HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 04-05
Meridian Citv Council Meetina
Acril 5. 2005.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, April 5, 2005, by Council President Shaun Wardle.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, Charlie
Rountree, and Christine Donnell.
Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Will Berg, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bill
Musser, Ron Anderson, Doug Strong, Catrina Thomas, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
--X- Shaun Wardle -LChristine Donnell
--X- Charlie Rountree ~Keith Bird
- Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Wardle: All right. I'd like to welcome everyone to the regular City Council meeting for
Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, and I will begin with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
Wardle: Thank you. And the Mayor is at another meeting. She had a conflict, is doing
some economic development work, so I will be chairing this meeting. Thank you all for
joining us and if you will, please, stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Glen Olson, with LDS Church:
Wardle: I'd now like to invite Glen Olson with the LOS church for a community
invocation.
Olson: Our Father, we are grateful to ~e gathered together here in this meeting. We
appreciate these comfortable circumstances we have. We are grateful for our freedom
that we have to meet and to govern ourselves accordingly. We are grateful, Father, for
those that have given of their time and talents to be here and also their ability that we
might be a better community. We are grateful for their service and pray that they weigh
decisions this evening, particularly, that they would be inspired, that they might have
vision for the community. Bless and prosper them. We pray, Father, for those who are
in harm's way, who serve our community on a regular basis, the police and fire people.
We pray that thou wilt protect them. We are grateful for their service and protection.
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 2 of 58
Again, we thank thee for the blessings, which we have of living here, for the fine
community that we have, and we pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Wardle: Thank you very much, Glen. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, it's been requested by the Public Works director to move
Item E to under department reports, which will be Item C, Public Works, and we will
move it to there and -- Mr. Berg.
Berg: Mr. Bird, if I could just ask for just a point of clarification. We have the item that
we move consent items under. Could that be appropriate, so we can keep them in
order?
Bird: You bet. We don't have to put it under -- we can just put it under -- make it 7-E.
Berg: Thank you. That makes it a little easier to keep the agenda --
Bird: That is great. And, then, we need to add an Item 3 for the city attorney and that's
the zoning amendment from Ada County. And with that, the resolution and ordinance
number we will get as we come to it. I move that we approve the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised agenda. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of March 8, 2005 Pre-Council Meeting:
B.
C.
Approve Minutes of March 8, 2005 Regular City Council Meeting:
D.
Approve Minutes of March 15,2005 Regular City Council Meeting:
Streetliaht Aareement for Sutherland Farm No.4 by Great Sky,
Inc.:
F.
Ustick and Linder Sewer Desian Aareement with Engineering
Northwest:
Meridian City Council
April 5,2005 ""
Page 3 of 58
K.
L.
M.
G.
Desian of Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Creek Sewer Crossina
Aareement with Erickson Civil, Inc.:
H.
Water Master Plan Aareement with CH2M Hill:
I.
Sanitarv Sewer and Water Main Easement for Central Vallev
Corcorate Park No.7:
J.
Accrove Beer. Wine, and liQuor License Renewals:
Lotus Garden Chinese Restaurant - Beer
The Backwater Saloon - Liquor
Bill N Lynn's Back Room - Liquor
Meridian Bowling Lanes - Beer & Liquor
Fiesta Guadalajara - Beer & Liquor
Epi's a Basque Restaurant - Beer & Wine
Winco Foods #48 - Beer & Wine
Primo's - Beer
San Francisco Sourdough Eatery - Beer
Rite Aid #5412 - Beer & Wine
EI Tenampa - Beer & Liquor
Big Smoke - Beer & Wine
The Cigarette Store - Beer
Ultra Touch Car Wash - Beer
Corona Village - Beer & Liquor
Goodwood Barbecue Company - Beer & Liquor
Develocment and Temcorarv License Aareement for Snake
River Racina Club's Remote Control Race Track:
Professional Services Aareement for Real Estate Acauisition
Services. The 1"0 Comcanv:
Approve Bills:
Wardle: No.5 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda with the one item, E, being moved to 7-E
of the regular agenda.
Donnell: Second.
Wardle: The Consent Agenda has been moved and seconded --
Meridian City Councii
AprilS, 2005
Page 4 of 58
Bird: With the second, I need to add to that.
Donnell: Okay.
Bird: And for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Donnell: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Clerk, will
you call roll, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
City Council President - Shaun Wardle
1.
Proclamation for Fair Housing Month:
Wardle: Item No.6 is a Department Report. I have a proclamation that I will be reading
for Fair Housing Month. Proclamation. Whereas, April 2005 marks the 37th
anniversary of the passage of Title A in the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known
as the Federal Fair Housing Act and, whereas, the Idaho Human Rights Commission
Act has prohibited discrimination in housing since 1969 and, whereas, equal opportunity
for all, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin,
as a fundamental goal of our nation, state, and city and, whereas, housing is a critical
component of family and community health and stability and, whereas, housing choice
impacts our children's access to education, our ability to seek and retain employment
options, the cultural benefits we enjoy, the extent of our exposure to crime and drugs
and the quality of health care we receive in emergencies and, whereas, the laws of this
nation and our state seek to insure such a quality for choice for all transactions involving
housing and, whereas, ongoing education, outreach and monitoring, are key to raising
awareness of fair housing principles, practices, rights, and responsibilities and,
whereas, only through continued cooperation, commitment, and support of all Idahoans
can barriers to fair housing be removed, therefore, I, Shaun Wardle, City Council
President of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim April to be Fair Housing Month in
the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho. Thank you.
Rountree: Good job.
Wardle: My first proclamation. Thank you. And also just as a side note, as my
department report, I would like to welcome our new fire chief Ron Anderson to our -- to
his first City Council meeting in that official capacity. Welcome, Ron.
Meridian City Council
April 5,2005
Page 5 of 58
B.
City Attorney - Bill Nary
1.
Procosed
Proaram:
Ordinance for Solid
Waste
Collection
Wardle: Item 6-B is Department Reports from the City Attorney.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, the first item on there is a proposed
ordinance for solid waste collection. We had a discussion last week very briefly.
Council member Rountree wasn't here for that discussion. We put it back on as a
department report, because didn't have it on laser-fiche last week, we just had some
copies, didn't make it to everyone. I did get them sent out again by the end of last week
and it is on your laser-fiche. I think Mr. Sedlecek was here last week. In our discussion
these were not significant changes, there is some, essentially, clean up. We did add
some other information to the ordinance basically dealing with some scope and
authority and purpose statements and things like that. If it's adequate, Council, I would
simply ask that we just move it forward to the agenda next week for passage.
Bird: So moved, Mr. President.
Donnell: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to move the solid waste collection program
ordinance forward to the Consent Agenda next week. All in favor of that motion?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2.
Tabled from March 29, 2005: Proposed Draft Ordinance
for License Alcohol Establishments and Prohibitina Two
License Establishments within the Same Premise:
Wardle: Thank you very much. Mr. Nary, Item No.2.
Nary: Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Council, the second item was tabled
from last week. You might recall we had a lengthy discussion on licensing
establishments within the city. Prior to that discussion -- this was on our department
report -- you had previously requested a proposed draft ordinance to consider whether
or not allowing two licensed establishments within the same facility, essentially, a bar-
within-a-bar discussion we had last week. I have made some amendments to this
ordinance. If you want to consider it, basically, the concerns have been is how to
enforce or how to deal with allowing two of these licensed establishments within the
same facility. The way I tried to distinguish that in this draft ordinance was that each of
the facilities would have to have their own separate address. That way we would have
some. method at least to assure where the location was, as well as requiring that they
provide a footprint to the police as part of the application process, so we would be sure
Meridian City Council
April 5,2005
Page 6 of 58
that each -- that one physical address would -- there would only be one license for one
physical address. If you have any questions, at your pleasure, as to what you want to
do with the ordinance from this point.
Wardle: Thank you.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Two things. Is this ordinance defendable by you and your attomeys?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council member Bird, I wouldn't bring it if
it wasn't.
Bird: Okay. I thought that. The second one is for Chief Musser. Is he comfortable with
it?
Musser: Council President Wardle, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, if it's the
same one that I reviewed last week on it, my message back to our attorney at that time
was that I thought it would meet all concerns, because it does leave some latitude for
Mayoral and Council discretion within it as well. So, the police department can work
with it.
Bird: With that, Mr. President, I would move that we bring that forward for an ordinance
reading at the next available meeting.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded -- I'm going to bring some discussion forward
and Mr. Nary and I talked about this. The proposed ordinance that is in front of us is a
proposal to prevent the decisions which we made last week from happening and I'm not
-- my recollection of Mr. Nary's comments before was when we didn't have all the
information in front of us about the specific applications, we looked at how we could
alter our city ordinance to prevent those kinds of applications. And so one of the things
that I heard in the discussion about those individual liquor licenses and discrepancy
between our city ordinances and the state requirements was that we were comfortable
allowing those -- those specific users on a case-by-case basis. This ordinance, as I
read it, would -- would prevent some of those; is that correct, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yeah, there is probably one thing I will
have to verify is on the street addressing and how that particular address is attached. I
believe it's attached, actually, by the city and, then, transmitted to the postmaster, but,
for example, on those -- two of those applications last week, the Backwater Saloon and
the Top Shelf application, unless they could have a separate address, which means
they at least need to have a separate entrance, rather than the main entrance, to at
Meridian City Councii
April 5, 2005
Page 7 of 58
least have a separate doorway entrance to the facility, they could still have the same
premise internally, it's just that where the physical location of it would be addressed
from would be the only difference. Would that prohibit those two facilities? I'm not
positive, because, again, I don't know the layouts of either of those places to know
whether or not they could actually get a separate physical address, but other than that
the layout internally wouldn't change, but the reason we are having this discussion is
because we are allowed by state code to create other licensing provisions beyond what
the state has. All we had prior to this code would simply be the conditional use
requirements and that's what the discussion was last week. This would simple at least
require a little bit more definition of the location, which I think is what the police concern
was from the enforcement perspective is just some specificity of the location and, again,
I think it would require a separate entrance.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: How would a separate entrance in terms of having more than one address at
the same fairly -- at least pretty much at the same location, be any different than some
of the houses that are converted into apartments, that the occupants go in the front
door, but on that front door is -- are several different numbers? It seems to me that that
could -- that still could be allowed, even under this ordinance; is that right?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Donnell, certainly, if they
are distinguishable enough to be able to address them separately, like in that -- I
thought of the same example, because I used to live in an A and the half was below me.
So, I understand that you can address them separately. I think all we were trying to
accomplish in this is making sure we had very clear specifications of where the location
of the serving establishment is, so that we had some clearer definition for the police
enforcement purposes. But, yes, you could have one entrance that may have multiple
entrances internally. It would allow still under, for example, the Meridian Marketplace
that's being built just south of here, has multiple store fronts and different doors that will
have different addresses, sometimes you will have facilities that will have one address
within an A or a B or a C, all of those things I think would perfectly still be allowed, as
long as you could physically identify the location more specifically than we have had it.
The other suggestion, Council, I would have is we routinely on ordinances are not
required by state law to have public hearings on ordinances, but this one may be one
you may want to consider, rather than bringing it forward once and waiving the reading
rules, which we do on a number of occasions, not doing that on this one. You may want
to have this on your agenda for the specified three readings under the state code and
maybe inviting public comment at one of those readings. The second reading is
generally easier, so if you do want to make changes, you can do it before the third
reading. But just a suggestion, but since we did have some people, there may be other
comment out there that we are unaware of that might be -- might be helpful to you on
whether to pass this or not.
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 8 of 58
Donnell: Follow up, Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: The next question I would have is about those that we have already approved
that mayor may not have a separate entrance. Those are still approved? I mean they
don't lose that license, since we have already done that prior to this ordinance being in
place; right?
Nary: Mr. President, Council member Donnell, yes, they would still be in place. There
wouldn't be any issue. The only issue would be in their renewal next year, they may
need to have a separate entrance put in or something to that nature.
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah, Mr. President. I agree that I think we need to have this as a three readings
and have the public comment on probably the second one, I think it's -- I, for one, the
only reason I voted in affirmative last week was because of the fact that we were -- we
were over the barrel, to put it bluntly, but getting back to another thought that I have got,
I think there is a lot of these ordinances that we need to have public hearings on that
can give us some -- maybe some ideas that a year from now we are not scrambling to
change it or something. So, I think that's a very good idea that Mr. Nary brought up to
have a public hearing on this and -- but I think we need, like the motion said, to move
forward and get it going.
Wardle: Then, for clarification for the motion, would it be the maker's preference to
bring that forward for a full set of public hearings and not be written with suspension of
rules?
Bird: Yes, it would be from the maker's -- I don't know what the second --
Rountree: To have a first hearing -- first reading.
Wardle: First reading? And second agrees?
Donnell: Do you agree?
Rountree: I agree.
Donnell: You were the second.
Wardle: Thank you very much. I have a motion on the table to bring forward an
ordinance -- proposed draft ordinance License Alcohol Establishments and prohibiting
two licensed establishments within the same premise for a first reading. All in favor of
the motion? All opposed?
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 9 of 58
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3.
City Attorney - Ada County zoning code.
Wardle: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary, for bringing that forward. Item No.3 on the city
attorney's report, zoning ordinance -- or, excuse me, zoning amendment.
Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. I have passed out to you a
proposed amendment to the Ada County zoning code. This has been brought to Mayor
de Weerd's attention from Mayor Bieter of the city of Boise. They are having a joint
meeting with the county commission this Thursday and he was seeking input or support
from the other cities in this county. He had forwarded this proposed amendment to all
of the cities and Mayor de Weerd couldn't be here tonight, so she asked me to pass this
on to you for your comment. Basically, this is asking for some limitations on growth
outside of the city's -- outside of incorporated cities into the unincorporated areas of Ada
County, that it be limited to no more than five percent -- basically includes 95 percent of
all the growth in the area of city impact and limiting growth outside of the areas of city
impact to no more than five percent. I did ask Mrs. Canning from Planning and Zoning
today to provide some comment, because she wasn't able to be here tonight either,
and, basically, the comment that she forwarded back to me was that the growth
limitations sometimes are difficult at best to enforce without some mechanism within the
ordinance to provide some structure to that. This amendment doesn't provide that, but
besides that, there is also a direction to this to revisit the Ada County -- the Ada County
ordinance in regards to future land use and that hasn't been done, a Comprehensive
Plan review has not -- hasn't been done in a number of years and Mrs. Canning's
thought was that that would be helpful and that's something the city should be
supporting that type of visit. Basically, I will just read you very briefly. It says: Growth
management caps are complicated things to legislate. The user requires some sort of
lottery or other apportioning system to establish who gets permits for the year, but the
proposed changes to the Ada County comprehensive plan may be worthwhile. The
county hasn't updated their plan in a long time, so it may be an appropriate time to do
that and so that's where she thought maybe the city might put its support behind. Not
asking, really, for any input. If you have any direction or input you wish to provide to
Mayor de Weerd tomorrow, so she could get back to Mayor Bieter before their meeting
on Thursday, I think would be welcomed by the Mayor, but I wasn't asking the Council
to take any action tonight, I was just going to pass that out for your review and if there is
questions you have either of me or planning, certainly would be available tomorrow for
that and, again, if you had any comments for the Mayor, I think that's all she was
seeking.
Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Councii
AprilS, 2005
Page 10 of 58
Rountree: Question for Mr. Nary. Explain to me again the genesis of this? This is
coming from the city of Boise?
Nary: Mr. President, Councilmember Rountree, yes, this is city of Boise's proposal in
trying to limit some of the growth outside of the boundaries of the incorporated city.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'm just going to be blunt to prevent SunCor?
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Donnell: Is this to prevent SunCor development?
Nary: Mr. President, Counci/member Donnell, it certainly would impact a development
like --
Donnell: It certainly would.
Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Nary. My -- having just received this document just before the
agenda, adding it to the agenda as an additional item, I would prefer that we take
additional time to review this, have our staff take additional time to review this, and not
to make an official Council comment at this time, unless anyone else would have a
similar motion.
Rountree: Mr. President, I have a follow up for Mr. Nary.
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: It's not necessarily along those lines, but it seems to me what -- what's the
investment that the city might have to make in something like this? It seems to me that
if the county is not proposing an amendment to their comprehensive plan or their
ordinances, are they open to external suggestions like this or is it worth anybody's
political capital to move on this? I don't understand what's going on here. I mean I
understand what's going on, but the mechanism to make it work --
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, I mean that's
a very valid question. Mayor de Weerd basically received this e-mail, she forwarded it
to me from Mayor Bieter today, so I don't know that there was a lot of prior discussion or
analysis that was afforded to any of the cities -- that the role would be or how receptive
the county would be to that suggestion from the city and whether or not this really
impacts the city of Meridian. My very initial review of this -- and Mr. Baird and I both
discussed it very briefly today, this doesn't probably impact the city of Meridian greatly.
It may impact the city of Boise tremendously and that may be their interest. But it
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 11 of 58
doesn't necessarily appear that it has a lot to do with the city of Meridian. There may be
other things that the city may have that type of discussion with the county that might be
of more benefit in looking at a partnership and working relationship with, but I think
that's, really, your call.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If I may, I'd make a statement. I don't think that we, sitting up here, would like Ada
County to come and tell us how to do our comprehensive plan and how much we could
have. I'm like you, I really want to digest this before I make a statement.
Wardle: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Nary, for bringing this forward, and if
you have additional comments, please, forward them to the Mayor, if you'd like to get it
in time for her Thursday conversation, I believe Mr. Nary pointed that out as the
deadline for beginning negotiations.
Nary: No. The city of Boise and the Ada County commissioners have periodic
meetings and that's when their next meeting is. Mayor Bieter indicates in this e-mail
that they were bringing this to them to that joint meeting. They did comment that the
Blueprints of Growth Process, of course, is also ongoing and that may also answer the
same question, too.
Item 7:
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
E.
Sewer Reimbursement Reauest bv Dan Richards:
Wardle: Okay. Thank you very much. Items moved from the Consent Agenda. We
have Item 7-E, which is sewer reimbursement request by Dan Richards. Public Works.
Brad Watson.
Watson: Thank you, Mr. President, Councilmembers. This is an odd little situation that
has arisen, there is a single-family residence that's annexed into the city and does not
have sewer. It's located in the southwest corner of Tulley Park. It's right here. This is
the parking lot that we all know right through here. Anyway, for one reason or another
through the development of the park and the development of the subdivision over here,
everyone, except the property owner, seemed to believe that this house was on sewer
and Mr. Richards is here tonight, he contacted us a month or two ago indicating that his
septic system was failing. The issue at hand is whether there is some city responsibility
for a portion of the cost to get that house connected to sewer. Another septic permit
cannot be issued on this property, because it's within 300 feet of public central sewer.
The sewer currently runs up Linder, hangs a right at Chateau, and proceeds down this
way towards the Five Mile Trunk that goes through Tulley Park. The structure within --
that's off the map here, the maintenance structure within the park is served by a single
point of service that also goes eastward towards the Five Mile drain. There is not a
Meridian City Councii
April 5, 2005
Page 12 of 58
good cost effective way to do this. Tearing up Linder and bringing it up roughly 100,
120 feet to this structure -- I didn't do a real detailed cost estimate, but ¡would imagine
it's in the ten to 15 thousand dollar range. Mr. Richards has solicited quotes from
several contractors to install a service, I believe, between two houses right here and
those estimates are in the neighborhood of 8,000 dollars. So, this is a unique situation.
I even went to -- called our former director Gary Smith, asked him if in his years here he
had ever run across something like this and he said, no, can't help you.
Rountree: He would for a price.
Watson: No. He was much more cordial than that. But that was the kind of the
message. So, we are here tonight to maybe get some direction or some discussion
going. As I mentioned, Mr. Richards is here, if you have any questions for him, or
perhaps if he wants to say anything. With that I will entertain any questions.
Wardle: Questions for staff?
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Brad, is there a utility easement along Linder?
Watson: A general public utility easement?
Rountree: Uh-huh. On that side yard.
Watson: I believe there is. However, there is a fire hydrant that's located within that
easement and there are some other landscaping improvements that would make it fairly
difficult. I think if you tucked it closer to the house and came right through here, you
might be able to squeak by. But the cost effectiveness of coming through this frontage -
- or the frontage of the lot versus coming out in the road, I'm not sure that there is a
whole lot of difference.
Rountree: Follow up.
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just for clarification, there is an easement -- utility easement on the side
yards between two houses?
Watson: I reviewed the plat at one time and believe there is, but I did not bring that plat
with me.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 13 of 58
Wardle: Other questions for staff? Mr. Richard, would you like to --
Richard: Do you have questions or do you just want me to --
Wardle: If you could state your name and address for the record.
Richard: Dan Richard. 8980 South Linder. I do not live at this location. It is a rental. I
have owned it approximately four years. But Mr. Watson said that everyone knew
except the owner. I'm the owner, but I did not know that it was not hooked up to sewer.
In fact, I paid four years of sewer bills from the City of Meridian. I have been
reimbursed for that, but, no, when I bought the house I was totally under the
understanding that was hooked up to city sewer and it was not -- it is hooked up to city
water, there is a water meter and -- you know, so somehow it got hooked up to city
water and forgot about the sewer. But to answer your -- I don't know if it's a question or
what, but from my understanding there is easements -- I had someone check out the
easements between the two lots on Chateau and there is a five foot easement on the
one side and an eight foot easement on the other. I don't know which one is which, but
I think there is 13 foot between there, and from the gentleman who I do some checking,
it was his understanding that that could be utilized. I had a company, Bruce Stewart, of
the City of Meridian gave me several names for contractors, who I contacted,
excavators that came out and met with me and they gave me the name of a company
called Earth Energy, who they literally bore underneath and they can tell how deep it is,
get the grade right and all that, and they can literally go like from my property, bore
underneath the 100 feet and go right to -- like right to the middle of the street and, then,
you know, the center of the street has to be dug up and tapped into. But the yards and
the -- you know, they do not have to be disturbed, which I was thrilled about that, just for
the -- you know, it would be so much easier on the homeowners. I did talk to both of the
homeowners who live on -- you know, their properties are contiguous with mine and
they both were very nice and both willing to work with me, if I -- even if I had to
excavate, you know, from the ground down, they are willing to work with me, as long as
I got it back in a, you know, manner. But the checking I have done is that -- it's my
understanding is like I guess I feel like I'm more than wiling to pay for the hookups, you
know, I think they are a couple thousand dollars or something like that, but I guess I'm
pleading for a hardship case that, you know, needs it to be brought to the -- you know,
to my property line or -- so --
Wardle: Questions for Mr. Richard?
Bird: I have none, Mr. President.
Wardle: Okay. Mr. Watson, any follow up?
Watson: Mr. President, Council Members, I'm not sure where this is leading, but there
are side lot easements that exist for utilities. We have been burned a little bit in the past
where we have tried to utilize those without contacting the neighbors and getting a fresh
easement, so to speak. If the city was the one that was contracting this, I would require
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 14 of 58
new easements from these property owners, because those are dedicated with the plat
by the developer. The homeowners rarely even know that they are there. I guess that's
just one consideration Thank you.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Brad, is there any history with Bruce on how water was delivered and not
sewer? It's got to go back to -- 40 years, maybe?
Watson: Mr. President, Councilmember Rountree. No. We had quite a long discussion
about this, trying to revive his memory and --
Rountree: We do know, though, it is city water?
Watson: Yes. The city was out on site and verified that there is a meter set there.
Rountree: Mr. President, follow up?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Brad, do you have a recommendation? We have got to start somewhere.
Watson: Council member Rountree, our new sewer ordinance says that the city is
responsible for the structural integrity of the sewer until it reaches the property line. I
guess I'm inclined to think that the city has some responsibility -- actually, in the right of
way is how the ordinance reads. We are responsible for it in the right of way. So, I
think there may be some responsibility for the city to at least get it out of the right of
way. As far as the service running through and to the site, we historically haven't been
in the business of paying for or constructing services through private property, but,
again, we have never ran into this situation either.
Rountree: Having heard that, then, the suggestion, at least at this point, is that Meridian
be responsible for the stub out to -- through the right of way?
Watson: Council member Rountree, if we are doing a brand new trunk through a
subdivision that's going to be built very soon, we stub that sewer out to the property line
from the main.
Rountree: Okay.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 150f58
Donnell: Brad, did I understand correctly that the water -- city water was provided to
this property 40 years ago? I heard the 40 years.
Rountree: That was me just speculating.
Bird: It wasn't built 40 years ago.
Donnell: It wouldn't have been 40 years ago.
Bird: No, it wouldn't.
Rountree: It could have been 50.
Donnell: How many years ago do you think it was when water was provided to that
property?
Watson: Mr. President, Councilmember Donnell --
Donnell: You don't know.
Watson: I have no idea. It's not part of a subdivision, so I can't even go by when a
subdivision was built. Records more than ten years back --
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: May I ask Mr. Richards if he knows how old that property -- at least the
residence is?
Richard: There is a stamp in the concrete that -- the sidewalk actually goes around the
meter, the water meter, if I remember right, I'm going off memory, but I'm thinking it was
stamped in '77. But I would not -- you know, I'm not positive about that.
Donnell: Okay.
Richard: It is an old house.
Donnell: So, follow up, Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: So, what would it have cost in 1977 to have hooked up to city sewer?
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 160f58
Watson: Mr. President, Council member Donnell, that's a good question. Chief Musser
just informed me that he believes that that subdivision was built in the neighborhood of
'77, so it's similar to when that house was built.
Bird: The house is older I think than -- but the water was brought out in '77.
Watson: I have no -- I have no guess on that. I'm sorry.
Donnell: Oh, you don't have to apologize. I don't remember that far back either.
Wardle: Council?
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, I understand he has been paying -- he paid for four years on the sewer?
Watson: That's what I'm told. Yes.
Bird: Okay. And we evidently hooked up to water in about '77. That would be about
the right time, because, as I recall, they took the subdivision off of North Cherry Lane
there where Willowbrook and all them are and come out and kind of went through with
Chateau and all them and that was about that time, probably. And we have reimbursed
him for the four years that he paid for the sewer?
Watson: Council member Bird, that's what Mr. Richard and Bruce Derr tell me.
Bird: Well, I'm like Councilman Rountree. What's your recommendation? Brad, you're
the one that -- you're the one that's going to have to set policy on something like this to
a degree.
Watson: Right.
Bird: I'm not -- we are not afraid to make the decision, but it's your department and
you're the one that's going to be hit up front to start with.
Watson: Mr. President, Councilmember Bird, I guess I would go back to what I was
alluding to earlier. I don't want to be in the business of running sewer services across
private property as a habit. I think to get it out to the proper -- out to the right of way is
probably the city's responsibility. My only hesitation in all this, though, is what -- maybe
I need to lean on Mr. Nary a little bit what the city's legal responsibility is when a
property has been annexed and supposedly sewered for years and years, only to find
out that it's not. I'm sorry.
Rountree: Buy new ground.
Meridian City Councii
AprilS, 2005
Page 17 of 58
Nary: Thanks. I guess -- Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think, as with any
other property, I think it is the city's -- I think as Mr. Watson has already stated, it is,
generally, the city's responsibility to bring the service from the public street access to
this property, so that they can -- they can access it when they want to. I think Mr.
Watson's concern, as he expressed initially, is if you bring that line up the street 120
feet, it only will serve this property and no one else. But from the city's standpoint, I
think there is a responsibility to be able to publicly serve that property within our city
limits in some fashion, whether it's through the other yard, because it may be cheaper, if
there is an easement there, it may be less expensive, but I think it is the city's
responsibility to at least provide the access to the sewer for the property owner. They
will have to connect it from the connecting point on the property line to their house and
that's their responsibility to do that under our ordinance, but I think that's the hesitation I
think I understood from Mr. Watson and he can correct me, but I think it's -- the only
concern is that it's only going to serve one house and it will likely never serve anyone
else, except that one house, but from a responsibility standpoint, I do think that it's the
city's responsibility to at least get it to the line -- to the property line.
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: A side question, Brad. Would it be more cost effective to come from the park
side to that site off of the facilities that we have in the park, as opposed to trying to do
what we might have to do and run into what we might run into on Cherry Lane?
Watson: Mr. President, Councilmember Rountree, the one that's going through Tulley
Park to serve the maintenance building is a service that can only serve a single building,
plus it's way too shallow to get there. We tried.
Rountree: No grade.
Watson: We looked at that.
Rountree: I figured you had.
Wardle: Council?
Rountree: Mr. President, I don't know if we need a motion or not, but I'm going to throw
this out. It seems to me that we do have a responsibility to stub out the sewer to the
right of way line on Cherry Lane and need to work with public works and the resident for
the resident to connect with that stub out from their property to the right of way line and
if you need that in the form of a motion I so move.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded. Was that Linder or Cherry Lane?
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 180f58
Rountree: It would be stubbed out off Cherry Lane.
Wardle: Chateau.
Bird: Chateau.
Rountree: Oh, excuse me. Chateau. Yeah.
Bird: Okay.
Wardle: Brad, does that suffice for your --
Watson: Yeah. I think that direction will work. There will be a few details that we will,
obviously, still have to work out, but --
Wardle: Okay.
Watson: Thank you.
Wardle: With that, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
FP 05-023 Request for Final Plat approval of 42 single-family residential
building lots and 2 common lots on 12.24 acres in a R-8 zone for
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No.7 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - east of North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick
Road:
Wardle: Item No.8, FP 05-023, final plat for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No.7. I
will begin with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, President Wardle. This final plat is in the Redfeather
Estates No.2 preliminary plat. This is the very southwest corner of that project and the
vast majority of the rest of this subdivision is up to the north and .east. This phase is at
the very west corner. The South Slough cuts across the corner here. The land that was
annexed -- Eagle Road -- between Eagle Road and this site is immediately adjacent
here. The final plat does substantially comply with the preliminary plat that the Council
approved. The amenities in this particular phase are a basketball court and they are
required to provide a ten foot wide public pathway along the South Slough that would
ultimately be public and there is a condition in the final plat that they provide the public
easement for that, so when it does connect that easement is available for the public and
the city. I think the only small change that was made -- there was a pedestrian pathway
access along this common lot here that shifted location a little bit. Other than that, this -
Meridian City Council
AprilS. 2005
Page 19 of 58
- all the lots -- lot count, build-able lots and common lots, are the same. We did receive
written response from Engineering Solutions to the final plat report and they made just a
couple of wording additions that they would like to see and staff has reviewed those and
doesn't have any problem. So, if you would want to incorporate the applicant's
response, staff's in approval -- or recommends approval of this final plat.
Wardle: Thank you very much. Does the applicant have any additional comments?
Okay. Council?
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No.8, FP 05-023, final plat for Redfeather
Estates, subject to staff comments and the comments supplied by the applicant.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No.8. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
FP 05-022 Request for Final Plat approval for 70 building lots (single-
family residential and office lots) and 11 common lots on 32.80 acres in R-
4 and L-O zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision No.1 by Dave
Evans Construction Management - northwest corner of Victory Road and
Meridian Road:
Wardle: Thank you. Item No.9 is FP 05-022, final plat for Strada Bellissima
Subdivision No.1. I will begin with the staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Councilman Wardle, Members of the Council. This final
plat is -- actually, incorporates the entire preliminary plat that was approved. This
Strada Bellissima project is on the west side of Meridian Road, Highway 69. Victory
Road runs along the south boundary. It was approved as a planned development.
They did get a use exception for office buildings on the Meridian Road frontage. They
are including those lots in this final plat, as well as the 70 -- well, I guess 70 building lots
total. That includes the office lots. The common area in Block 6, I think, is the only one
to point out. I will go to the final plat that was submitted. Way over here on the west
side there was most likely for drainage purposes, I understand, was a common lot that
was added. Other than that, the street widths and all of the other features of the plat
are identical to the preliminary plat. My file does not show a written response from the
applicant, but Dave McKinnon, who is representing them, I think did tell me that they are
in support of this. So, thanks.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 20 of 58
Wardle: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to comment? Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber. I'm always happy to make a comment. We have read the staff report and
we are happy with the staff report and ask if you have any questions of us at this time.
Wardle: Mr. McKinnon, just a question. If I remember this application correctly, in the
preliminary plat stage there was requirement from the motion from Mr. Bird to add and
to achieve a certain percentage of open space.
McKinnon: Yeah.
Wardle: And I would assume with the addition of the --
McKinnon: That's correct.
Wardle: Thank you. Any additional comments?
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 05-022, Strada Bellissima Subdivision -- I butchered that --
No.1 and to incorporate staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No.9, FP 05-022. Mr. Clerk,
roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: Parks and Recreation New Fees:
Wardle: Thank you very much. We will begin our public hearing portion of the meeting.
Item No. 10, Public Hearing on parks and recreation new fees. Parks Director Strong,
will you be --
Thomas: Mr. President, Members of the Council -- do I need to address -- say who I
am? Catrina Thomas, recreation superintendent. We just -- I submitted a list of
summer fees for our activities guide that will be going out later this month, so these are
for new fees -- there are a couple of them that were increases from the Barn Sour race
that we did last year. Otherwise, they are all new fees. The one that's the most -- the
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 21 of 58
men's softball league. So, that one's -- we've actually had a good response on
participants with that, so --
Wardle: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Wardle: Would anyone else like to comment on Item No. 10? Hearing no further
comments, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item No.1 O.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing, All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Is there a motion to bring forth the parks and recreation new fees in resolution
form?
Donnell: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to bring forth new parks and recreation fees in
resolution form. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
RolI~Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Berg: Mr. President, I assume that you would want that on the next available agenda,
as soon as possible, in resolution form?
Item 11:
Public Hearing: Revisions to the Parks Cacitallmcrovement Plan:
Wardle: Please. Item No. 11 is a public - I will open the Public Hearing for revisions to
the parks Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Baird.
Baird: All the seats over there are taken, so I will go ahead and address you from the
podium.
Wardle: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 22 of 58
Baird: Before we actually start this hearing, I want to take a moment and go over the
procedure tonight, which will, actually, affect Items 11, 12, 13 and 14 on your agenda.
The goal tonight is to request approval of an increase in the park impact fees that were
recommended by the impact fee committee back in September of 2004. It's my
understanding that they came to you and reported on that, but it hasn't been brought
back to you in ordinance form to make it legal. Now, before we can get to that
ordinance, the state law requires that we update our Capital Improvements Plan, so that
brings us to tonight's hearing on that. The actual plan itself is attached to the resolution
that's on your agenda as Item No. 12. I'll presume, for purposes of its presentation,
that all of you have had a chance to review that. We give an inventory of the completed
parks, projects in process, as well as the plan for park expansion for fiscal year 2010.
2010. I do want to reiterate that your decision on approving this plan is not an approval
of the budget item or any of the specifics in the plan. Mr. Strong intends to use the plan
as a guide for particular projects that he will bring forward to you on an individual basis.
Mr. Strong is here to answer questions if you have it on that, but with that in the way of
introduction, I'll stand for questions and we will take public testimony, if there is any.
Wardle: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Baird.
Baird: Okay. We will see if there is anybody in the public here to testify.
Wardle: Would anyone else like to testify on Item No. 11? Hearing none, I would
entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Resolution No. 05-467 Resolution Approving Ucdate to
Parks and Recreation Cacitallmcrovements Plan:
Wardle: Item No. 11, I would entertain a motion to bring forward the revisions to the
parks Capital Improvement Plan in resolution form at our next available hearing.
Baird: Actually, Mr. President, I'm one step ahead of you. Item No. 12 is on the
agenda, so that we can proceed tonight.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 23 of 58
Wardle: I will open the Public Hearing for Item No. 12.
Bird: We need a resolution number, Shaun. And that's why I didn't get it, was because
we had to pass this first.
Wardle: Resolution -- I will open the Public Hearing for Resolution No. 05-467,
Resolution approving update to Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Plan.
Bird: I move we approve Resolution 05-0467 with suspension of rules.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: We don't have no rules on that.
Donnell: No rules. But the second --
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 12, Resolution 05-467.
Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: Amendment to the Park Imcact Fee Methodoloav
and Increase to Park Imcact Fee Schedule:
Item 14:
Ordinance No. 05-1138 Revisions to the Parks and
Recreation Imcact Fee Methodoloav and the Park and Recreation
Imcact Fee Schedule:
Wardle: Item 13, I'll open the Public Hearing on amendment to the park impact fee
methodology and increase to park impact fee schedule. Mr. Baird.
Baird: Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Council. The amendments to the
methodology and impact fee are summarized on the first page of a memo that's in your
packet, dated March 31st, 2005. In summary, the impact fee committee is
recommending an increase for single-family dwellings from the current fee of 667.39 to
a new fee of 763.16, a difference increase in $95.77. With regard to multi-family units,
the current fee of $607.15. The new fee recommended for implementation is 694. An
increase of $86.85 per multi-family residential unit. The methodology is adopting a
standard of four acres per thousand in population. It reflects an acquisition and
development cost of 95,000 dollars per acre, resulting in a per person fee or
development of 380 dollars. Take those, multiply it by the occupancy factors, gives you
a maximum. The committee went through some adjustments to bring the maximum fee
down to what they consider to be the proportionate share, so that the develop bears the
proportional share of the development of new parks. With that I'll stand for questions.
Meridian City Council
April 5. 2005
Page 24 of 58
Wardle: Mr. Baird, I believe that our new proposed impact fees have been circulated
through the development and construction community. Have we received any official
response from any of those agencies or groups?
Baird: Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Council. The actual meetings of
the impact fee committee took place before I was on staff, but I have reviewed the
minutes of those meetings, looked at the rosters, the attendance at those committees
included representatives from the builders contract association, as well as the local
realtor groups. It's my understanding that the increase was fully discussed with both the
real estate and the development community and that they have been expecting this fee.
In fact, some people are wondering why you haven't done it yet and should come as no
surprise to anybody at this point.
Wardle: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on
Item No. 13? With that I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing for Item 13.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: What's the ordinance number?
Wardle: Ordinance No. 05-1138. And I will open the Public Hearing for Item No. --
Bird: We have got to read the ordinance by title only.
Wardle: Okay. I would ask the clerk to read Ordinance No. 05-1138, revisions to the
parks and recreation impact fees methodology and the parks and recreation impact fee
schedule by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. That was about it. Ordinance No. 05-1138, an
Ordinance amending Tille 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian City Code, providing for
revision to the Parks and Recreation impact fees methodology and the Parks and
Recreation impact fees schedule, 10-7-13 and to the impact fee summary, Section 10-7-
15, providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Wardle: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 25 of 58
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we pass Ordinance No. 05-1138, with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 05-1138, with
suspension of rules. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Item 16:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-001 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
156.49 acres to R-8 & L-O zones for Bainbridae Subdivision by Brighton
Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 429
building lots and 35 common lots on 155.44 acres in proposed R-8 and L-
a zones for Bainbridae Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC
of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of 428 residential building lots, one
church lot and 35 common lots located in a "mixed-use neighborhood
center" designation on the Comprehensive Plan for Bainbridae
Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard
and North Ten Mile Road:
Wardle: I will now open Public Hearings 15, 16, and 17. And begin with -- for
Bainbridge Subdivision and begin with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. These three
applications all pertain to the property that's generally located here on the south side of
Chinden, Highway 20-26, east of Ten Mile Road, in between Ten Mile and Black Cat,
north of the half mile. Lochsa Falls Subdivision is where they gain their annexation path
-- oh, I'm sorry. Verona Subdivision. Lochsa Falls is also over here. Bridgetower
Crossing's commercially zoned 15 or 16 acres is down here at the intersection. So, as
you can see, this is the first request for annexation that the city has received within this
square mile. The request for annexation and zoning is two different zones, an R-8 and
L-O. The majority of the property is requested to be the R-8 zone, medium density
residential. The L-O primarily pertains to what's called out as a future church site here
on the north end. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for both medium
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 26 of 58
density residential and as a neighborhood center. This property does touch the half-
mile location between Black Cat and Ten Mile and, as you know, that's where we had
designated these neighborhood centers at the hal- mile. In addition, Idaho
Transportation Department has their policy that says only one access at the half mile,
no other access points would be permitted in the future. Obviously, there is some
issues that surround that, but the applicant is aware of that and we have received
detailed comments that are in your packets from lTD. The Planning and Zoning
Commission did review these three applications. They are recommending approval of
all three to you. February 17th and March 3 are the two dates that the Planning and
Zoning Commission met. Mr. Turnbull, David Turnbull, he's the applicant for these three
applications, was the only public testimony that was received at those meetings. There
was no oral testimony in opposition or commenting. There was a letter submitted to the
public record by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Clint Boyle, for the property
owner -- representing the property owner to the west. And you should have that in your
packets. As you see from the aerial, there is all existing ag land out in this area, of
course. There is an out parcel here on the southeast corner that is not a part of the
application. There is a development agreement conditioned that is included in there
that does ask for the applicant to provide the city with a legal description for that, so that
in the future it could be annexed, but it is not a part of this application. A couple of the
main issues that were discussed by the Commission mostly pertained to this next item,
which is number 16, the preliminary plat. I'll let Mr. Turnbull kind of touch on the
majority of this, but, as you can see, there is a major collector that connects Ten Mile
with Chinden that is, essentially, the loop spine road throughout the project. This area
that is north of this that is on the corner is approximately 70 acres and is -- was not a
part -- there was some discussion very early on with the applicant about -- about this,
about this area, because, originally, they did propose to include it in there. Staff felt that
given the Comprehensive Plan designation of the neighborhood center at the corner
and their desire to provide the commercial at the intersection, we recommended that
they hold out this area and he agreed. So, this is not a part. The same goes for this
area in terms of the plat, this small L-shaped area here, which I believe is about nine
acres, is not a part of the preliminary plat, would have future conditional use permit on it,
but is proposed to be annexed and zoned, as is this area for the -- what they are calling
out as a future church site. So, the spine road kind of designates the boundary for the
annexation and, then, everything that you see shown in terms of the platting is smaller
lots is what they have included in that. So, just to be aware that there is a little bit of
difference between the two applications in terms of what the legal descriptions say.
They are providing a number of stub streets to the adjacent properties. Those got some
discussion at the Commission, as did the landscape buffer on the north and the east
sides of Broadbent Way, which is the loop road there. One item to point out came up
about landscaping on the north side, if that's not going to be a part of the annexation,
how would that happen. The Commission did amend the staff report to require
landscaping on the north side of Broadbent Way, so -- so that there is street appeal, you
know, and other reasons, as you come in here, the trees maturing at similar rates and
things like that. So, we will need to address that in terms of the legal description,
getting that into the city, but that was one point of discussion at the Commission.
Another one has to do with sewer serviceability and, of course, if you have questions for
Meridian City Councii
Aprii 5. 2005
Page 27 of 58
Mr. Watson on that, he can address those, but this is designated for the Black Cat --
future Black Cat lift station, which the Council has approved funding for the design of,
but not the construction of at this point. So, this is dependent on that project coming
through in the future and that today does not have sewer service. There is a future
public park site designated here in the center of the project. Staff is very supportive of
that. It is an element that is in the Comprehensive Plan for these neighborhood centers
to have a public space that's reasonably accessible at these centers. As I was looking
through the conditions tonight, I did not actually see where the -- how the transfer of that
would take place and I would like to request that Mr. Turnbull address that. And if the
Council could just think about how - if you would like to have more detail in the
development agreement about how that transfer will take place and I know Mr. Nary has
also recently been working on the Autumn Fare Park and that whole transfer, so maybe
we can add a point of discussion on that. That was not in the recommendation tonight,
but that caught my eye when I was looking over the documents. In terms of the
Conditional Use Permit, the landscaping is called out here a little better on this -- on this
plan. The items that they are requesting exceptions from or dimensional standards
from, the minimum lot size, they are, actually, not proposing any change, 6,500 square
foot minimum lot size in the R-B. They are showing minimum lot size as 6,600 square
feet in this project. However, on the street frontage they do have, I believe, about 20
lots that have below 65 foot of frontage and they are proposing that to go down to 48
feet for those lots. Those are non-cul-de-sac lots. So, that request is there as part of
the Conditional Use Permit. Setbacks, I think the main comment that was made there
was they are all standard setbacks, we just want to insure that the front setbacks are
measured from -- that we get the full 20 feet on those. The amenities, as I mentioned
before, the southern half acre open space lot there in the center is a future city park,
potentially to be dedicated and, then, there is 1.3 acre private homeowner lot that's
located here in the southwest. At this point in time they have not depicted any other
amenities, such as tot lots and things like that. As you know -- I mean Brighton
Corporation has a good reputation for doing those amenities, but Craig Hood, the
planner on this, was wanting to get a little more detail from the Council tonight on that, if
we could -- is it ten percent, because at this point they don't actually show ten percent of
the total area as open space. That would be one amenity, but they don't have that. For
this scöpe of project, 42B building lots, residential building lots, you know, there is some
flexibility on these, but staff would like to have some discussion and more commitment
on the record tonight as to what exactly the amenities for the planned development will
be. There are five phases proposed and I'll let Mr. Turnbull kind of address how he's
envisioning that to happen. I think with that, those are kind of the highlights of what they
are proposing tonight. Oh, I guess the one other point -- there is right now on this west
side -- the school district -- let me go back to the vicinity map here. The Meridian Joint
School District Two has expressed some interest in acquiring this parcel to the west for
both a middle school and an elementary school site. We talked with Wendel Bigham
today, actually, and he said they are continuing to try to negotiate this. It has not
happened, so they can't actually state on the record today that for sure that's what it's
going to be. So, it raises the question of access to that, what kind of access, micro-
path, street, et cetera. We want to -- I think staff is of the opinion that even if it's not a
school site, this -- what's currently shown as a micro-path becomes an actual street
Meridian City Council
April 5,2005
Page 28 of 58
stub. If it is a middle school and elementary school campus, Mr. Bigham told me today
that it's -- while they are not used to it, having a public street between the two, if they
had a public street dividing the two campuses, it could maybe be designed -- the street
could maybe -- they could make it safe and it would provide -- especially given the fact
that you don't have any other access to Chinden from -- in this square mile, we want to
provide good access from the east going to this site, should it become a school facility
or complex in the future. So, at this point let me see -- or hear what the -- yeah. On
Exhibit E of your -- the Planning and Zoning recommendation, the first page of Exhibit
E, this is the preliminary plat conditions. Item number two deals with that stub street
and we can -- I can give you more detailed language after we. have taken public
comment, but we would like to have a chance to do that and. that would say that once
the stub is not necessary, as determined by staff and Ada County Highway District in
the future, then, it would be provided -- right now it says a stub street to the 45 acre
potential school site, plus to the west, shall be provided, if the property does not
become a school site. And we wanted to have a litlle bit more direction on that and,
basically, give staff and Ada County Highway District the ability to make that
determination when that phase comes through, if that makes sense. So, I think with
that I'll end staff's comments.
Wardle: Thank you. And, Mr. Watson, I believe at this time, before we invite the
applicant up, Mr. Hawkins-Clark addressed some sewer serviceability issues. Could
you speak to those?
Watson: Mr. President, Council Members, you may recall two, three, four months ago
Mr. Turnbull came to a pre-Council meeting and addressed you as far as the North
Black Cat service area. As a result of that meeting, I was directed to proceed with
design of that system. We did a budget amendment probably six weeks ago and we
either have or will shortly sign the contract with JUB Engineers to get that project going.
Actually, I think we already have. I have eight different projects going, but I think it's
going forward. But, he's correct, at this present time there is no funding for construction
of that. I will put that together as an enhancement to bring before you in July of .this
year for your approval or non-approval.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, before you give that up, does all that sewer into the Black Cat? Don't some
of the -- isn't there a certain part of that west of Ten Mile that sewers back into Ten
Mile? I thought there was a certain part of that that flowed naturally back to the east.
Watson: Mr. President, Council member Bird, if there is any, it's very minimal.
Bird: Okay.
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 29 of 58
Watson: The trunk that goes up Ten Mile Road, turns and goes into Lochsa and it's
relatively shallow up there. Maybe Mr. Turnbull can tell more. I did not review the
preliminary plat. Staff did. There may be a small phase on that east end that can sewer
into Ten Mile.
Bird: Thank you, Brad.
Wardle: Other questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Would the applicant like to begin presentation?
Turnbull: Mr. President, my name is David Turnbull. My address is 12601 West
Explorer Drive in Boise and I want to begin by -- off the subject, but a comment that I
was excited to hear about plans for a new City Council and I only had one request at the
new City Council maybe we can have a wider podium here where I can spread my
papers out.
Donnell: Excuse me. I thought you were -- excuse me, Mr. President. I thought he was
talking about a new City Council. Do you mean a new building?
Turnbull: No. A new City Hall.
Donnell: We don't need to get any wider.
Turnbull: A new City Hall. And getting back to the Bainbridge topic -- and I appreciate
Brad's presentation. And I want to just add that I think this is an example of what I
spoke to in a previous article about the staff's work that they do before projects ever get
to you, because, you know -- and I don't want to say this like I feel like I have been beat
up, but we have worked quite a bit with staff going through a lot of the issues and
sorting those things out and I think that's when you know you have a good staff when
those issues are sorted out before they get to this -- this body. So, I don't think we
really have any issues that are outstanding here, but I will touch on a couple of things
that evolved through the process. Brad mentioned that in this area here there is a
neighborhood center designation on the Comprehensive Plan. We felt like that it was
probably appropriate to hold off on that area for any applications until after -- which I
understand has been -- it's about to take place -- this area and the area north of
Chinden Boulevard, are going to be reviewed for a possible Comp Plan amendment.
So, we are happy to hold that area out of this application and wait until that area has
been re-studied. The annexation Brad talked --
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 30 of 58
Rountree: If I could have David -- point out that area again.
Turnbull: Oh, just this area around the half mile section.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Turnbull: Brad noted that the annexation area didn't include the landscaped area on the
north and east side of this main entry road here. Actually, our landscape plan always
included that, has always been in there, but the annexation line only went to the right of
way line, so we submitted a new annexation legal description that goes to the back of
the landscaping area. So, I think that issue has been resolved, Brad. Let's see. The
park issue. This is proposed as a private park, but I have had some discussion with
your parks director Doug Strong about making that a public park and we have gone
through some of the agreements and we have, actually, hired Land Group to do a
preliminary site plan. If this application is approved, then, we will continue to work with
Doug to refine that plan and bring it forward for potentially a public park. But that is
certainly the direction we are headed. Brad talked about the open space requirement.
We, actually, do, with this plan, have ten percent open space requirement and I have
that calculation if you need that. But in addition to that, any other amenities, if you look -
- and I don't know if you can flip back to that park plan, Brad, but we show things, tot
lots, tennis courts, and other things like that. Basically, I want to leave that open to
discuss with your parks department as one of the conditions in the staff comments, so
that we can discuss these amenities and where they might be located. In a future
phase up here we would -- if this were to remain a private park, we would probably do a
community center and pool there, but if it becomes a public park, we will probably move
that across the street in a future application. And I do think that -- if you know our
projects, I think you know that we -- we do a good job on those amenities. So, we
would just ask to be able to work with your staff to finalize those -- those requirements.
Brad talked about discussing a phasing plan. I don't know that that's of particular
interest. Those things are something we delineate, but, of course, sometimes can
change with market conditions or things like that. So, unless you have specific
questions about that, I'll pass. And the condition about the stub street to the school site,
Brad is correct, we did work that out at the Planning and Zoning Commission session. I
guess the language that Brad is suggesting I'm not sure will change things very much,
because if this, indeed, becomes a middle school, I'm quite sure that this area we are
looking at right here is going to be their play fields and I don't think that your -- I don't
see any way where they are going to bifurcate that parcel for an elementary school and
a middle school and take a road right through those play fields, because those fields
take up quite a considerable amount of real estate. So, we are willing to work with the
adjacent property owner, with the school district, should they happen to acquire it, and
the staff to work those details out. Right now we just left that -- it can go either way,
whichever is best for that adjacent parcel. So, with that I don't have any other
comments. I will stand for your questions.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Meridian City Council
AprilS. 2005
Page 31 of 58
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have not seen a good graphic yet that explains to me the different zones.
You're talking about an L-Q and you're talking about an R-8.
Turnbull: Everything is R-8, except for this portion right here, which is L-O.
Rountree: And the annexation includes the portion that's shaded in green around that,
then?
Turnbull: Correct. And we originally had a preliminary plat for single-family residential
lots there, but in lieu of the designation for a neighborhood center there, staff
recommended -- asked us to take that section of the preliminary plat out, so that it could
be flexible later in case -- you know, subject to whatever happens with your
Comprehensive Plan.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: And I didn't see it in the brief look at the 49 pages of the staff comments, but
in previous applications along Chinden we have indicated two things from the city
standpoint -- or three things. One, landscaping. Two, sidewalks. And, three, if
residential is adjacent to that corridor that noise mitigation be included. So, is that
something you have anticipated in your development?
Turnbull: Those are all in the staff comments.
Rountree: Okay.
Wardle: Thank you. Council, other questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Is there anyone else that would wish to testify?
microphone and state your name and address, please.
Please, come to the
Johnson: Lisa Johnson and it's 5745 North Ten Mile, Meridian, Idaho. And we are just
that little triangle thing right there that you see on there and so Bainbridge Subdivision is
going to go all around us and I know that we are just small potatoes in this big group
that we are seeing right now and we also know that -- you know, we love to live in
Meridian and so I can see -- and, you know, we know that the growth is inevitable, but
we just have a couple of requests. And I haven't, actually, talked to Mr. Turnbull and
asked, you know, what the details are, you know, with that coming in for sure, but we
just have a vested interest in 20 years since we moved here in '86 and we have a two
story house and we added an addition onto our house, so that we could have a view of
Meridian City Councii
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 32 of 58
the mountains that, you know, on the -- okay, what is it, the north side of us and so I
guess what we were requesting was just these -- and this is on behalf of myself and my
family and the Harold Johnson family next door. But we are just requesting berms
along the side of our acreage on the south and the west sides of our cattle fence, mostly
for noise and for privacy and also we are thinking it would be in the best interest of them
as well and, I don't know, maybe they were planning on it, but just because we have
cows out there and we just don't want the neighbors to be complaining about the cow
noise and smell. You know what I mean? I don't want to have to be dealing with that,
because, you know, when we moved here we were all alone and that's what we liked,
so, anyway -- and on the berms, we are requesting a privacy fence on the south side of
our fence line, maybe, so that, you know, we are not backed up against everybody's
backyards, just because our house sits pretty close to that -- you know, the south side
of the -- of the subdivision there. And also maybe possible buffer zones. And, let's see,
also, if possible -- and I don't know how big the homes are, but, if possible, maybe to
have just the one story homes right there along our fence line, so that we can still have
a view, you know, rather than the two big story house, you know, so I don't know what's
going on right there, but we are requesting one story homes right there if we could. And
also I have been walking those paths for 20 years and that's my greatest pleasure in
life. I was just wondering if they were going to add a walking path and if I could, you
know, request that. So, that's it.
Wardle: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Is there anyone else that would wish to
testify on any of these applications? Seeing none, Mr. Turnbull, would you like to
respond?
Turnbull: Yes. I have actually talked to Mrs. Johnson's husband once before and
received a letter about -- and I think they had a couple of suggestions. One was that
they wanted this neighborhood park moved down next to their house, but I wasn't able
to accommodate that. That didn't really make sense for the overall design of the
community and being centrally located I think is more important. The other one was a
request that we enlarge the lots around their home and we did do that, we originally had
some smaller lots there, so we already did enlarge those. I believe the requirement,
Brad, is that we would fence the perimeter of that subdivision and we would intend to do
that, but as far as -- I think she is talking about maybe having a berm all the way around
their property and I'm not sure that that's particularly feasible when you're going down
side yard lot lines. We tried to make this as connective as possible in the event that the
Johnsons ever decide to relocate or sell their property for future development and, then,
you know, a road could be extended through there. You know, it's -- we don't want to
bother them as long as they want to be there, you know, we certainly respect their right
to be there, but we just thought that it was good planning and it has been, essentially, at
our own instigation, but also has been checked out by ACHD and your own staff about
providing that future connectivity. So, I guess those are my comments in response to
her -- Mrs. Johnson's comments.
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
April 5,2005
Page 33 of 58
Rountree: Mr. President. With respect to the west side of that lot and the arrangements
with the passing street, would that -- would there be an agricultural type fence there? Is
there room to accommodate sidewalks in the neighborhood, how would that -- would
there be a landscape buffer between the roadway and the west side of their property?
Turnbull: There is a little triangular piece in there that we would landscape and, then,
fence behind it. And -- oh, I forgot her comment about pathways. We will have
detached sidewalks throughout this neighborhood, so she's -- those will be public
sidewalks and she will be free to stole them at her leisure. And, hopefully, she can go
up and use the park, too.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Mr. Turnbull, I suppose there isn't, really, any way that you can guarantee one
and two story homes. When you finish the development of this, I assume that you will
be selling lots to individual builders?
Turnbull: Yes. We do build some of our own, but we sell to other builders as well. I
wasn't quite sure what her reference was to all of the lots or some of the lots or -- I
mean if it's one or two of a critical view nature, I'm happy to work with her on that, but to
put a blanket on all of them, I really would have a difficult time doing that.
Wardle: Further questions?
Rountree: Follow up on that comment from Mr. --
Turnbull: From Mr. Dave.
Donnell: Call him John.
Rountree: Call him John, instead of Mr. Turnbull.
Donnell: That's what I called him.
Rountree: I think the specific concern would be those lots to the north, which would be
the three lots - and I can't read the street names but in that area and maybe even a
fourth adjacent to Ten Mile. Would you have objections to have restrictions on the plat
for those to be single story?
Turnbull: Are we talking about these right here?
Bird: The one and, then, the three.
Rountree: The one and, then, the three.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 34 of 58
Turnbull: This one here and, then, these three?
Rountree: No.
Turnbull: Or these three here?
Rountree: No.
Turnbull: These three here?
Rountree: Yeah. East and west.
Turnbull: I would say this: We would like to suggest that the restriction be -- and I do
this -- if you will notice, a lot of places, like backing up to Ten Mile Road, I put a
restriction on my own neighborhood that doesn't allow a full two story, because I just
think it's ugly to see the full two story home on -- backing up to an arterial road. I don't
think that's good for the community. But there are certain homes that -- where a second
story is put within attic trusses, so, essentially, the roof line looks like a single story, but
there is livable space up there and, you know, maybe to have a dormer window or
something like that, but no full two story. So, I would be -- I would do that. Sure.
Rountree: Thank you.
Wardle: Any other questions?
Donnell: Follow up, Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Mr. Tumbull, I think that that's quite generous, actually, considering the fact
that when we built in a subdivision and I wanted to maintain my view of Bogus Basin
and I asked the builder if that could be accommodated. He said it certainly could if I'd
buy the lot and, of course, that wasn't the case and they did, indeed, put a two-story
home behind us. But, actually, that didn't obstruct the view, it was the trees that we
planted and our neighbors planted behind us that eventually obstructed the view. So,
perhaps your trees aren't that tall yet, but that can easily happen. So, I appreciate your
accommodation.
Turnbull: Well, I just had one of my competitors do a subdivision right behind my house
and I did buy the lot behind me.
Donnell: I couldn't do that.
Wardle: Council, further questions?
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 35 of 58
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Donnell: Mr. President, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: On which ones?
Donnell: All three, actually, if we can. Can we?
Wardle: Before I entertain that motion -- thank you. Before I entertain that motion and
before a second, I have a question of Mr. Watson and in my brief time on the Council I
haven't seen this Council approve a subdivision without sewer service. I don't believe.
Maybe you can correct me if I'm incorrect.
Watson: Mr. President, there have been a few. Saguaro Canyon did not have access
to the sewer at the time it was approved, although that project was funded at that time.
That's the only difference between that and this, is that this project is not funded, but, as
I said, I'll bring that to you in July for your consideration.
Nary: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council -- and maybe Mr. Hawkins-Clark said it,
but I don't recall. When we had our discussion this afternoon we considered maybe
making it part of the development agreement -- it's ready in the findings and the
recommendations, but make it part of the development agreement a statement that
there is currently not sewer service and that the developer is taking that risk at their own
expense of when that's going to occur when that's going to be funded. We did have
similar language -- I think Mr. Watson indicated we had used language similar to that
before we built the White Trunk in the north part of Meridian, just to make sure that all
developers are on notice that there was not currently sewer service available. I don't
recall if at the time we put that in whether those were funded either. I think we were -- it
seems like we took forever to get easements through for that, so I don't think it was
funded yet, but I don't recall. But that might be another assurance about that. The
other comment I was going to make, Mr. Hawkins-Clark had mentioned that we had
been looking at future parking acquisitions and standards that we would have in regards
to that and I think the current findings simply indicate working with Mr. Strong. If the
Council would like, it can certainly add a little bit of language that if there is going to be a
public donation of park property, that they comply with all the requirements that we have
in regards to the boundary requirements and clear title and those types of things and we
can work up language like that and bring that back, if the Council would like to add that
to the findings as well.
Meridian City Council
April 5. 2005
Page 36 of 58
Wardle: And, Mr. Nary, I believe we had Deputy City Attorney Baird bring a similar
platting application for last week that had -- that we felt would ease the process for the
city to be -- as well as the person donating the property as a planning requirement. Is
that true? Or something similar?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yeah, the only difference in that particular
circumstance is that was sort of an after-the-fact as well. It was kind of another Band-
Aid. This one is -- we are on the front end of that -- of a potential donation and a new
annexation and that might be a good opportunity to at least work out those details and
we can certainly leave the language very broad, as we normally do, which is simply
working with the staff and trying to meet the needs and if we can't reach a resolution in
what is necessary in regards to title and title reports and those things, that we can
certainly bring that back in front of the Council for consideration at that juncture. But if
you would like us to add some language, we can do that.
Wardle: Thank you. If there no other comments, Mrs. Donnell, I would entertain your
motion.
Donnell: Mr. President, I would move that we close the public hearings on Items No.
15,16 and 17.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 15, 16,
and 17. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I love these motions. Shall we take these separately?
Bird: You have to.
Donnell: We have to. Thank you. So, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the
request for annexation and zoning for Bainbridge Subdivision, taking into consideration
all staff comments -- and I think at this point is this where we. need also language in
regard to the possibility of a public park or that comes later in the condition -- in the
plat? Is that right?
Nary: That -- Councilmember Donnell that would be in the plat in regards to the park. If
you wanted to include in the development agreement language regarding the fact that
there is no current sewer access --
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 37 of 58
Donnell: I was honestly going to get to that.
Nary: Okay. Sorry.
Donnell: And so going on with my motion, that it includes in the development
agreement language that assures that the developer understands that at this point that
there is no sewer that is offered and that they proceed with their plans at their own risk.
What else do I need to add there, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Mrs. Donnell, I think that's all we need.
Donnell: Okay. Good. Thanks.
Bird: Do you want applicant's remarks, too, don't you, incorporated --
Donnell: Not until we got to the - I wasn't -- until we get to the plat.
Bird: Okay. I will second that.
Donnell: Did we do it?
Wardle: We did it and I just have one point of clarification.
Donnell: I knew it.
Wardle: And that is for staff, we have some findings, do those need to be revised
before the findings can be adopted, given the applicant's testimony on the replies -- I
believe property description along the northern portion of the road.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Councilman, I think it would be helpful that we insure we have
got the right legal description that Mr. Turnbull referenced. Since I misspoke, we
probably need to hold off on adoption of the findings, since I'm not sure that those are
the ones that are in here.
Donnell: Okay.
Bird: And her motion didn't state adopting it.
Donnell: It did not. It did not.
Wardle: So, we are entertaining a motion to approve AZ 05-001, Bainbridge
Subdivision, with all staff and applicant comments and to, then, prepare findings and
bring them forward for Council approval. Mr. Clerk, would you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
Meridian City Councii
Aprii 5. 2005
Page 38 of 58
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: You're on a roll.
Wardle: Item 16. You're on a roll.
Donnell: I was afraid -- I was going to say I'm going to let you guys do this one. Mr.
President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we approve PP 05-002, request for preliminary
plat approval for Bainbridge Subdivision, including taking into account all staff and
applicant comments -- and is this where we need to add language in regard to an
understanding in the development agreement in regard to the possibility of a public park
and to bring forth findings -- whatever you say, Brad. Okay? Did we get there?
Bird: You got her.
Donnell: Okay.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 16, PP 05-002, Bainbridge
Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion to approve CUP 05-002, request for a Conditional
Use Permit for Bainbridge Subdivision, taking into account all staff and applicant
comments, and et cetera and et cetera and et cetera.
Rountree: What's that?
Donnell: That's from the King and I. Does that work? Do I have to say more than that
or is it already on record?
Bird: Mrs. Donnell, are you -- is this -- you took the applicant's comments, so his
agreement to -- to go to the north there of the Johnson property and just have one -- his
comments should be enough on that. Okay. I second it.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 39 of 58
Wardle: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 17, CUP 05-002,
Bainbridge Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, would you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
two separate drive-up windows in a C-C zone for Jade Plaza by
Sundance Investments, LLP - 3679 East Overland Road:
Wardle: Thank you very much. I will open Item No. 18, Public Hearing CUP 04-056,
Conditional Use Permit for Jade Plaza. And begin with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Council, this
application, Conditional Use Permit, is at the very northwest corner -- here is Eagle
Road and Overland. Silverstone Corporate Center and, then, Silverstone Business
Campus, the two Sundance-Silverstone developments that you're most familiar with,
This property that's on this application is here where the two properties join, essentially,
on the south side of Overland Road, the main entry, Topaz, I believe, is the name here.
So, it's already been annexed and zoned commercially with a C-C and this is for a 1,600
square foot restaurant building with a drive-thru lane in a 13,500 square foot building.
Here is the site plan that was submitted within the Conditional Use Permit. Again,
Silverstone Way is a signalized intersection here on the west side and, then, the entry
off of Overland Road is over here. So, they are proposing the building here. The
entrance into the site is -- is going to be from the west here, as well as, ultimately, I think
from the south you can see some connection here. The original certificate of zoning
compliance was for two drive-thru windows. The amended site plan is drawn dated
December 29th. The planned -- what am I trying to say? The Planning and Zoning
Commission did approve -- did recommend approval of the site plan with the drive-
thrus. This is one of those -- again, the main reason you're seeing it is because it does
have a drive-thru facility involved with it. The landscaping that's on Overland Road is --
was the developer's responsibility, but other landscaping in the site. I believe, is all
required by this developer. You have received the standard conditions that have been
recommended to you. I don't think there is any other items to point out at this time.
Staff did recommend approval, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission, so I
will end staff's comments there.
Wardle: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Donnell: No.
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mr. President.
Meridian City Council
April 5,2005
Page 40 of 58
Wardle: If the applicant would like to come forward.
Larsen: Mr. President, Members of the Meridian City Council, my name is Cornell
Larsen. Address 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant
and we are in agreement with the staff report and Planning and Zoning's
recommendation to you and if you had questions I would be happy to answer them. If
not, I will go sit down.
Wardle: Questions of Mr. Larsen? Thank you very much.
Larsen: Thank you.
Wardle: Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application? Hearing
no further comment, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 18.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 18, CUP 04-056, subject to staff
comments.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 18, CUP 04-056. Mr. Clerk,
will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
credit union facility with a drive-thru in a C-C zone for Westmark Credit
Union by Westmark Credit Union - SEC of Eagle & Overland Road in The
Silverstone Corporate Center:
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 41 of 58
Wardle: Open Item No. 19, Public Hearing CUP 05-003, Conditional Use Permit for
Westmark Credit Union and open with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, President Wardle, Members of the Council. This
application is also in Silverstone project. This is on Eagle Road, just south of the coffee
location -- the coffee facility in that area is already built. This is the lot just south of their
main entry sign there for Silverstone. Conditional Use Permit for a credit union. It has a
drive-thru facility and that's the reason why you're seeing this. The structure has drive-
thrus nearest Eagle Road. There is, the staff. feels, pretty good circulation throughout
the site. An elevation of the building is here. The fire department had a couple of
comments about addressing and wanting the address visible from Eagle Road in terms
of emergency fire. That's been added as a condition, so that they can easily see
addressing when they are driving down Eagle Road. They had some concerns about
when you get into these larger commercial complexes, being able to access those. So,
I think the applicant's agreed to do that. There was several comments about the
landscape plan that were included in the standard conditions of approval to modify
requiring the proposed screen wall on the north side of the building being no taller than
eight feet and a couple of other minor items there that I don't think I will go into. But the
Planning and Zoning Commission had no public testimony on this, other than the
applicants, and Cornell Larsen and Matt Schaffer provided testimony, as well as Tom
Zabala, who is representing the applicant. The site plan is dated January 6th, 2005.
And with that I will end staff comments.
Wardle: Thank you, Brad. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant, please, come
forward? State your name and address for the record, please.
Zabala: Mr. President, Members of the Council, my name is Tom Zabala with ZGA
Architects. My address is 565 West Myrtle Street in Boise. I'm here this evening
representing Westmark Credit Union. With regard to the staff's Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, we have read those and we are in agreement with them and be
happy to answer any questions that the Council may have this evening.
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
Zabala: Thank you.
Wardle: Is there anyone else that would like to provide public testimony on Application
No. 19? Seeing no further testimony, I would entertain a motion to close the Public
Hearing on Item 19.
Rountree: So moved.
Meridian City Councii
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 42 of 58
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES..
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 19, CUP 05-003.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Subject to staff comments.
Bird: Oh. Second.
Wardle: Would the maker of the motion clarify that that also includes the findings that
are prepared?
Rountree: Yes, sir.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 19, CUP 05-003, with the
findings. Mr. Clerk, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Public Hearing: PP 05-005 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP
02-007) to add seven additional building lots for Heritaae Commons by
Brighton Investments, LLC - west of Locust Grove Road and north of
Ustick Road:
Wardle: Item No. 20. I will open the Pubic Hearing PP 05-005, preliminary plat for
Heritage Commons and open with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, President Wardle, Members of the Council. This
application is to amend the preliminary plat for Heritage Commons. As you know, this
subdivision is largely built out, but there is a small section here at the -- on the north end
of the project that remains undeveloped and so they -- having had, my understanding,
some success with their alley-loaded products, wanted to come in and amend their
preliminary plat to add a few more of those, It does add seven lots to what Heritage
Commons originally was approved for. The zoning is not. proposed to change. No
Meridian City Councii
April 5. 2005
Page 43 of 58
amendments to the Conditional Use Permit. The only item before you is the preliminary
plat to amend that section. So, here what you're looking at is what the preliminary plat
today is approved for and the street name is throwing me off, but -- East Layfield Drive.
I thought that was Heritage. But maybe Mr. Turnbull can talk about that. But this area
here, as you can, is, essentially, running a new alley north and south here and a new
alley north and south here. The existing alley on the south end here that serves these
lots that front on the common area, so this is just north of that. The preliminary plat --
this is a cleaner version that's shown here. There -- since it's under five acres and they
have all of the open space already built in other sections of the subdivision, this
particular phase actually doesn't include open space, but just so you know, they are still
providing the same amount of open space that they originally had. The Planning and
Zoning Commission did receive some comments from Rebecca Young on Heron's
Lane. There was also a comment about some sewer odor that was clarified at the
Planning and Zoning Commission that was due to a -- it sounded like a pumping station
problem. But I think that got resolved. The Commission has forwarded staff as well
their findings for this, they are included. The findings are for approval. The preliminary
plat would, essentially, be amended in this section, if you approve this, and we
recommend that you include in your motion comments from the Commission.
Wardle: Thank you. Questions of staff?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: If Mr. Turnbull would like to come forward and, please, state your name and
address again for the record.
Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive, Boise. Brad, could you put up the
original preliminary plat again? I don't have too much to add, except to say Brad's
correct, we had some success with the initial what we call Carriage Lane homes. I think
that people out there -- it's not for everybody, but even the people that don't live in them
love them, so we went back to the neighborhood and this area here had always kind of
bothered me, because we had Carriage Lane homes and on this side and sandwiched
in between some kind of traditional with the garages out front. So, as I thought about it
and thought about it, I came -- you know, I decided that it would look better if we ran the
alleys up here and added some more Carriage Lane homes. So, that's simply it. We
went to the neighborhood, had a meeting, they all liked the idea, and I think we have
everybody's support, so we'd appreciate your approval. I would stand for any questions
if you have any.
Wardle: Questions of Mr. Turnbull?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to provide public testimony on
this item? Seeing no further public testimony, I would entertain a motion to close the
Public Hearing on Item No. 20.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 44 of 58
Bird: So moved.
Donnell: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 20. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 05-005 and incorporate staff and applicant comments and
I believe also the Findings as presented.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 20, PP 05-005 for Heritage
Commons. Mr. Clerk would you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed use three story building consisting of retail, office and residential
uses in the O-T zone for Dave Buich by Dave Buich - 641 North Main
Street:
Item 22:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-003 Request for a Variance for a reduction in
parking requirements for a proposed three-story mixed-use project for
Dave Buich by Dave Buich - 641 North Main Street:
Wardle: That brings us to Items No. -- I will open both public hearings on Item No. --
well, let me ask a point of clarification real quick from the attorney. Do we need to open
both of these and take action on one before the other?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yes, you should open Items 21 and 22
simultaneously. If the Council is in agreement to grant the variance, then, you should
pass that prior to taking up the CUP.
Wardle: Thank you very much. I will open Items No. 21 and 22 for Dave Buich and
begin with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 45 of 58
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, President Wardle, Members of the Council. I will kind of
address both of these items together in my comments here, but just briefly, the request
is for a Conditional Use Permit. This is proposed to be a multiple story -- three story, to
be exact, building, consisting of retail, office, and residential. The site is just behind us
here, the shell station site. It is zoned Old Town. The zoning is not proposed to
change. The building would front on Main Street and, again, Broadway on the north
side. There is an existing alley on the south side. A city parking lot is immediately to
the west and, then, of course, the two creamery parcels also. Here is an aerial shot that
gives a little bit of a sense of what's happening, but you're all quite familiar with the
area. So, here is the site plan that was submitted with their Conditional Use Permit
application. They have, to my understanding, with Clare Bowman, Meridian
Development Corporation, the MDC board has reviewed this, the historic preservation
commission reviewed this, and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this. So,
you have three bodies that have all seen this prior to their coming to you tonight. All of
them recommending approval. In terms of the streetscape, the trees are shown there,
consistent with the patterns that have been built there on the north side with the bank.
They are proposing to bring the building up to the street, providing parking in the rear.
The elevations that were submitted are here. The front elevation on the top that would
front Main Street. A side elevation fronting -- that would be viewed from Broadway.
And, then, the back elevation there on the top and the side from the Zamzow's and alley
and whatnot to the south there. It does sit on .41 acres. The Meridian downtown
design guidelines, which continue to be worked on, are very close to coming to a Public
Hearing, were reviewed as a part of this application in the design of it. So, you are
aware, while that's not an adopted document, they were well aware that those
guidelines have been worked on by the public and in workshops and incorporated many
of those into their planning. Just go back to the site plan for a minute. In terms of Item
No. 22 and the variance request, we have seen several of these variances proposing
reduced parking in the Old Town area. We have received a letter, which should be in
your packets, from Mr. David Kline, who has expressed some concern about -- about
the parking and some monitoring and enforcement concerns about how parking would
be handled and I just wanted to point that out, that that has been submitted to the
record. The staff report you received on the variance application from Josh Wilson, it
goes into detail some of the other applications and the findings we feel can be made
that would support the reduced parking requirements. There is a number of factors that
we think support not providing all the parking right now, you know, in terms of -- when
you go downtown, a lot of times you think is it going to be congested or not and there is
a certain expectation that you're going to walk a little bit further than you would, maybe,
in other locations in a downtown setting. There was a parking study that the Planning
and Zoning department contracted out several months ago that analyzed parking in the
whole downtown corridor area, I think it was about a 16 to 18 block -- square block area
and they found other than to actually -- there are a couple of days around where we are
silting here, the Nazarene church, as you know, on Wednesdays there there can be
some parking problems, but other than that, that parking study generally found that
there was a supply in the surplus .for most of the core area, so I just point that out to
you, that that study is available and was done fairly recently. I think that that's all the
comments I will make at this point.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 46 of 58
Wardle: Thank you, Brad. And just for a point of clarification, the clerk would like me to
clarify that the Planning and Zoning Commission, along with the Historical Preservation
Committee and the MDC, did not see the variance application. Correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. That is correct.
Wardle: Okay. Thank you very much.
Bird: Say that again loud enough so we can hear.
Wardle: For clarification, the MDC board, the Historical Preservation Committee, and
the Planning and Zoning Commission did not see. or act upon the variance, which is
Item No. 22. Thank you very much. If the applicant would, please, come forward. I'm
sorry. Mr. Bird?
Bird: Yeah. I have got a question of staff. When you have condos, townhouses,
whatever he is going to call those things up on top -- I don't know how many there is --
some of those parking spots down below have to be dedicated and, also, if you're
spending -- I mean if you're spending a hundred and a half, 200 thousand for a condo,
you're going to want covered parking. So, actually, how many spaces is not going to be
for the public in his own area?
Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Bird, Members of the Council, there is four residential units
proposed and, normally, we would see two parking spaces for those. So, that would be
eight. If I understood your question correctly, it was how many public spaces would
there be on this site?
Bird: How many dedicated spaces? I mean you pay that, you're going to -- when you
come home, you're going to expect a space to park. If not, Chief Musser's people are
going to be down there refereeing fist fights every night or so. That's -- what do you
require on something like that? Two per -- per condo or one per condo or what?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. If it's two bedroom or more, it is two spaces per unit.
Bird: And they have to be dedicated or, me, as the public, if I'm going to the retail or
whatever he's got in there or to my office up on the second floor, I. don't park there?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. If I could defer that to the applicant to have them address,
because I'm not sure what their -- what their thinking is on that.
Bird: Well, thanks, Brad, you have answered my concern to a degree.
Wardle: Other questions of staff? If the applicant would, please, come forward.
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 47 of 58
Marshall: Good evening, President, Members of the City Council. I'm Scott Marshall,
LKV Architects, appearing for Dave Buich, who wasn't able to be here tonight. Our
firm's address is 1735 Federal Way in Boise. We have no issues with the Findings. In
regards to the parking issue, there would be designated parking for the units on top of
the -- top of the structure. They wouldn't be covered. There are four units. We would,
of course, follow with what the city code would be to accommodate those places, if one
of the units were to be two or over, there would be two spots. We haven't gotten that far
in our design yet to really look at and see, you know, what -- if it's going to be one
bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, it kind of depends on what the need would be.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have a follow up on the question. You said designated parking spot. Don't you
mean dedicated?
Marshall: Exactly. You're correct.
Bird: So, basically, between four to eight of those parking spots as shown there will be
dedicated to the condominiums up on top, not for public parking.
Marshall: Correct.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Scott, what -- do you know what the applicant's plan is in terms of phasing in
in this project? Are they going to start with the retail part of it first and, then, leave the
top part of it until they go forward with that part or do you know what the plan is?
Marshall: I would anticipate that, basically, the construction schedule would be to build
the building and have it be shell and core in the retail. I'm sure the applicant would
prefer to have those spaces rented prior to completion of the building. That would be --
that would apply both for the retail, the office, and the residential. There has already
been quite a bit of interest for the residential, so --
Donnell: Really?
Marshall: Yeah. There has. So, I guess to answer your question, if the spaces can be
rented and there can be commitment, it would --
Donnell: They would go ahead with it.
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 48 of 58
Marshall: They will go ahead with it.
Donnell: So, I'm going to go back to Councilman Bird's question. If I were to rent one of
those, I would want covered parking. so, is that going to be provided and, of course, it
would be dedicated, so to the staff does that leave enough parking places that are
appropriate for the retail portion of that building?
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I was talking to Chief Musser and I didn't catch the whole
question. Something about retail appropriateness, right?
Donnell: So, that's coming in the variance portion of it is in the parking? Okay. I think
that President Wardle answered my question. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Marshall: If I may say, it's my understanding that the parking spaces would be required,
but I don't think there is a requirement from the city to have them covered; is that
correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That is correct.
Marshall: Okay. So, at this time I don't know if the covered requirement would be
something that we would do or not.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Marshall -- and I know you guys don't have any idea, but right now in
downtown there is so many rumors floating around we could build a motel and fill it, so
I'll get a rumor. I understand there is a very strong chance of a restaurant or coffee
shop being there on the bottom floor.
Marshall: Okay.
Bird: That's the rumor on the outside. I think that way -- I think what you put in there
makes a lot of difference on the variance of parking. A restaurant is going to take a lot
of parking. Office space can take a lot of parking. And I realize that we got a nice --
there is a nice public parking lot just down the hill, which I'm sure you guys would be
glad to put in some nice stairs in back there, but it's not something that we can always
have dedicated for your building during the day. So, I have -- I have a -- not a definite
disagreement with the variance, but I think it's something that we really need to think
about, because, you know, you can say, no, we are not going to have covered parking,
but I'll guarantee you if I pay 150, 200 thousand for one of those units up there,
somebody's going to put in covered parking.
Meridian City Council
April 5,2005
Page 49 of 58
Marshall: Point taken. The applicant is also concerned with the limited parking and it's
been looked at and addressed as well. We did consider the -- as stated by Brad, that--
the parking analysis and I think he's right in saying that it's not going to be like we can
pull -- like in the strip mall, park right up front, take five steps and be in. So, I think that,
you know, we feel, as well as Dave and Greg, that just the fact of it being on Main Street
and having that look, people will go a little bit beyond as far as walking or, you know, to
just be part of it.
Bird: Thank you very much.
Wardle: Thank you. We had one person sign up to testify in favor of this. Clare
Bowman. If you would, please, state your name and address for the record.
Bowman: My name is Clare Bowman, I live at 4400 West Legacy Lane, Meridian. I'm
here in the roll as the administrator for the Meridian Development Corporation, the
urban renewal agency for the City of Meridian. And because of a cold I'm having a hard
time hearing myself talk, so I hope I don't yell at you too much. Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Council, I have comments on a couple of the aspects of this proposal, particularly
the request for the variance on parking. One of the defined goals of the market strategy
that was adopted by the Meridian Development Corporation board is to foster
development of a mixed use, pedestrian friendly, downtown area. This project in its
conception is a major step in this direction and on behalf of the MDC board I would
applaud the developer for bringing this project forward. MDC's market strategy report
further notes that making mixed-use developments work in an urban area requires
reduced on-site parking. I believe when the MDC board adopted that market strategy,
that they had not seen a specific example of this and this may be one of the first ones
coming forward to look at in that regard, but I believe it is consistent with what was
envisioned by the market strategy. The parking study to which staff referred has
indicated that there is available parking off street and on street in this area. The
Farmers and Merchants State Bank building used up some of that as they took some
spaces out of existence. This building will add not only the -- I think 18 spaces on the
site, but there will be street side parking in front of the building parallel on Main Street. I
have suggested to the developers that they consider angled parking on Broadway,
much the same as what Farmers and Merchants State Bank has done, as a way to get
some additional parking spaces nearby. I would also note that the draft zoning
ordinances that the Planning and Zoning Commission are hearing right now for the Old
Town area, would eliminate all parking requirements for downtown development and let
that be determined by the market factors that the private sector is better at gauging than
we in the public sector with our minimum parking requirements as they currently exist in
the ordinance. Lastly, I would like to underscore the MDC board's desire for the
streetscape on this project to mirror that of the Farmers and Merchants State Bank as it
is currently constructed. The developer has indicated the willingness to do that and I
met with them today to talk about some ways to insure that that gets done and we get
all the specifications to them. So, with that I would stand for questions.
Meridian City Councii
April 5. 2005
Page 50 of 58
Wardle: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
Bowman: Thank you.
Wardle: Is there anyone else that would wish to testify on this application? Would the
applicant like an opportunity to respond?
Musser: President Wardle? If I could in reference to the staff comments, it stated that
there wasn't anything from the police department. We, apparently, had an error and
weren't present at the comments meeting. We do have a standard comment for multi-
dwelling buildings in which we have mixed uses or a potential for visitor attendance
added that we have a signed and designated parking as part of the police comment.
That one wasn't included in staff comments, but I would like to have it on record at this
time that it would be something that the police department would be looking at is
designated or assigned parking for residential concerns associated with this
development and we in the future will try to make sure that we have the comments in
there in appropriate time. But we do have a condition on that.
Wardle: Thank you, chief. Council?
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I would move that we close the public hearings for Items No. 22 and 23.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: 21 and 22.
Donnell: Oh, is it -- 21 and 22. What time is it?
Rountree: But who's counting.
Donnell: Who's counting.
Wardle: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings
on Item No. 21 and 22. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5, 2005
Page 51 of 58
Wardle: Before -- I will entertain a motion on Item No. 22 and, then, have some
discussion.
Bird: Mr. President.
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will bring it up. I move that we approve -- let me get my glasses on so I can
read. Variance 05-003, the request for a variance in reduction in parking requirements
for the proposed three story mixed use project for Dave Buich, 641 North Main Street.
Donnell: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 22 and let's have some
discussion. I'd like to open the discussion with just some immediate comments about
some of the things and having a captive audience of some downtown business owners,
as well as two MDC board members and the executive director. One of the important
things for this community and for downtown redevelopment, in my opinion, is the
amount of parking available to make that redevelopment happen and I feel, again,
personally that one of the number one goals -- and I know this is a number one goal --
or one of the goals and I'd like to make it an important goal for the MDC, and that is to
provide parking and if the goal of the urban renewal district is to increase density and,
therefore, increase development, then, they should look to increase dense parking in
terms of parking structures and parking facilities and so I think that that is one of the --
one of the greatest accomplishments that an urban renewal district can make and in
itself the ability and the availability of additional parking will bring business development.
So, those are my opening comments.
Donnell: Well said.
Bird: What's your closing?
Wardle: I'll close with whatever else the Council would like to talk about.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: While I agree with you, there is absolutely no way, being on the MDC board, that
they can afford to put up a parking structure, but we do need some more off-street
parking. The only concern I had -- and this is something that we are going to have,
because I think you're going to see residential uses on the tops of these buildings,
because it's very popular, very nice place to live. You know, it's like Washington Square
down there on Capital Boulevard and Idaho Street, you know, they -- when you
purchase your condo up there, you get two spots in the parking garage, covered parking
Meridian City Council
AprilS, 2005
Page 52 of 58
garage. I just wanted to bring out that there was going to be a certain amount of this
on-site parking was going to be dedicated, that wasn't going to be public parking, and
we all realize that downtown we need some off-street parking. We are working to that
end. We haven't got it. We have got one parking lot over there by the Masonic that the
city leases. It don't seem to be used that much, but we started getting -- we start getting
these kind of buildings in here with this kind of retail and stuff, they will start being used.
So, we are working towards that end and we do know off-street parking is a very
important matter. But right now at about 16,17 thousand per parking space, we are not
going to build too many parking structures.
Wardle: Further discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
Wardle: If there is no further discussion, we have a motion on the table to approve Item
No. 22, VAR 05-003, variance in reduction for parking requirements. Mr. Clerk, please
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Now, I believe that we may move on Item No. 21.
Bird. Mr. President.
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve CUP 05-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed
use three story building, consisting of retail, office, and residential uses in an OT zone
by Dave Buich, 641 North Main and to incorporate all public and staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No, 21, CUP 05-005. Mr.
Clerk, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-006 Request for a Variance for a time extension
to record the Final Plat for Setter Cover for Setter Cove Subdivision by
MKH Development, Inc. - north of East Ustick Road and North Locust
Grove Road:
Meridian City Councii
AprilS, 2005
Page 53 of 58
Wardle: Item No. 23. I will open the Public Hearing on VAR 05-006, variance for a time
extension for final plat, Setter Cove Subdivision, and open with staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, President Wardle, Members of the Council. You have seen
several of these variances in the past. Current city code says that you have to record a
final plat with the county recorder within one year of being signed. If that does not
happen and they forget to request a time extension, which in this case is what
happened, then, it leaves, technically, the project null and void. In the past the City
Council has accepted these variance applications, instead of deeming the plat null and
void and saying you have to start over, we have accepted variance applications to see if
the Council is in support of allowing them to continue on from where they are at. They
have had a pre-con meeting for Setter Cove Subdivision. The statement they have
made on their application was they lost track of the one-year time frame while
negotiating with the Meridian School District and their contractor on some of the details
for the plat. Staff's report is the same as it usually is. We feel like, technically, the
findings can't be met. There really is no hardship that was placed on them by Ada
County Highway District, irrigation district, anybody else that prevented this from being
processed in the time frame that everyone else has to comply with. That being said, the
staff report does say that there have been other approvals like this in the past, but the
staff's recommendation is that we can't make the findings, so -- thank you.
Wardle: Thank you. Questions of staff?
Donnell: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Brad, where exactly is this?
Hawkins-Clark: I guess that would have been a good thing to point out. The Meridian --
now I just lost the name of the elementary school.
Donnell: Meridian Elementary?
Hawkins-Clark: No. This is over -- Discovery.
Donnell: Oh, Discovery.
Hawkins-Clark: This is just south of Discovery.
Donnell: Got you.
Wardle: Thank you. Further questions of staff?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 5, 2005
Page 54 of 58
Wardle: If the applicant would come forward. Please state your name and address.
Tealey: Mr. President, Members of the Council, my name is Pat Tealey, office address
2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, and representing the applicant. I guess we are at
your mercy, there is no doubt about it. We missed the -- we missed the date. Not only
did we miss the date, but I guess the city has, too. It's just -- it's a hectic time, we are
doing a lot of development. Our approval expired on October 7th. We, actually, had a
pre-construction meeting on the 22nd of October. We have constructed the sewer. We
have excavated the roads. We have constructed the sewer. We are in the process of
building the water, all of these, and we don't have an approval for the final plat anymore,
The staff indicates as such that in the past you have approved these types of
applications. While we don't consider this normal, we would certainly consider this to be
the same as any of those other applications. We do note in the variance request that
the staff report that they would recommend going back to preliminary plat approval. I
don't think this would do anybody any good. I mean we satisfied the conditions of the
preliminary plat, we have not satisfied the conditions of the final plat in regards to the
time frame to record it. We ask your -- for your -- I guess your indulgence on that. A
hardship that we did have and the thing that basically pre-occupied the owner on this
were the negotiations with the school district. He was the original owner of all that land
that the school district has got out there now, called Education Campus Subdivision,
there is several buildings going in on it. There was land trades involved and there was
some extensive negotiations as far as the irrigation system that went in there. We had -
- down in the southeast corner of the subdivision there was a well here that was being
used to irrigate the entirety of this land that's Education Campus and this Sutter Cove.
This well was, then, moved up here and there is a big pump house built up in here. The
applicant, again, had to negotiation with the school district on time and rotation
schedules and the ability to use their pump station to irrigate the -- pressure irrigation for
these lots. While that seems like a simple thing to do for this person that -- basically is a
one-time developer, it proved to be a little bit tough, so -- and I'm here to answer any
other questions that you might have.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Two questions. Is there any reason why you can't expeditiously get to final
plat?
Tealey: If -- it's under construction now. We have Central District Health's signature on
the back of the plat. We would be presenting bonding to the highway district to get their
signature and probably have it recorded within the next two or three months. We are
not asking for one year from this date, but from the date of the actual expiration. We
should have that accomplished within the next couple of months.
Meridian City Councii
April 5. 2005
Page 55 of 58
Rountree: And not that you would have this answer, but you mentioned this has
occurred with others. Has this applicant or you been personally involved in those other
variance requests?
Tealey: That's a good question. I think I was on one.
Rountree: Just trying to establish a pattern here.
Tealey: The connection isn't made. We get hired to do certain things and sometimes
our recommendations go unheeded and we end up bearing the brunt of the -- of your
comment like that.
Rountree: I didn't mean it to be a brunt. I mean it's information.
Tealey: Yes. It's not something that anybody wants to do on a regular basis, that's for
sure.
Rountree: Thank you.
Wardle: Further questions of Mr. Tealey?
Bird: I have none.
Donnell: Mr. Tealey, that -- Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Mr. Tealey, that small little subdivision is being done by the owner, the one --
is he the resident that's back in the back of that piece of property? Is that right?
Tealey: That's correct.
Donnell: And he was -- for just Council's information, because I was involved in a lot of
the negotiations as we purchased that property, but he was extremely cooperative, so it
surprises me, I guess, that there was some difficulty in getting all of the irrigation issues
addressed.
Tealey: I don't think the issue of whether we were going to get irrigation water or not
was the problem, it was how it was going to be supplied to us. At one time it was going
to be a separate well that we'd pump out of and, then, we, actually, ended up using the
school district's pump station.
Donnell: Right.
Meridian City Council
April 5. 2005
Page 56 of 58
Tealey: And I think that's where the difficulty was. It's certainly not to mean -- it wasn't -
- that kind of wasn't meant that the school district of was tough to deal with, it was just
the negotiations took awhile.
Donnell: Okay.
Wardle: Would anyone else like to comment on Item 23?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Donnell: No.
Wardle: Any further public testimony? Hearing no further testimony, I would entertain a
motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 23.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 23. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: I'll entertain a motion on Item 23.
Bird: Christine seems to be most familiar with this.
Donnell: I do. I certainly will. Mr. President?
Wardle: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the request for a variance for the
time extension to record the final plat for Setter Cover for Setter Cove Subdivision. Is
that a typo? Setter Cover? I'm reading that -- okay. Sorry. Setter Cover for Setter
Cove Subdivision by MKH Development, incorporating -- I guess no comments at all.
Bird: What's -- is there a time -- before I second it, Christine, do you want to put a time
extension on it? Six months, a year, or three months?
Donnell: My understanding from the applicant was that he said that they would only
request a year from the time that their year was expired, which would be October, is that
not correct? So, I would --
Meridian City Councii
Aprii 5. 2005
Page 57 of 58
Bird: October 1st.
Donnell: October 1st.
Bird: Okay. Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 23, VAR 05-006, Variance
for Setter Cove Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. By that motion I assume that we are preparing
findings for that motion?
Bird: Yes.
Donnell: Definitely.
Roll-call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 24:
Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies:
Wardle: Item No. 24, water, sewer, and trash delinquencies. Pursuant to Meridian City
Code 9-1-2.1, delinquent water users shall have the right to request a pre-termination
hearing prior to water service being disconnected. No water users have requested such
pre-termination hearing for April 5th, 2005, water service for the attached turn-off list will
be terminated on April 6th, 2005. The total amount of the turn-off list is $21,074.91.
Is there anyone here that would wish to comment on that? Hearing none, I would
entertain a motion to approve the turn-off list.
Donnell: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 24, turn-off list, in the
amount $21,074.91. Mr. Clerk, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: One item for discussion and that is we need to, in the next several weeks or
so, set a date for our budget hearing. So, something to be thinking about. Please get
your comments to the finance department.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 5. 2005 .
Page 58 of 58
Rountree: Will, you have the schedule and the time lines for that to occur, so what's the
window that we can be looking at?
Berg: Mr. President. I'll e-mail you the window of where that lines up with what the
finance department has kind of said. We just have to notify the county clerk's office
when our public hearing is, so they can put those on the notices of the tax bills by the
end of this month.
Rountree: Move to adjourn.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn my first official meeting a chair. All
in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
-~
MAYORT EWEERD'