industrial properties. So, I think that the new
ordinance will facilitate the implementation of concept plans more, but I think the city
needs to be clear on what they do and don't want as part of the concept and whether
the key components of this project that you want to see are carried forward and I think
we will find that on Pinebridge, too, when that gets to you, that that's what the important
discussion is. Is this kind of boulevard, Main Street area, important to you? Is the
transit station important to you? Is the smaller mass of buildings versus a large mass of
buildings important to you? Are the access points important to you on Pine or can there
be reduced ones? We tried a concept plan at Ustick and Eagle that was very
unspecific, very very conceptual, and I think when the apartment complex came through
for Sadie Creek we discovered that maybe that wasn't enough detail, so -- the applicant
has emphasized that this is conceptual and they want to let the market dictate, but we
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 57 of 72
do need to know when those concept plans come in what are we looking for. You
know, are we looking for exactly this size and shape building? Of course not. But, you
know, what are we looking for? So, I think that those are some of the questions that are
before the City Council tonight.
De Weerd: Like a hotel with a convention center in it or something?
Canning: There you go. The Planning and Zoning Commission did hear this on
January 20th and February 17th. There were other dates that were tabled within there,
but those were the primary hearing dates. To summarize those public hearings, Mr.
McKinnon spoke in favor of the application on the 20th. He also spoke in favor of the
application on the 17th. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Nary commented on the 20th
regarding the application process issue, that was primarily concerned with the Comp
Plan, a plan amendment, and, then, Mr. Hawkins-Clark presented for staff. The key
issues of discussion at the February 17th hearing were the amount of non-residential
building area and the motion ended up as a hotel, plus at least 50,000 square feet of
office or non-retail use. They also discussed IT D's requirements. They discussed
Hickory Drive connections and intersections with Fairview Avenue and Pine Avenue.
And they discussed the amount of mixed use and commercial land already designated
and/or built along the Eagle Road corridor and, then, the appropriateness of the light
industrial uses at this location. Concern was also voiced about the timing of the project
being premature. There was one dissenting vote on the Planning Commission on all
the votes. The key Commission changes to staffs initial recommendation were that --
well, we had recommended denial, so that was kind of a big change. And, then, they
amended the rezone condition number three requiring the developer to incorporate a
minimum of 50,000 square feet of professional office or non-retail uses, in addition to
the hotel use. And the Commission deleted rezone condition number three regarding
bullet point five regarding the relinquishment of the McCall property easement and that's
because the revised -- the McCall property is this one here in the southwest corner of
the property and they have a 50 foot easement going out to Eagle Road, so the new site
plan accommodated that easement. As you can see on the original site plan it did not,
so -- so they removed that condition, because it was no longer necessary. The
Commission amended the conditional use condition number 2-C, allowing a phasing
plan to be submitted with the first detailed Conditional Use Permit application, rather
than on the conceptual plan, as staff originally recommended. The outstanding issues
before City Council, the first was the Comprehensive Plan amendment. That's already
been approved or awaiting resolution. And, then, the second one was the mix of uses.
As I mentioned, two of the project developers, Mr. Stafford and Mr. Honeymiller and Mr.
McKinnon did meet with Bill Nary, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Shell Brown to review some
of staffs original concerns about the Comprehensive Plan amendment application,
removal of the I-L zoned land from the city inventory. The discussion did center on the
mix of uses, especially in light of the pending Pinebridge Subdivision application. That's
Mr. Baker's application, The developers stated they did not intend to construct all
615,430 square feet of retail as the application originally proposed. They emphasized
the development would be market driven and that non-retail uses would be targeted to
the west end of the site, with retail remaining on the eastern end. No specific uses or
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 58 of 72
floor areas were committed to at the meeting, other than they understand the
Commission's motion to incorporate at least 50,000 square feet of non-retail uses. Staff
is recommending of rezone condition number three be amended to further clarify the
maximum amount of retail use floor area permitted on the property, in light of the
developer's commitments made at the March 23rd meeting with staff. And, then, staff
would anticipate that a revised conceptual plan may be needed to follow that -- these
are pretty much all set up as retail buildings, so there may be some new site plan that
would be warranted because of that. Okay. Moving on to the Pine Avenue extension.
During the February 17th hearing Planning and Zoning Commission presentation staff
recommended that the DA condition be added, which restricts site construction to
300,000 square feet of building area until Pine Avenue is connected. This issue was
raised -- so, basically, what they were saying is you can kind of develop half the
property before Pine is connected, but, then, the other half should wait for that
connection to be made. And this is largely based on the traffic impact report prepared
for the applicants, It shows that about half of the traffic once -- or not half, a little less
than half the traffic, once that's corrected, will go out -- will go west on Pine, instead of
getting onto Eagle. The item was brought forward to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, however, it was not addressed at all in their discussion or in their motion.
So, it still remains kind of an unresolved issue. The transit station, I think I brought
those forward to you already, those concerns, We just need more discussion and
clarification on the public record prior to the hearings being closed as to what that transit
station means. And, then, I guess the one last remaining issue is the project name.
Ten Mile Development will not be the ultimate marketing name. And why that warrants
an inclusion in the summary I'm not sure, but it got in there, so --
De Weerd: Kind of like the Boise Valley.
Canning: Yeah. And with that I'll end staffs presentation and let Mr. McKinnon
proselytize.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKinnon: Is there questions for staff? Dave McKinnon again. You have got my
address. Okay. Again, we are happy with the conditions of approval from the Planning
and Zoning Commission. We met with them a number of times and we are happy with
them. Anna went over those changes. The most significant change was the adding of
the 50,000 square feet of non-retail and in addition to the hotel use. So, we said we can
agree to do something more than that, the 650,000, then, we have got a hotel, plus, you
know, 50,000 of that has to be non-retail. We are more than happy to abide by that.
There is, actually, a little bit more to that story, if you go through the conditions of
approval for the rezone. In the rezone it's 2-C -- or 2-A, if anyone is keeping track. It
says that after you had 300,00 square feet of retail, you have to start putting in some
non-retail uses. And so we are limited to 300,000 square feet ofretail, then, we have to
start putting in some non-retail. There is a little bit more to it than just being tied to
300,000 square feet, plus the non -- non-retail. And that becomes important later as we
get down into the mix of uses. Clarification. Anna went through the outstanding issues.
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 59 of 72
You guys all have them. She just basically read through thern. I don't want to rehash
everything and just tell you where we stand on it. The clarification of the application
process, I talked with Bill Nary, he said you have to have your resolution first and, then,
you can move forward with your Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. We have
no problem with that. The second issue is the mix of uses. I just talked about that a
little bit. We don't have a problem with the mix of uses and in the future the market's
going to drive this -- Anna, if you could go to the hashed drawing? Okay. The hashed
area, we are not really sure exactly what's going to happen back here. At the P&Z
hearing Chairman Zaremba and one of the other Commissioners said I don't know what
you're going to put back here right now for retail, guys, you know, it's not a through
street yet, I don't know who is going to go in there. We don't know what's going to
happen back there. We are fairly certain that this area is going to be a hotel and mostly
retail, with those examples that I pointed out that we have to keep, you know, the north-
south, three accesses, the traffic light, the 90 foot right of way, the two accesses off of
Eagle, the boulevard type effect. We know in this area that's what's going to happen.
But back in this area this is kind of ambiguous right now. We know we need some
drainage back here, but what type of building, what type of use goes back in there, it's
going to play out. Dennis Baker's project is big. He may have a very big user that could
spur a totally different type of development that happens right there. So, those are two
things that we need to figure out back there and you're going to see it again. It's a
conceptual plan. You guys are going to see it. Approving it now just means you agree
with the concept and the basic ideas that we are presenting to you. Moving onto the
Pine Street -- the Pine Avenue extension. Anna talked about that a little bit. We were
floored at the last meeting. We got through the staff report, this was our third meeting
on. the project, and Brad goes we got another condition we didn't talk to the applicant
about it, but we would like to limit you to 300,000 square feet before Pine gets built all
the way through Dennis Baker's project and that's all the forewarning we had on it and I
came up and I stumbled, I was kind of -- I was taken aback, because I hadn't thought of
that and it wasn't anything that we had talked about and I was stumbling through it and
Dave Zaremba said, you know, it's not such a big deal to have Pine dead end right now.
Baker's project is coming, we know that's happening, plus you're going to have an
access out to Fairview and Hickory and Hickory already does extend all the way to
Fairview, so it's not a dead end with Pine. Pine, actually, has the access. It was
discussed, because I fumbled through it right at the beginning and I just didn't know
what to say, because I was kind of surprised, I'm not a real organized person, but when
I get something in my mind, I kind of go at it and I just completely was floored by that.
So, we did discuss it and they -- by omitting it in their motion that was how they took
care of that. They decided they did not want to include that and I, actually, had one of
the Commissioners say you notice we didn't include that. So, it was something that was
omitted, because they didn't think it was something that was required. In addition to
that, one of the other concerns is if Dennis Baker doesn't complete that portion and they
are competing for the same user in that area and Dennis Baker you can't have any
additional area here until I build this and so you don't have a choice, you can't build
here, So, it's just something that we were kind of surprised by. We got through with the
P&Z Commission, they didn't feel that was something necessary. We will build it to our
end and, hopefully, Dennis Baker is going to come through with a big user and we are
Meridian City Councii
March 29, 2005
Page 60 of 72
going to get this thing built right away. We can't guarantee when that's going to happen
and so it's hard to limit this development to that.
De Weerd: Okay. Dave - I'm sorry to interrupt you, but what do you mean you will
complete it to your end?
McKinnon: To here.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKinnon: Anna, if you can show the overall -- Dennis Baker takes it from that point on
out to Nola and Locust Grove. One more back, There we are.
De Weerd: Okay, So, you're not saying that you won't put it to the end of your property
on the west?
McKinnon: It will be built to the end of the west of our property, but Brad's suggestion
was until this is all built, you can only build half of your project and we were just kind of
surprised by that. And that's -- there was action taken, it was action by omission. They
said that's not a condition we want to place on this, so they didn't include it in their
motion, The transit station. If we can go back to that, Anna. The transit station is kind
of a funny story. The first time we came in we said we are going to do this transit
station here and that's going to be one of our amenities and we are pretty happy with it
and the first staff report we got back from the staff said, of course, we want to deny this,
please, don't allow the transit station to be included as one of your amenities, because
the city doesn't support a transit station there, because we don't have 105 million dollars
to build the rail line there and we don't have it planned. That's what the first staff report
said. Shouldn't count it as an amenity, because we don't know if it's ever going to
happen. And we said, well, it's on the Comprehensive Plan, you know, we are just
trying to meet what you guys want. And they said, well, it's fine and good, but it
shouldn't count as an amenity, because we don't know if it's ever going to happen. And
now it's become let's make it happen and cause it to happen. Obviously, it's not in the
work program right now for Valley Ride or for Compass. We don't know when it's going
to happen. I'm more than happy -- and one of the conditions of approval on the rezone
is that we put aside this area here, an easement, so the people can get to it. We are
more than happy to work with that. As far as funding mechanisms, as mentioned in the
staff report, the staff notes here, we don't know when that's going to happen or what's
doing to happen. So, we are happy to work with them and put aside some areas for the
pedestrian access over to it. The Union Pacific rail line carries the larger area, they
have a large easement there, that's mostly where the transit area will be. We will build
a park there. There is plenty of parking. Actually, the first time I counted was over
2,600 spaces and I didn't have it electronically, so I started counting and, then, that's
fine, so I went through it. There is a lot of spaces for parking. It's not all going to be
used all the time for the uses that are there. Boise Valley Commons is available I know.
I just saw the Boise Valley Railway Company. I never noticed that before, We will pick
another name. It's not going to be marketed as that, but I don't know exactly why that's
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 61 of 72
there. We are happy with the conditions of approval that P&Z put on this. We are
happy to come back here in the future, show you what we finally end up with. It's a
work in progress. That hatched-in area on the back, we are not exactly sure what's
going to happen back there and that's just the way Commercial business is. You can't
know, you can't guarantee it, but you do need to have the rezone in place, so we have
the flexibility. If multi-family wants to move in there right now, with the rezone it's
something we will come back to you with a Conditional Use Permit. If it was Michael's
of Oregon or somebody like that, we would be back in front of you. So, you have the
opportunity to see it, if that something that makes sense back there in the future. Ask if
you have any questions at this time and ask for your support.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Dave, talk about -- the staff raised concerns about curb cuts onto Pine. And is
there only one connection that doesn't make the connection to the --
McKinnon: Just one connection right here.
Wardle: Okay.
McKinnon: And these were all agreed to. We have been to the ACHD meeting, that
wa¡¡ kind of like the last time I was in front of you, we got up and said we will have to
build a staff report, we have to agree with it, do you have any questions. That was it.
We just agreed with their conditions of approval. I wish I could have done that tonight.
Dang it. But, you know, if there is an agreed upon locations. The staff actually, they
had a lot of conversations with Brad and Brad was really happy to bring these as north-
south to be able to get through the whole site coming off of Pine. So, those locations
were agreed upon. We did some battle with the P&Z Commission with ITD, mostly it
was with ITD's access -- accesses onto Eagle and we got limited to just the two
accesses. That's it.
De Weerd: Good,
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: One more question about the hotel and the landscape on the hotel. Is that
something single use has to come back to -- so, you guys our including the motel
addressed at the time that that particular use comes back in for a Conditional Use
Permit.
Meridian City Councii
March 29, 2005
Page 62 of 72
McKinnon: Yes. Every single use has to come back to you, including the hotel, so you
guys will have another opportunity with that.
De Weerd: The hotel convention center?
McKinnon: The convention center. Excuse me.
Canning: Now you can get a liquor license for those,
De Weerd: I think I know a closet where you can find one.
Bird: They have got four or five.
De Weerd: You have two years. I guess my question is are you building that to the ITD
standards? Was that part of the terms of the condition?
Canning: I'm sorry, I missed the question.
De Weerd: I can't get on my -- my online files, but does that --
Canning: Staffs recommendation was for the right-in, right-out only on that as well and
to the --
De Weerd: Well, as far as the path and the setback, the lighting, all of that stuff. For
that Eagle Road --
Canning: Oh, for the Eagle Road corridor. I believe it was. I can double check.
McKinnon: Yes, it's in there.
De Weerd: Okay. Even though we have it, we have not designated the lighting
standards yet, so it should be part of this.
McKinnon: It is and I have gone through Brad's staff report and that's one of the things I
did notice was that the letter of support and he said in the letter of support there were a
number of items that he pointed out that's in the staff report.
De Weerd: Okay. Now, she had mentioned in here opening remarks about a phasing
plan?
McKinnon: The phasing plan?
De Weerd: I guess my particular interest is when will Pine be built? In the first phase;
right?
McKinnon: Yeah. That's -- yeah,
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 63 of 72
De Weerd: Good answer.
McKinnon: Yes. I received some coaching. The answer is yes.
De Weerd: Because I mean that's going to be critical. I think with the way Eagle Road
is right now - and I'm sure you all are going to call your representatives in the morning
to encourage the Garvee bonds, so we can relieve some of that congestion. I just can't
imagine pouring more traffic out onto it without another route. Because Fairview is just
as congested and people are at that -- at that area, so that will be critical. And that will
be a message for any future developers along that area.
McKinnon: I'm nodding in agreement.
De Weerd: So, I'm sorry, phasing plan.
McKinnon: Phasing plan. Initially staff wanted to see it with the concept plan. We don't
know which building is going to go first or even where and we said when we come in
with our first detailed Conditional Use Permit, you will have an idea of where we are
starting, And that's -- we said can we do our phasing plan, then, and staff and the P&Z
Commission agreed to that, so that's how it's worded right now in the staff report.
De Weerd: And what is your idea of non-retail?
McKinnon: Oh, man. Everything but retail.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay,
McKinnon: That's a -- some of those questions you -- I get -- boy, Non-retail has a lot
of different uses, Anna says she has got a list of the uses. There is -- we have been
working with the Process Improve Group, all the different types of uses that are non-
retail and they will go on for a couple of different pages. It may be easier to have Anna
put those up on the overhead, so you could see all those different types of uses, but
included with that would be office uses. It would be flex space uses, showroom uses,
hotel is zoned retail. Multi-family is not a retail. Michael's of Oregon, that different
product is non-retail. We have manufacturing and doing some -- processing on site,
packaging on site. All those types of uses are non-retail and the nature of -- boy, there
is a whole list. Single family. Multi-family.
De Weerd: Okay. I got it.
McKinnon: Education.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 64 of 72
Nary: All the elements, just to correct Mr. McKinnon, a hotel is a non-retail use, but the
recommendation was 50,000. Also, plus the hotel.
De Weerd: Plus a convention center. Okay. That's all I had. Council, do you have
anything further?
Bird: I have none.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I don't see specific reference to some of the sidewalk and
landscaping improvements for the Eagle Road access study. It does say that -- it does
say all access on Eagle Road shall be restricted to right-in, right-out operations only and
that medians be installed on Eagle Road to restrict the access points, including the
Commercial Court access. So, really, it only addresses the median issue currently.
And that's in the development agreement conditions, And, then, I would also like to
state that the original staff report was still in support of the transit center. What it said
was the rezone application and CUP makes several references to a future Union Pacific
Railroad transit center as an asset for this development. This is in general conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this location for a transit stop as well. If
the CUP-PD application and concept plan are approved, including the transit center,
there will likely be public funds involved in the construction of said transit center. So, all
it was pointing out is that there would be -- need to be some commitment of public
funds, not that they were opposed to the transit center. So, we have always supported
the transit center as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan, I just wanted to clarify that.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKinnon: Anna, Mayor, Members of the Council, the -- like I say, it was in the staff
report where Brad mentioned those items. It's on page four or five on Exhibit E under
your Conditional Use Permit approval. He mentioned that the single parcel where it's
done, secondary access, where ever, recommending landscape median, median
sidewalk, lighting and other features, with not a break in front of the subject parcel.
That's where it's found, in front of the Commission's approval, but, actually, under item J
on page four of five under Exhibit E. So, it's in your Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law, but not a condition of approval.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And this is either for Dave or Anna. Is that requiring the applicant to make the
median improvements? No? Okay.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 65 of 72
Canning: Well, the developer has called out from the audience and said no to you, but
I'm not sure that that's not the way that the staff report condition reads right now -- or
the development agreement condition reads. It currently reads is all access on Eagle
Road shall be restricted to right-in, right-out operations only and that medians be
installed in Eagle Road to restrict the access point, including the Commercial Court
access.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. ITD has been working on the Eagle
corridor for a number of years. This is something they have got planned to happen with
those medians, it wasn't something that ITD has placed as a requirement upon us as
part of their conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Did that answer your question? Clear as mud?
Wardle: Well, if it's not a requirement for the transport department for the developer to
construct it, then, I would assume it wouldn't be part of our development agreement with
them as well. Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you,
McKinnon: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: If -- the Council may want to qualify that as they would support the medians
being developed or something like that, because as staff we see conditions like that and
I would agree that it needs to be reworded, but that -- that you would support ITD
installing the median, not the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay. If everyone remembers, this is a Public Hearing on Item 19and 20.
Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 19 and 20.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, The motion is to close the Public Hearings on 19 and 20. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 66 of 72
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion before a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if it is the Council's desire to approve
these findings, I would simply ask that because we haven't approved a Comp Plan
amendment, that you set those Findings over for two weeks until we have the Comp
Plan amendment before you, so that you will have that resolution approved first prior to
the Findings,
De Weerd: Okay. That sounds good, Do you want to continue this? Do you need to
make any notations for the record on items you need clarification on or would like
included in the Findings?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Nary, but I heard that we could approve the
application and, then, the Findings would come forward in two weeks; was that correct?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. If you desire to approve
it, you can certainly do that, and simply direct that the Findings be returned in two
weeks for final approval. You can do that. Sort of the way we used to do it. Yeah.
De Weerd: Going backwards.
Nary: Yeah.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird,
Bird: Nobody's speaking, so I move we approve RZ 04-017, without the Findings, bring
them back in two weeks, and to incorporate all applicant, public, and staff comments.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items 19 and 20 --or, I'm sorry. Just Item
19. Okay, Mr. Nary, just to add the condition to build to ITD standards on this piece of
property. I'm not talking about any medians, but is that for the CUP or the RZ?
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 67 of 72
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that since you're only talking
about the building that would probably be on the CUP and not the rezone.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Unless you want it in the development agreement.
Canning: Thank you. Some of that may be off-site improvements.
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Canning: Are they?
De Weerd: No.
Canning: Are they all on site? Okay.
Nary: I think they are -- from my understanding, Madam Mayor, you're talking about
improvements of the property that's adjacent to their property, not the medians in the
middle of this road.
De Weerd: That's correct.
Nary: You're talking just their own property. Then, unless you wanted -- if you want
them in the development agreement, we can certainly include them in the development
agreement, therefore, it would be part of the rezone portion and that way it's clear with
the other improvements that they are supposed to make or the limitations on
development that's part of the record already, the 300,000, 50,000, and all of that --
Bird: I would agree with that.
Nary: Right. We would certainly make it part of that.
De Weerd: Does the second agree?
Donnell: The second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Yes, but, Mr. Nary, you said the 300,000 and -- is that the limitation to only
build --
Nary: No. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Wardle, the
recommendation was is that 300 -- at the point where 300,000 was developed, they
Meridian City Coundl
March 29, 2005
Page 68 of 72
have to develop the other mixed use, not that they couldn't go until Pine got developed,
but that the other 50,000 had to get started.
Wardle: Thank you.
Nary: Unless I misunderstood what the recommendation was. I thought that's what
P&Z recommended. Okay.
Bird: And I think that's what the applicant agreed to.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, did you need any clarification?
Canning: I -- yes. At this point I'm not sure what the motion is.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve.
Canning: But are they --
Nary: With the recommendations that have already been made.
Bird: With the recommendations that have been made by the applicant and by the staff
and public.
Canning: On the DA?
De Weerd: Just to add to the DA the on-site improvements of the 1-84 -- or the Eagle
corridor.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: The sidewalk, the lighting, the landscaping. Okay. Any further discussion,
clarification needed? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we approve CUP 04-051, Ten Mile Development, LLC, and
bring back the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in two weeks and incorporate
all staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve. Has the transit station been clarified?
Meridian City Council
March 29. 2005
Page 69 of 72
Canning: No.
De Weerd: Is that under the CUP or is that a development agreement thing?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I thought it was on the CUP, because it
was simply an on-site improvement.
De Weerd: Exactly.
Bird: An on-site improvement. That's what I thought.
De Weerd: Okay. And did that include that --
Bird: Yes, it sure did.
Donnell: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: Okay. The second agrees?
Donnell: Yes,
De Weerd: Okay. Okay, Any further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, I would like to revisit Item 16, The motion was to
approve the VAC 05-002. We did not approve the Findings, Was that your desire? If
so, I do need a motion.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: We move -- I'd like to make a motion that we go back to Item No. 16, VAC 05-
002, and approve the Findings as well.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Findings for Item 16. Mr. Berg, will you
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 70 of 72
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Now that I have voted, can I say something?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Was there Findings on that?
Berg: Yes, there was. They were attached to your packet.
Bird: They were there?
Item 21:
Ordinance No. 05-1135 AZ 04-011 REVISED Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres to R-8 .zone for Alexandria
Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road:
Item 22:
Ordinance No, 05-1136 RZ 05-001 Request for a Rezone of
.249 acres from R-8 to O-T zone for Robert Monson by Robert Monson -
829 North Meridian Road:
Item 23:
Ordinance No. 05-1137 RZ 04-018 Request a Rezone of .74
acres from L-O to C-C zone for Kinetico Qualitv Svstems of Treasure
Vallev by Irma Jean Phillips - 544 West Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, you brought that to my attention, so I wanted to clean that up,
Okay, Items 21, 22 and 23 are Ordinance Nos. 05-1135, 05-1136 and 05-1137. Mr.
Berg, will you, please, read these three ordinances by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 05-1135, an
Ordinance known as Alexandria Subdivision for property located on a portion of the
south one half of the northwest one quarter of Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1
East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and
annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and
contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of
Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands
from RUT Ada County to R-8, medium density in the Meridian City Code, providing that
copies of the ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County
recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a
summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing
an effect date.
Berg: Ordinance 05-1136, an Ordinance known as Robert Monson at 829 Meridian
Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this Ordinance and
rezoning certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning classification of
said lands from R-8, medium density, to OT, Old Town Meridian, in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of the ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
Meridian City Council
March 29, 2005
Page 72 of 73
De Weerd: Thank you. The last item on our agenda, Item 24, is an Executive Session.
Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a)(c)
and (t).
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Gall: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yeah; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: Council, I would accept a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Donnell: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Meridian City. Council
Marc;h 29, 2005
Page 73 of 73
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :25 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
1- /...1!LJ ~~
DATE APPROVED