HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 06-28
Meridian City Council MeetinQ
June 28. 2005.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, June 28, 2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, Charlie
Rountree, and Christine Donnell.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Bill Nary, Will Berg, Ann Canning, Bill Musser, Joe Silva,
Brad Watson, Bruce Freckleton, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Christine Donnell
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the City Council meeting to order. Welcome.
It is Tuesday, June 28th at 7:00 o'clock. We will open the meeting with roll call
attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 2 is the pledge of allegiance. We will be lead
tonight in the pledge of Katie, our Statesman reporter.
(Pledge of Allegiance Recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Kevin Moyer, with Meridian First
Baptist Church:
De Weerd: Thank you, Katie. Item 3 is our community invocation. We will be led
tonight by Pastor Kevin Moyer. He is with Meridian First Baptist Church. If you will,
please, join us in the invocation or take this opportunity for a moment of silence.
Moyer: We are, indeed, thankful tonight, Father, for being a great nation that you have
made us and that we can still have the freedoms today to still pledge our allegiance to
this nation and give tribute to your great work of grace to allow us the freedoms that we
have these many years. We are extra mindful, Father, as we come to this Fourth of
July celebration that we can do incredible things because of what so many who have
gone before have done to pay the price to represent this nation in such a great and
honorable way, that we have these freedoms and liberties. We are thankful and,
Father, we are asking a special watch-care as we commit our men and women that are
serving all over this world to you. We ask that you would bring them back home safe
after they serve their time. Lord, watch over them in the more dangerous places, like
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 2 of78
Iraq and others. And, Father, we are thankful that we can just enjoy a special process
like we have here tonight and, Father, as Meridian looks at all the wonderful
opportunities ahead for her, the great challenges of our growth, this is important what
takes place here tonight. Thank you for our Mayor, the Council, and the community that
comes and that, Lord, you give wisdom tonight as we look at a lot of important issues, to
have the discernment needed to be able to think right and do that which is going to best
overall. So, give, again, the wisdom we need and thank you for the privilege of being
here and for the democracy that we have. We are a thankful people. We ask your
blessing upon all the affairs tonight as we commit them to you, in Christ's name we
pray, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor. Very timely reminder before our Independence Day and
we appreciate you joining us tonight. Item 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We have got one which when we come to it, Item No. 22, needs to be continued,
because it wasn't noticed by Touchmark, but we can take care of that when it goes.
The resolution numbers starting on 05 --
Wardle: 476.
Bird: -- 476 and we will take care of that in the Consent Agenda. With that, I move we
approve the agenda as published.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to adopt the agenda as changed. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Resolution No. 05-476 VAC 05-004 Request for a
Vacation of platted easements for KrisPV Kreme Subdivision by
Eagle-Fairview Investment Co., LLC - Lot 1 of the Krispy Kreme
Subdivision:
B.
Resolution No. 05-477 VAC 05-005 Request for a
Vacation of a portion of a 20-foot utility easement between Lots 20
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 3 of78
De Weerd: Item 5.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
& 21, Block 1, Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by Properties West,
Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of River Valley Street:
C.
Development Agreement: AZ 05-003 Request for an Annexation
and Zoning of 76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for KinQsbridQe
Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
D.
License Aareement with Nampa & Meridian IrriQation District
for Ten Mile Drain (Glacier Springs Subdivision):
E.
School Resource Officer Aareement between the Meridian
Police Department and Meridian School District:
F.
Water Main Easement for Elm Grove Trailer Park:
G.
Request for Funds No.4 for Meridian Sr. Center Rehabilitation
Project ICDBG 04-111-01-SR:
H.
WWTP load Sharina I Sheddina Durina Transfer to Backup
Power with Custom Electric:
I.
ScopinQ Study to Set Desian Parameters for the SCADA
portion of the WWTP Phase I with DC Enaineerina:
J.
Eaale Road Waterline Relocation with Civil Survey:
K.
Contract Proposal for Construction Documents for Ustick
Road Improvements alonQ Meridian Settler's Park with The
land Group, Inc.:
L.
License Aareement with Nampa & Meridian IrriQation District
for Eight Mile lateral ( Tuscany lakes Subdivision No.2):
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published, including Resolution
No. 05-476 and 05-477, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper
papers.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 4 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
City Attorney
1.
Update on Office Remodel at Farmers & Merchants Old
Branch Building:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6 under Department Reports, we will start with our city
attorney Bill Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- it's hard when you sit over here. I'm
not going to always sit over here, but this is the second week I'm over here this time.
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to report an update on the office
remodel on the Farmers and Merchants Bank building. I know you had approved the
move and I know your expectation is to see the cost to the city for all the moving costs
and remodeling costs and the like. We did receive a bid on some of the remodeling
costs. It was a fairly high number that I was concerned about the expense to the city to
do that level of remodeling, that expense. We have sought out another bid. I did
receive a contract back this afternoon from the contractor that indicated the bid would
probably come in, hopefully, about a third of what the other original bid was. We are
also looking at some alternatives to, again, make it workable at the least expense. So, I
don't have a final number or a final date, but I wanted you to know that we were still
working to get this process completed. We got held up on the first bid that we sought,
because we waited about three and a half weeks, almost four weeks, to get that bid in.
So, that's part of the reason for the delay. They have been proceeding on the WAN and
getting that installation done, so that is still in process, but is close to being done. It will
probably be up with the rest of the testing for the WAN. That's going to, I think, occur in
the month of July. And, then, as I said, we are looking for some alternatives for some of
the office space to be able to make it workable, but at a lesser price. And, then, the last
thing will be some -- getting some bids for our moving costs for a moving company,
which I don't anticipate to be very high, because we don't have a lot of people or a lot of
materials to move over there, so that shouldn't be significant. And, then, get the phones
installed and, then, we will be ready to go. But I will bring that back to you when I get it,
but I did want to let you know where we were and was very encouraged that this new
contractor could possibly give us the same amount of remodeling work done for about a
third of what we originally had thought, so when I get the rest of it, I will get that to you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 5 of 78
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Mr. Nary, is that -- is the remodel work the scope of work that
Farmers and Merchants is remodeling for the city? Is that what we are talking about?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, the work that
was done by Farmers and Merchants is completed and all that -- what they did was to
put the building back into, essentially, a habitable shape. They re-installed the sink into
the break rooms, they put the doors back on to some of the rooms, they have had to
actually completely refinish a small men's bathroom, because all the fixtures had been
taken out. Some of the kitchen work had -- some of the fixtures had to be replaced.
And they cleaned some of the walls and they cleaned the carpets, but there is not --
they didn't do anything else. There is no other tenant improvement that Farmers and
Merchants was supplying. So, what we are looking at is -- there were two offices in
there that had glass walls and, essentially, they are cubicle spaces, the walls actually
don't go all the way to the ceiling, they don't have doors, they don't have mechanisms
for doors, they -- so, we needed those to be turned from a cubicle space into an actual
office space that was secured and was private, so that our attorney and our HR analyst
can actually use those as working offices, because of the confidential material that they
handle, they could have doors that actually lock. There is only two office spaces in that
building that are usable for offices that have doors that lock. There is another office
room that was used as a -- for a period of time I guess it was used as a conference
room, but it doesn't have a window in it, so it's not real ideal for an office space and,
then, there is another office space that Mr. Bowman would like to use, but it does not
have a door that locks either, but that's the one he wanted to use. They took the
counter out, we had discussed removing that, because the counter top that was used
for teller space was not workable space for our staff to use and so they removed the
counter, but, then, the floor has tile and, then, carpet, and the carpet is patch worked
together, so part of the remodel look that we were looking for was to make the floor
even with at least just some carpet that would somewhat match and, then, creating at
least some sort of privacy or wall separation between where the public would enter the
building and where the work space for our support staff would be.
Wardle: Okay. So, these are -- these are the additional costs above what we had
discussed with the WAN and the phone system and, then, the moving costs and you're
going to bring that back to the Council?
Nary: Yes. Yes. Yes, Council member Wardle, yeah, we will bring back whatever the
costs are, so you're aware of what they are. Hopefully, we will have this bid in
tomorrow. By the time -- I'm leaving town in the morning. By the time I get back next
week Mr. Baird has also -- has been asked to look at some of these things with some of
the people that have offered to do some things and, again, our staff is looking at some
of the other costs that we could do this maybe cheaper. So, I'm hoping by your next
Council meeting on the 12th I should be able to report to you what the extra costs were
going to be.
De Weerd: Councilman Wardle, I guess long story short, we had anticipated some of
this would have been done, but when we saw the bid we understood why they ran out of
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 6 o£18
money before the rest of it got completed. It was expense work. So, fortunately, we
have some more local people that can get us some numbers that we won't balk at.
Wardle: Okay.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further on Department Reports, we had no items
moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Tabled from June 21, 2005: FP 05-036 Request for Final Plat approval
of 55 single-family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 14.91
acres in a R-8 zone for Fulfer Subdivision No.6 by Kevin Howell
Construction - north of McMillan Road and west of Linder Road:
Item 9:
Tabled from June 21, 2005: FP 05-035 Request for Final Plat approval
of 44 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 10.39
acres in a R-8 zone for Fulfer Subdivision No.7 by Kevin Howell
Construction - north of West McMillan Road and east of North Ten Mile
Road:
De Weerd: So, we will entertain Item 8, tabled from January 21 st, FP 05-036 and No.
FP 05-035.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we now have letters from the
applicant stating they are in agreement with the conditions of approval of those final
plats.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, I would entertain a motion on Items 8 and 9.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Items No.8 and 9 -- FP 05-036 and Item 9 FP 05-035.
Donnell: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items 8 and 9. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 7 of78
Item 10:
MI 05-006 Request to amend conditions of plat approval, specifically the
requirement to provide pressurized irrigation in Nola Subdivision by
David Bohecker - southwest corner of East Pine Avenue and Nola Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10, MI 05-006. Start with staff comments.
Watson: Madam Mayor and Councilmember's, before I proceed, I would ask you to
check to see if you have page two of the staff report in your packet that has the
condition -- the one single condition of approval on this application. If you don't, I'll read
it into the record.
Rountree: I just have one.
Bird: I don't have it.
Watson: Okay. There is a second page to this staff report. In summary, this is a
combined preliminary/final plat that was approved previously by City Council. It
included the standard subdivision requirement of a pressurized irrigation system using
something other than city water. It turns out from some correspondence between the
developer's engineer and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, they don't have it -- they
don't have a surface water source, so the one condition of approval is that the applicant
shall install a pressurized irrigation system using potable water as a main source. The
system shall be designed to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District standards and designed
to facilitate a future hookup to the regional system that is being planned, according to
John Anderson, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District superintendent. Per Meridian City
Code 12-5-2-N-4, the applicant shall be responsible to pay a one time well development
fee for each lot in the subdivision that is being served by the system. The fee is
currently $865.61 as of October 1 st, 2004, and this fee is adjusted upward annually on
October 1 st based on the Wall Street prime interest rate on that date. And that's the
one and only comment. I don't believe we have any correspondence from the
developer or the engineer on this project. That concludes our comments.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Okay. The applicant is not here and you didn't hear
any comment back from them?
Watson: Madam Mayor, not directly. One of our staff Mike Cole indicated that he had
been in communication with them and that they were satisfied with this condition, but I
don't have anything in writing for our file.
De Weerd: Okay. But he did indicate that to Mike?
Watson: Yes.
Meridian City Couneil
June 28, 2005
Page 8 of78
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Did you open the Public Hearing? I'm sorry?
De Weerd: There isn't a Public Hearing.
Wardle: Hearing no further comment, I would move that we approval Item No.1 0, MI
05-006.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2005: Adoption of 2003
International Buildina. Fire Prevention. Mechanical and Gas Codes.
and 2005 National Electrical Code: (Comments from Builders
Contractors Association only with staff summary)
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 11 is a continued Public Hearing from June 21 st
and we kept this Public Hearing open for comments from the BCA. Please state your
name and address.
Ronk: Sure. Jason Ronk. My address is 1521 West Whitesands Drive. 83642.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ronk: Sure. Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I was sent here tonight to
read a letter from our president and board. I am here tonight on behalf of the BCA to
express our organization's opposition to requiring fire suppression systems in three and
four unit homes in Meridian city. BCA supports development and construction
standards that produce safe, affordable homes to satisfy a range of market demands.
We feel the mandatory residential fire sprinklers are an expensive and inefficient
approach to fire safety. While we agree that you cannot put a dollar sign on public
safety, we do not feel that the evidence demonstrates that sprinklers are, in fact,
improving public safety. According to data provided by the state fire marshal's office,
there has been zero deaths in three and four unit homes in Ada County since the year
2000. After one solution that we would come up with, after meeting with city officials
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 9 of 78
and Mr. Silva from the fire department, would be that we would be willing to discuss --
the BCA SWI could support adopting code language to allow for a two hour firewall,
increasing that from a one hour firewall in between units in place that require sprinkler
suppression systems in this type of construction. We would be happy to work and
continue on the task force to look at these ideas, but just don't feel that fire suppression
systems are actually -- there is a problem that needs -- we don't feel there is a problem
out there right now. With that, that's all of my letter, and I will be happy to take
questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sir, would you have any idea on a three-plex and four-plex how many owners
actually live within those buildings or how many of them are investments owned by
outside sources that do not live in them?
Ronk: I wouldn't have any idea on that. I'm assuming maybe your building department
might. I don't know. I would assume most of them are that --
Bird: I would assume that most of them -- very few of them are lived in by the owner.
Ronk: Absolutely.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Mr. Ronk, one of the questions that I have heard is a dollar
cost estimate per foot and the city's talked in a dollar -- anywhere from $1.50 to $2.25
per foot. Is that something that is consistent from your organization's cost estimates?
Ronk: That's a good question, because you got to look at everything, and since this
hasn't been adopted anywhere else, we can't really compare a cost to say how much it
will cost. The one rumor that I would like to shed light on from last week, though, is that
anytime you increase the cost to homes, you increase fees, you're going to increase the
price and that's the -- and the builders aren't going to be the ones that pay these fees.
It's going to get passed right down to the consumer. Your constituents will be the ones
to pay, whether it's people -- investors or renters that pay higher rent, it's going to get
right back to them. So, that's something you have to weigh. That's why when we look
at the data and we see that, you know, the city fire marshal's office has you down for
three fires, Joe has provided us with eight, is that a huge spike? I mean there hasn't
been a huge problem that we can see in any statistics, so --
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 10 of78
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Did I understand -- you said that nobody has passed on it in the valley? So, you
have no --
Ronk: According to the fire marshal's office, he's maintained these records since 2000.
There has been zero deaths in Ada County.
Bird: No. No. No. You said nobody had passed on this deal and so you have no idea
what the cost was within the valley.
Ronk: Nampa and Caldwell have done it and I believe Joe could tell you -- Kootenai
county.
Silva: Post Falls. Lewiston. Excuse me. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we
have Nampa, Caldwell, Lewiston, Post Falls, Pocatello, McCall, Orofino have passed
the legislation. And Star have passed it as proposed. As printed in the body of the
code.
Bird: Could I have a follow-up, Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: If you're required to have a three hour firewall, is that what you said? Two hour?
What are you required now?
Ronk: I believe it's a one-hour.
Bird: One hour? What extra cost would that be in sheetrock?
Ronk: That would have to -- we would have to look at that. That is one alternative that
we have looked at, though, that would be more cost effective to our members.
De Weerd: I guess if the fire got into the attic -- that firewall doesn't go up to the top of
the -- do they?
Bird: They are supposed to. There is a lot built that don't.
De Weerd: I guess since I was a general contractor on my home, we went through with
their little fireproof caulking and closed a lot of holes that -- that actually were left and
drilled and re-drilled, so I don't know if -- maybe a little more knowledge is too much
knowledge and it makes you dangerous, but, you know, I guess even firewalls are not a
real safety net. I don't know. It baffles me how some of that -- how some of it occurs,
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 11 of78
because you ruin the integrity in that aspect. And, I'm sorry, I'm losing my voice. I think
Council will applaud.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just another follow-up question. Mr. Ronk, while I have got you here and not
necessarily to this ordinance, but in one of your earlier letters you discussed the
increased utilization of smoke detectors have saved a number of lives. Does your
organization have a recommendation or a volunteer effort that they would like to bring
forward as far as --
Ronk: Absolutely. Our view would be that fires out there -- and any statistics -- even
the ones that we have talked about, the fires that are happening are happening in older
homes, they are not happening in the newer construction. So, if you add sprinklers to
newer construction, we don't feel that you're really addressing the problem. So, if you
go back and you make sure that smoke detectors are in those older homes, the ones
passed before the code made them required, that, in our estimate, would be what would
save lives, what would, actually, address the problem at hand. Now, I know that these
guys -- yesterday when we met that they had had a grant to do exactly this -- and I don't
know any statistics, they didn't share any of that, but maybe they would want to talk
about that on how they -- how they worked on that and how they did that, if they want to
get into the question.
De Weerd: Mr. Ronk, I guess I'm curious. I understand the position you're coming from
today, but these new houses turn into old houses over time and, you know, I guess
what this Council has to look at is not only today, and what our fire suppression abilities
are, what -- how many stations we have and our number of firefighters, but we also
have to understand that our new stock today will be old stock in 20 years and, you
know, if we draw the line today, are we starting to get a handle on fire prevention and
saving property damage or saving property and I guess since I have lived in a number
of different rentals, I always do the fire drills with my kids and we are extra cautious and
we take the precautions, but I don't know what the person on the other side of the wall is
teaching their kids or what their life habits are and how that's going to affect me. Now,
is that two hour firewall going to save my property or save the life of my kids? I think the
day after our public hearing there was an article in the paper of a 71 year old woman
who died in a fire in Sand point and they had people in the home, that -- the
granddaughter was in the shower at the time and that life couldn't be saved. So, it's
those kind of things -- and we understand maybe the argument that Boise had in that
their manpower is different than our manpower. I'm not saying our manpower is
inadequate, but we don't have quite the coverage that Boise has and so we have a lot of
different factors that we have to consider when these decisions are made.
Ronk: Right. And just to address that, that's a good point with this Sand point, exactly
what I was getting to, that if you had -- if you pass this tonight and you have that fire in
Meridian City Couneil
June 28, 2005
Page 12 of78
your city next week, you have the same death. I mean requiring sprinklers in new
construction isn't going to change your fire in a 20 year old building.
De Weerd: No. But it would in a brand new construction, because that could have
happened just the same in a brand new duplex or apartment.
Ronk: Could have. But the statistics that we are looking at all say that they are
happening in older and the reason isn't just because they are newer housing stock
today, it's because they are built to a higher building code, higher standard, than they
were a hundred years ago. That's why fires aren't happening as much in the newer
construction.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I disagree with you on the building. I think houses were built better 40 years ago
than they are today, but anyway--
De Weerd: You opened the door.
Bird: And I have spent 42 years in the construction business and watching them built
and it's my concern -- and I don't get me wrong, the cost is -- say the cost is three
dollars a square foot, what percent is that on a -- what is three and four-plexes running,
a hundred dollars a square foot to build or what?
Ronk: I don't --
Bird: How much? Three dollars? And we had two insurance people in here last that
said you could save anywhere between 13 and 20 by putting those in. Well, if I was an
owner, I would be glad to spend that three dollars more to save on my insurance,
because my 15 to 20 percent is a lot higher return to me than what that three dollars
cost. And I don't like to see the cost on things go -- I mean I personally think building is
sometimes out of sight. You know, I have never been able my whole life to figure out
how a piece of ground goes from being worth 2,000 to 100,000, but I guess -- I don't
know.
Ronk: Mayor, you were present in Boise when the same insurance people said that
there wouldn't be that savings. So, I guess it depends on which insurance company you
go to and which agent. I mean fire versus water damage and some of them aren't going
to give you that discount. So, again, exactly what you said, though, with cost, that you
have got to realize that that's just going to get passed straight on. Any regulations and
restrictions and fees in housing costs will just get passed to your consumers.
De Weerd: I don't know -- I don't know if you have experienced a fire, but my parents --
my parent-in-Iaws did and no matter what kind of wall you have in between those units,
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 13 of78
smoke damage is a lot harder to get rid of and it travels and impacts your neighbor a lot
more than what that water damage would do. Smoke damage is horrible and it gets into
absolutely everything and even though your whole house doesn't burn down, your
personal property is totally damaged and there is not much you can say. And that's only
by my personal experience and I don't know how it is overall, I can only tell you from our
own experience that smoke damage is -- it's very destructive and you cannot save many
things. So, Council, do you have any further questions?
Bird: I have none. I just thank him for his testimony.
De Weerd: Do you have anything further?
Ronk: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other members that have comments?
Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address and the organization you're with.
Wright: Certainly. My name is Trent Wright and I'm with the Ada County Association of
Realtors. And I also represent the Nampa and Caldwell Association of Realtors. My
address is 12399 West Sevoit Street in Boise, Idaho. 83709. I come here today to
represent the realtors association, much like the previous gentleman who spoke, Jason
Ronk, my members aren't going to directly see any increased cost due to them, but kind
of here as a warning that the increased fees that we see from such a system of
sprinkler, once again, like Mr. Ronk was saying, will be passed onto the consumers in
the higher form of rent prices and higher property rates and so forth. Not to reiterate
what Mr. Ronk had already said, it's kind of the belief that of realtors that -- we believe
that three and four-plexes will, eventually, probably have the sprinkler requirement
statewide and be passed on the statewide code, our belief that currently that most of the
cities aren't currently geared up to handle implementing a sprinkler system in three and
four unit housing and the reason that we say that is because it's much different in
implementing a sprinkler system in three and four unit housing than it would be four or
five unit and higher, which is larger apartment buildings, hospitals. Apartments don't --
or you get the point. So, I guess what we are concerned about is maybe that there
might be a lack of confusion that might be an unintended consequence from putting
sprinkler systems in at this point in time in three and four unit housing and when I say a
lack of education or maybe the confusion, it's kind of our understanding that there is
seven major sprinkler installing outfits in the Treasure Valley and of those seven not all
of them have both installers and designers within their firms. There is several large
ones that do and they do exceptional work and they will continue to do exceptional
work. I'm sure of the situation. But the other instances of the companies that don't
have their designers to go with their installers, in some of the building projects that we
have seen around the Treasure Valley, there is just a great deal of confusion and it's a
timely fashion sort of project when you're putting up these facilities and it tends to run
over a great deal of time. Some of our other members that are realtors that have sold
homes to -- that have gone through building their own personal homes and having, you
know, much thought put in on them on the design aspect of designing a home, that had
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 14 of78
wanted sprinklers put in them on their own behalf, have come to us and said that they,
themselves, have had difficulty finding sprinkler outfits that have the time in their already
busy schedule to come and install the sprinkler systems into their homes, let alone find
a designer that can also work with the same company. So, my point being is I think that
there is going to be sprinkler systems, like I said, in about 18, 24 months down the road,
but currently I don't think -- the realtors don't believe that the Treasure Valley is in a
situation that it's appropriate timing until we can maybe work on some of the education
with the designers, the installers, and the builders, and I'm sure that we can probably
work with BCA with Ronk in maybe trying to help the City of Meridian. I'm sure Boise is
going to be addressing this issue again, as well as Kuna and Eagle and so forth. But I
guess what I'm trying to say is in the meantime we would like to see maybe more effort
and more focus, if it really is the direction of the city to put sprinklers in three and four
unit housing, maybe hold off on it for now, let's focus to make sure that you have all of
the information ready to the designers, to the installers, to the builders, and so there
isn't those unintended consequences that we are going to deal with with time, with
construction costs, that we can be one hundred percent certain that it is going to be
between that 1.75 to 2.50 range and it's not going to be the 3.50 or 4.50. You know, we
can really work on it to focus in what exactly the costs are. So, that's really the position
that the realtors have come here tonight to place upon you in your decision whether to
go ahead with that with the city and with that I'd like to stand for questions.
De Weerd: I guess from the feedback -- or have you gotten feedback from the builders
and the realtors in Nampa and Caldwell that that has been a problem?
Wright: Well -- and what the realtors in Nampa and Caldwell -- what a lot of them have
told me that have worked on investment projects -- like you said, most of them are not
owner occupied, they are investment projects and there are people from out of state
and in state that are buying these -- there hasn't been a sharp decline in orders for
them, if you will, or somebody picking up the phone and saying find me a lot, let's do
this investment project, but there has been a slow -- or a less number of them being
purchased or ordered or designed, if you will. Your more specific question is whether--
was there unintended consequences with getting people there? Was that what --
getting designers --
De Weerd: Has the market not responded over there now that they have this
requirement?
Wright: Well, I think that that would be an adequate question in say six months or a
year from now, but since we are -- it's only been in effect since January 1, I don't believe
that there is enough time to know. I haven't heard any information to the contrary, just
to support either your side or my side on that statement.
De Weerd: Well, knowing the grapevine, if there is a big problem, everyone would know
about it.
Wright: Sure.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 15 of78
De Weerd: And I guess as we look at the rate of growth in this valley, if that is
something that you anticipate coming down anyway at some point in the next year and
a half to two years, Meridian is growing faster than the Boise area -- than the east part
of Ada County. Star has recognized that as well. They are seeing rapid growth and the
way the market is trending, we are going to start seeing more of these type of buildings
as well, so--
Wright: And I agree with you one hundred percent. I guess the argument I'd like to
make with that is eventually Meridian is going to have to start coming back upon itself
and -- you know, you can't continue to grow out and out and out. Even if you wanted to,
I don't think your own citizens are going to want that. So, there is, eventually, going to
be a time when Meridian is going to have to come back upon itself for building space,
the in-fill, the high density end of it, ugly words and nobody wants to hear them in Idaho,
but you're going to have to do that eventually and with that comes a very arduous
process through planning and zoning, through the plats, through all the numerous
different people working and finding it's much more difficult to do an in-fill project than it
is to do a single family home out and about the exterior of a city. My point being is if
you -- this is just one more layer, if you will, of codes and processes that you're going to
be adding to an already lengthy and arduous process to your density and in-fill projects,
which you, eventually, will, in fact, be faced with and that is kind of the -- one of the
points that we emphasized greatly with Boise, because they are very drastically looking
at already about coming upon themselves in buildings and you're not quite to that point,
I think, in Meridian, but I think that you have enough foresight to look down the road and
notice that you're going to have to do that eventually, you know, in spots here and there,
but it is a difficult process and it's a high dollar and high market for the investors that
want to come in and do these in-fill projects. It's a great thing to do. There is a great
rate of return on in-fill projects, but the majority of people that start that process, with all
their great intentions, don't come through out at the end with their project ready to get
built, because they either financially or just mentally can't survive the front that's going
all the way through to get to that building point.
De Weerd: Well -- and in-fill is not a dirty word in Meridian and we are gearing up for it,
because our downtown is redeveloping and just to kind of go back onto both of your
comments in your testimonies, these in-fill projects are going to go next door to older
homes and those, certainly, we want to make sure that it doesn't have a ripple effect,
too. Mr. Bird, did you have something?
Bird: Yeah, I did. You know we are back in in-fill when we have got more attorneys on
staff than we do planners. That's how you can tell.
De Weerd: Too bad you don't have an opinion on anything.
Bird: Yeah. But, anyway, you know, you're wanting us to hold off for 18 months to two
years. Well, in the normal cost, lots are going to go up a lot bigger percent and there
goes your cost and your building products are -- as I understand, there is some wood
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 16 of78
products out there that you can't get a 24 hour quote on. So, I don't see where that
benefits anybody. I'll be the first to tell you that I hate a bunch of governing things, rules
and regulations like we are putting on buildings. I sometimes wonder how all of us got
to the age we have without regulations. But the same token, we need to look out for --
realtors don't sell a lot of three-plex and four-plexes, because they are already -- the
owner has already contracted to the contractor to build it. You might resell, but I don't
think on new -- I don't think -- I don't think a building contractor goes out and builds a
four-plex as a spec. He's usually got an owner or he's going to own it at first. So, like I
say, I don't like putting regulations on anybody, but I think this is something that is a
very very lifesaving deal. But I also think that we might be overlooking the importance
of the smoke detectors, too. We have got to keep them involved as much. That's my--
okay. Thank you very much.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Wright, if you could just give me a general sense in Ada County is the cost
of housing going down or is it going up?
Wright: The cost of housing is going up almost on a monthly basis anywhere from five
to 12 percent and the average eight is -- seems to be right down the middle, especially
in Meridian and southwest Boise area.
Wardle: On a monthly basis the cost of housing is rising that fast?
Wright: That's correct. The average lot price in Ada County right now is 75,000 dollars.
That's just the dirt without putting any actual labor into it.
Wardle: Thank you.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Mr. Wright -- was it Wright? Right. Right. Wright.
Wright: Right.
Donnell: I think you pose an interesting dilemma in terms of possible confusion, wait
awhile down the road, and it reminds me a bit in another life that I had, when the state
decided to require fingerprinting of all public employees and we all said don't do this
now. I mean we are not ready. I mean don't make us do this, we don't have the
manpower to do it, the state police didn't want to do it, no one really wanted to take on
this job of fingerprinting, you know, all of these employees. But the state didn't say,
okay, we will just give you, you know, 18 months and you can work it out. They said
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 17 0£78
here is the regulation, this is what we believe needs to be done for the safety of the
children and make it work. And there definitely was an answer to that dilemma. I mean
regardless of at what point there is a regulation, there is -- because that demand is
there, there is an answer to that demand. So, I think -- I don't think waiting is going to
help and I did like the fact that you said probably this is going to be a state requirement.
So, you believe that?
Wright: I do believe so and probably in the next round of codes, the 2006 codes that
come out when you guys go to implement those in 2007, I believe -- it's our feelings, as
realtors, that those will be implemented and that was where I was coming for my
suggestion that we should look forward to these being implemented and expect them to
be implemented without any sort of hassle at that point in time. But, in the meantime,
we should be focusing more on gearing up to make sure that there is the least amount
of confusion or, you know, the smooth transition sort of scenario. I agree in 18 months -
- a lot can happen in 18 months. You made an excellent point.
De Weerd: Any further questions, Council? Thank you.
Wright: I would just also like to say one more thing, that the compromises that BCA
offered as far as the two hour firewall, in lieu of sprinklers, is supported by the realtors
as well and would be delighted to work on any sort of task force with the fire marshal
and the planning and service department if such an ordinance were to be entertained
anyway.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wright: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I did want to note for the record that we received a package of
information from the Treasure Valley Fire Protection, Inc., dated June 27th and each of
the Council members received a copy of that. Okay. Did we have summary comments
from staff?
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you have any questions about that
package that Treasure Valley Fire Protection provided to you in terms of cost per
square foot, which was confirmed in that package -- in our testimony of the $1.75 to
2.50. The other thing that we had -- obviously, Bob Schmidt, Nampa City Council, and
an insurance agent indicated that we do get the owners of the apartments and some
companies do offer a premium reduction of 10 to 15 percent. The standard that we are
looking at in adopting the International Building Code and the International Fire Code is
a minimum standard. And I want to reiterate that, that that's a minimum standard that's
based upon a consensus process in establishing what those regulations are going to
be. And as has been touched on by the realtors and by BCA, by Jason, that currently
Meridian is undergoing a fair amount of development in terms of four-plex development.
We have 124 four-plex buildings in the development pipeline. This is our opportunity to
be a pro-active city and lead the way in support of this particular ordinance this evening
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 18 of78
is consistent with the mission statement of the Meridian fire department and we'd just
ask for your support. I'll stand for questions. I think Bruce may have some other
questions.
De Weerd: Okay.
Freckleton: Thank you, Joe. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to
maybe speak a little bit about the development of code. The International Code
Committee, the -- it's an 18 month process whenever something is proposed. It's a
nationwide committee that is made up of code enforcing officials, industry
representatives, design professionals, and other interested parties. New code or
proposals for modifications to codes are debated during this 18-month process, much
like our legislature. A draft copy comes out of a committee and goes to the full group.
The code officials at their conventions vote on those codes. So, it is not just an arbitrary
process when we -- when these codes are adopted and promulgated. When the Idaho
State legislature took up the codes, they became effective July 1 st of '04. On January
1 st of '05 cities were supposed to be adopting these codes. So, the point I want to
make is that the industry, the fire protection industry, knows about these codes, they
know intimately what is in these codes. So, as far as trying to gear up and be ready for
what's coming as far as suppliers or designers and this sort of thing, they know what's
coming. So, I believe that they are prepared. They are ready. One other point I
wanted to make is with the smoke detectors. One modification that I have asked for in
the electrical code is for the addition of a section that is going to require that smoke
detectors be on a general wire circuit, instead of the way that they are currently wired.
One of the problems we have now is people are -- get tired of the chirping sounds
coming out of their smoke detectors and they remove batteries. You end up with
systems that are nonfunctioning. So, one of the things that we are going to do is we are
going to try and move those over onto a general wire circuit, so that, basically, they can't
be tinkered with. We felt that that was a good change and it helps support what we are
after here with this life safety issue, so --
De Weerd: You mean when we burn food we can't just unscrew our fire--
Freckleton: Open a window and turn on a fan. So, with that I will --
De Weerd: I don't burn food. I'm a really good cook.
Freckleton: Be happy to stand for any questions you might have.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Bruce, first off, thanks you for the presentation. I think that
staff did an excellent job of presenting their opinion and their recommendation to the
Council. One of the questions I have for you is this code came from the legislature with
some exceptions. At anytime in the staff's discussion was there an opportunity or a
thought process of how we may be able to implement sprinkler systems within these
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 19 of78
lower density residential units in lieu of some fees or some other way, other than a strict
code enforcement that could offset the cost of this? Was that discussed at all?
Freckleton: Madam Mayor. Councilman Wardle, staff has had some very very informal
discussions. We are not really prepared tonight to speak to that.
Wardle: Okay. Madam Mayor. Bruce, one other question. What's the staffs opinion of
a two hour firewall in lieu of sprinkler systems or any of the other things that have been
discussed this evening?
Freckleton: Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, Members of Council, we have had --
we had some discussion with Jason and the other members of BCA yesterday
regarding that proposal. The requirement for the two hour firewall comes into play when
-- comes into play when a structure is considered a one or two -- one and two family
dwellings and multiple family dwellings, such as townhouses. By our definition the city's
-- in our city code a townhouse has to be on a separate lot. You have to have a lot of
ownership where that unit sits. Under the International Residential Code, a townhouse
or a one and two family detached dwelling is what they call it in the code, is required to
be separated -- each unit is required to be separated by a two hour fire separation. To
call an apartment building that is a multi-family dwelling on a single lot a townhouse, by
definition you just cannot do that. It doesn't -- it doesn't fit. The townhouse units, they
are required to have -- if they are no more than three stories above grade, they have to
have a separate means of egress, which is another complicating factor for an
apartment, having separate means ingress for an upstairs unit. Anna's got a graphic
here that she's trying to get up that will help illustrate what we are -- what we are talking
about.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Bruce, maybe I can just ask a question and see if -- of Deputy Chief Silva. If a
two-hour -- if a two hour firewall would address some of the issues that the Mayor had
with dwelling to dwelling or family to family kind of fire spreading issues, would it
address some of those issues is my question?
Silva: That would help limit -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman
Wardle, that would assist in limiting the fire to that one unit. However, using the point
that the Mayor -- using the case where the Mayor pointed out there was a fatal fire in
the Sand point area, that fire was limited to that apartment. However, that would still --
we still got a fatal fire as a result of that person not being able to reach the means of
egress, a way out of the building. I'm also -- there has been a lot of discussion about --
about smoke detectors, how effective they are, and I have got a study from the U.S.
Fire Administration, unfortunately, that indicates that two-thirds of deadly residential
fires are missing a smoke detector or not -- do not have an operational smoke detector.
So, the mere requirement that we have a smoke detector in place is not a cure-all for --
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 20 of78
in terms of people do, in fact, die of smoke that we acknowledge, as Councilman Bird
has pointed out, and that is true, however they have to be active and that smoke
detector has to be operationally ready to perform.
Wardle: Thanks.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, let me try
and rephrase what -- what Bruce was talking about -- or Mr. Freckleton was talking
about earlier. By saying that they want to do town -- or a firewall, basically, they want
the city to call it a townhouse unit, instead of a multi-family unit. We can just use these
two little illustrations here. A multi-family structure is one where there is three or more
dwelling units on one property in one structure that's all connected. A townhouse
development under our current standards and under our new proposed standards, is
where there is a lot line that divides each of those dwelling units. So, there is one
dwelling unit per lot -- there is one structure, but there is three properties and there is
three dwelling units or four properties, four dwelling units. There is even numbers. So,
it would be inconsistent to call a multi-family structure with firewalls a townhouse
structure is the point that was made.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Bruce, when you talked to BCA, did you also talk about this -- this new thing
in the electrical code for the fire detectors?
Freckleton: Yes, Madam Mayor, we did.
De Weerd: Okay. And there was no issue with that?
Freckleton: Really, the only issue that we debated with BCA was the requirement for
the sprinklers in three or more units.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, Council, I'd like to hear from BCA on that one, but I'm all for it.
I think -- I have tried to do ride-a longs with the fire department and usually I have a
calming effect every time I go to do a ride along. I think the only thing I ever have done
is I rode to a house to change a battery in a fire detector that was way out of reach, I
mean -- and with the design of houses, that's probably more often than not. How you
change the batteries in those things are beyond me. So, that seems like a very positive
change. Does the BCA have any comment they want to make on that particular item?
Okay. Council, do you have any further questions? Okay. Staff, anything further?
Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no further discussion, I move that we close the
Public Hearing for Item No. 11.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Couneil
June 28, 2005
Page 21 of78
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 11. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: If there is no comments or information needed, do you want discussion
before I would entertain a motion? I would entertain a motion. Mr. Attorney, I guess we
have all these ordinances in Items 12 through 15 to consider after this Public Hearing.
We probably don't need any action item on this particular item.
Baird: That's correct, Madam Mayor. These have been published. I do want to point
out that there has been an amended ordinance published for Item No. 15, the electrical
code, and at such time that that action item is taken, it should be specified whether
you're moving to adopt the amended item. Specifically, what we are talking about is on
page five of that electrical code, item number 10-3-7, adding a sentence: The City of
Meridian further adopts Title 1, Chapter 10, rules governing certification and approval of
electrical products and materials of the state of Idaho, including, but not limited to the
right of the city to require independent certification of circuit wiring for approval. That
specifies what -- the only amendment since last week to any of these four being
proposed.
Item 12:
Ordinance No.
Buildina Codes:
05-1157
Adoptina the 2003 International
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Well, then, I would move to Item 12, Ordinance No. 05-
1157, adoption of the 2003 International Building Code.
Bird: Aren't you going to read it by title?
De Weerd: If you're ready for it to be read by title only. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This ordinance proposed
05-1157. An ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 1, of the Meridian City Code
regarding the building code, providing a savings clause and providing for a summary
and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay.
Berg: They are short.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Berg: Thank the attorney.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 22 of78
Rountree: One at a time?
De Weerd: Yeah. We should do them one at a time.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we adopt Ordinance 05-1157, amending the 2003 International
Building Code.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: And that motion is as written, recommended from staff?
Rountree: As written.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Bird: I'm going to vote aye, but I'd like to explain why. I don't like rules and regulations.
I think sometimes we, as public officials, get too much in rules and regulations and add
cost to construction for our builders and stuff, but in the same token in my book this is a
life safety feature that very few three-plexes and four-plexes are lived in by owners and
sometimes they don't have the most desirable renters, so that is why I'm voting aye.
Wardle: Nay. And I'd like to take just a moment and address the fact that I think it's
important to consider affordable housing, especially with the rising cost of housing
within our city and our municipality and consider that for many families this is one of
their largest expenses -- housing is a large expense and I take that into consideration
with my vote.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion carries with three ayes.
Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 13:
Ordinance No. 05-1158
International Fire Code:
AdoptinQ
the
2003
De Weerd: Item 13 is Ordinance No. 05-1158, adoption of the 2003 International Fire
Code. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 05-1158, an
ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 4, of the Meridian City Code regarding the fire
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 23 0£78
prevention code, providing for a savings clause and providing for a summary and
providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing for an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Mr. Attorney?
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Baird: There may have been some confusion on what was being voted on on Item 12
and just to clear that up before we move on to 13, I think we should go back. Is it -- it's
been a couple weeks since I have looked at the -- it's the fire code that contains the
provisions about sprinklers. Okay. So, some comment may have been made about
items that don't exist in item No. 12. So, I suggest we go back and retake the vote on
that. It's already been read by title.
Wardle: Mr. Baird, just a clarification made to me by staff that Item No. 12 does
reference -- in the IRC references -- makes a reference to the requirement for that.
Baird: Okay.
Bird: Yeah, it does.
Wardle: As staff clarified.
Baird: Madam Mayor, with that clarification, then, unless any Councilmember feels the
need to go back, we will let that stand and we will go forward on 13 at this time. Make
sure the public understands that it sounds like there is a cross-reference between the
two. We may hear the same comments on No. 13.
De Weerd: And that's why I did ask if that included staff recommendations.
Baird: Very good.
confusion.
And that's why I was considering them separately, to avoid
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further on that, Mr. Baird, can you tell me do I also need to
give the opportunity for the audience to hear the code read in its entirety? Which I didn't
suggest on that last one.
Baird: Madam Mayor, that is our standard procedure and as it's not otten that anybody
does request that, because we do publish them and we publish these many many
times, but, again, without having to retake the vote, you can certainly inquire if anybody
would like Item No. 12 to be read in full.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 24 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. We are on Item 13, but if there is anyone in the audience who would
like to hear any of these ordinances, 12 through 15, read in their entirety, certainly if you
will indicate. Otherwise, I won't ask you on each item. Thank you.
Berg: Thank you.
De Weerd: Much appreciated. Okay. Ordinance 13. Council.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 05-1158, adopting
the 2003 International Fire Code.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 13. Mr. Berg, if there is no comments.
Wardle: Nay. With an additional comment.
De Weerd: Why don't you make it during the comment section?
Wardle: With your permission, Madam Mayor?
Bird: No, you get to comment when you vote.
Wardle: My vote here is two fold. One is in just my short time on the Council I have
seen three and four-plex units within the city become of a higher quality. I fear that that
may slip with this additional requirement and expense. In addition, I'd like to point out
that this is one step closer to requiring fire sprinklers for single-family residential
dwellings.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. So, that was an explanation of your nay vote. So,
three ayes one nay. Motion passed.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 14:
Ordinance No. 05-1159 AdoptinQ
International Mechanical and Fuel Gas Codes:
the
2003
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 25 of78
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14, Ordinance No. 05-1159. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read
this by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 05-1159, an
ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 5, of the Meridian City Code regarding the
Mechanical and Gas Code, providing a savings clause and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing for a summary and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, Item 14 has been read by title only.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 14, Ordinance 05-1159.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 14. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Ordinance No.
Electrical Code:
05-1160
Adoptina the 2005 National
De Weerd: Okay. Item 15 has been amended. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read that
ordinance 05-1160 by title only as amended.
Berg: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ordinance 05-1160, the most current
amended ordinance that I have, an ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 1, of the
Meridian City Code regarding the electrical code, providing for a savings clause and
providing for a summary and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an
effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title
only. Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 26 of 78
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 15, 05-1160, the International Electric
Code, as amended per page five, item 10-3-7.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 15. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: Proposed Fee Increases for Solid Waste Collections
by Sanitary Service Company:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is a Public Hearing on the proposed fee increases for
the solid waste collections by SSC. I will open this Public Hearing with comments by
SSC.
Sedlacek: Madam Mayor, do I need to state my name and address?
De Weerd: Please.
Sedlacek: My name Steve Sedlacek, I am with Sanitary Service Company. Our
address is 2130 West Franklin in Meridian. We will be constructing a transfer station
with a sprinkler system.
De Weerd: We appreciate that.
Sedlacek: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, somebody very wise once said
don't shoot the messenger. And tonight I'm the messenger. So, what I'd like to talk to
you about is our memorandum that we provided to you, dated June 9th. What's going
on in the county is that the Ada County commissioners are raising the fees for landfill
disposal at the county landfill. Sanitary Services pays that bill every month for the
privilege of getting in the gate up there and dumping the garbage in the landfill. Our
contract allows -- or requires that we pass this increase onto customers and so what we
are doing tonight is requesting that that pass through occur. Let me state very clearly
that Sanitary Services will not receive a penny of this increase, if my calculations are
correct, and I believe they are. But we are the only entity that will be harmed if you don't
pass it, because we still have to get the trucks in the gate every day and we have to pay
the bill at the end of the month. So, with that I guess I'd like to go through the
memorandum, if you have it in front of you. The landfill rates are going up between nine
percent and 50 percent. Unfortunately, the rate for compacted garbage is going up from
four dollars a yard to six. That's the 50 percent increase. Three-quarters of the
garbage collected in the city is compacted. That's all of the residential waste and all of
the commercial waste in the city. So, that's the rate that hits people pretty hard. The
rationale for the rate increase the county would say is because of the new -- all the
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 27 of 78
program costs that they are incurring for household hazardous waste disposal and all of
the TV monitors and cathode ray tubes that they are collecting. They are also about to
embark on a large expansion project of the landfill and I'm sure they are looking at their
future waste -- or revenue streams versus their expenditures and they are trying to
balance the two. So, anyway, what we have done is every year we come to you with a
CPI rate increase. In other words, we get an allowance every October for our increased
fuel costs, increased costs of insurance, all those other things and that's tied to the
Consumer Price Index. What we do when we do that is we exclude all land-filling costs,
because that's controlled by the county. So, in this rate increase what we are doing is
we are looking at that smaller portion that is land-filling. What we have determined is
that the residential rate that you pay is 11 percent disposal. So, if you pay -- you pay
$1.15 -- or $10.15 per month for a home right now and so that means $1.13 is going to
the county through Sanitary Services. And I don't know if we want to go through all the
math on this thing, but, basically, that rate has to go up by 50 percent and, then, we
have to make sure that the city's franchise fee of six percent is added on, so we all
break even. Basically, it comes out to a 50-cent rate increase for every customer and
that's a 5.9 percent rate increase. The commercial collection is also going up. Well, all
the rates are going up. Commercial collection is going up 9.4 percent. Commercial
compactors -- there aren't a lot of those, but there is a few. They are going up 15 to 20
percent. A high proportion of that waste stream is landfill -- is disposal cost. And roll-off
services are going up between four and 31 percent. A lot of -- there are some roll-off
services in town. For example, large retailers, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart, WinCo, they have
large compactor boxes that we haul and those -- to get in the landfill those rates are
going up 50 percent. Now, our rates to haul those boxes are not changing. Again, that
-- our costs are adjusted in October. One other thing in the memorandum is we are
proposing two sort of additional changes or modifications to what we do. We, on rare
occasions, will haul asbestos waste from the city. If -- for example, if the creamery were
torn down, I would imagine there is a bunch of asbestos in there and we would have to
haul that and that's regulated through the TOSCA, which is Toxic Substances Control
Act, and we are required to have extra training for our drivers, we have to supply, you
know, fit testing for respirators, we have to do chain of custody records that we have to
keep documentation of all this stuff. So, it's just -- it's a higher level of service and we
are asking for a hauling rate that's higher than average to do this work. We've probably
hauled -- in the last eight years I bet we have hauled ten boxes that had asbestos in it.
So, it's not a big service that we provide. Hopefully, it's not going to be a big service
either. Additionally, on our commercial cardboard collection we want to change our
service from three yard to five-yard containers, but keep the rate the same. So, we
want to allow more people to get involved in that program. That's really all the
comments I had regarding the rate change. I did want to speak to you about how to
implement this change if this is something that we are going to move forward with. I
guess before I do that I would apologize to the Council for the late timing of this. This
change goes into effect on Friday. That's principally caused by the fact that the county
gave us eight weeks to get through this. So, Sanitary Services had to gather its data,
do its analysis, produce the memo, get it to you, then, we have to have a Public Hearing
process. Well, that takes six weeks to get here at least. We have met with the county,
Mayor, and city staff to improve that in the future and I think that will happen, but I'll just
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 28 of 78
say up front I wish this were ~- I wish we had more time to notify people, but it is what it
is. With regards to implementation, I believe this change needs to be approved
effective July 1 st, because that's the rates that -~ that's the day the rates change at the
landfill and I'm not suggesting to the Council that the billing system be changed on July
1 st. The billing system looks backwards. It bills in arrears 30 days. So, the bills that
come out on July 5th will be for June services and those people should not pay a higher
rate until August 5th and we have prepared billing inserts to explain that in one month
your rates -- your bill is going to go up 60 cents and we provided that to the Council -- or
to the Mayor. I have got examples of that here if you'd like to see them. The issue is
somewhat --
De Weerd: It's in front of you.
Sedlacek: Oh. Okay. Great. Thank you. The issue that's more confusing is the billing
that occurs in the middle of the month, because the next billing cycle for the mid month
will be July 20th, which, essentially, covers mid June to mid July. So, half of that bill is
at the old rate and half of the bill I would propose be at the new rate. We have already
provided to the MUBs people, to Stephanie and J.C., a pro-rated rate structure, so it
would occur after the July 5th billing, was we would put in the pro-rated codes, they
would run the cycle for the -- that half of the city that gets billed on the 20th. I'm not
sure if that's north or south. And, then, after that billing cycle has run, the next cycle
would be -- or the new -- the final codes would be put in, which are the full rate, and that
would be effective for the August 5th billing. So, there is a way to step up into this new
structure that is accurate and it's explainable, although I do wish we had one more cycle
stage before this where we could give people a month to know that their bill is going to
go up. What's going to happen on July 20th, if you approve, is people are going to see
a 30 cent rate increase on their bill and there will be an explanation bulletin in their bill.
Not the best way to tell people, but, again, it is what it is. And I will stand for questions,
comments.
De Weerd: Council, I did want to maybe elaborate on what Steve told you about
meeting with Dave Mill with the landfill. We have a concern with -- also in your packet is
a memo from Ted Hutchinson and he kind of details they haven't had an increase at the
landfill since 1998. Our concern was more in how they proceeded forward with this.
And it's not -- Dave Mill has been bringing this to the Commission since 2000 trying to
have a more even adjustment, so you don't get hit at one big day. He has been denied
every time and most recently denied in January. I think he was caught a little bit
unawares that they approved it and, then, again, in May and so he did -- knowing now
what our process is, how we need to public notice it, he is a little bit more in tune to how
that ripples down to the people who actually have to implement it and that is why we
have on this notice the phone number for the landfill and Sanitary Services, if they do
have questions as to procedure. What they take away from that meeting was is they
are now more aware if it happens in the future it would be recommended to the
Commissioners that they have in October 1 an effective date, so that we have time to
implement it and notice. Also, when it's considered for our public, our constituents are
the same constituents the county commissioners have and what we have asked them is
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 29 of78
that we be able to notice their meeting on where this actually is being increased, so that
our public can have public opportunity to comment, then, because right now SSC finds
themselves in the middle of this, as do we. We are not going to change their decision at
this point, it's already been made, so we hope that we have laid some groundwork that
-- that this will be done with more of an opportunity for our public to comment, as well
that it would be concurrent with any CPI annual adjustment as well. So, this is all done
in one -- in one action. Do you have any questions for Steve at this time? Okay.
Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing on our solid waste collection fees. Is there
anyone who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Seeing none,
Council?
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I make a motion that we close the Public Hearing.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in
favor say aye. I'm sorry. Sixteen.
Rountree: Still aye.
De Weerd: Okay. You haven't changed your mind?
Rountree: No.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Resolution No.
05-478
: New Solid Waste Collections Fees:
De Weerd: Okay. I will, then, move to Item 17, if Council would agree. I will introduce
Resolution No. 05-478, the new Solid Waste Collection fees for Council's consideration.
Bird: Are we going to read it by title?
De Weerd: Do you read that by title?
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we approve Resolution No. 05-478, the new solid
waste collection fees. I think this is a real dirty business, but I think we are pretty much
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 30 of 78
under the gun. I appreciate Steve's explanation. Thank you. It was very thorough.
And with that I would make that motion.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 17. If there is no further discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Item 19:
Item 20:
Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2005: AZ 05-014 Request for
an Annexation and Zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for
Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning - south of
East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-012 Request for a Variance to exceed the
maximum block length for Block 1 for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering & Planning, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of
South Locust Grove Road:
Continued Public Hearing from June 21,2005: PP 05-016 Request for
a Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots 5 other lots on 19.72 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering
and Planning - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust
Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 18, 19, and 20 are continued Public Hearings for
AZ 05-014, VAR 05-012, and PP 05-016. I will open the Public Hearing with staff
comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a slight clarification there. The
variance is actually not a continued item, No. 19. That is the -- we were waiting for this
item to get here. Others were -- never mind. Okay. This is -- sorry. Okay. This is
Sicily. This project is Sicily. It's located on South Victory Road and west of Locust
Grove Road. As you can see, the only access to it is from the adjoining new
subdivisions of Roseleaf and Chatsworth. So, it kind of was an island out here. They
have applied for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a variance. As you can
see, the property is currently vacant. This is the proposed preliminary plat and you will
see the two access points from the adjoining subdivision. The applicant is proposing 74
single family residents and five other lots on 19.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone. The
lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to 13,165 square feet. There is not an
associated planned development applicant. This is just a straight subdivision
application. The variance, however, because they didn't have a PD, they needed the
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 31 008
variance for block length. The block length right now goes from the end of this cul-de-
sac to, basically, this furthest point here, probably about 13 -- a little over 1,300 square
feet. I mean 1,300 feet. Excuse me. The gross residential density is 3.75 dwelling
units per acre and the net is 4.76 dwelling units per acre. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of the annexation and zoning and preliminary
plat at their May 19th hearing. They did not have a hearing on the variance. Key issues
of discussion at that were that the access to this property is provided solely through
other subdivisions. There were no Commission changes to staff's initial
recommendation and no one testified in opposition to the preliminary plat and
annexation and zoning application. To our knowledge, there are no outstanding issues
before Council, but, please, remember that you do need to approve the variance, which
would be No. 19, first before you approve the preliminary plat. With that I'll end staff's
presentation.
De Weerd: So, Anna, the access to this is through another the subdivision; is that
correct?
Canning: Yes.
Chatsworth.
This point here is from Roseleaf and that point there is from
De Weerd: And where are those? Have those been final platted?
Canning: I believe they have. They were both done as very large -- I think Chatsworth,
in particular, was a single plat. It's not showing. This one looks to have been phased,
of course, but I believe they did this one as a single plat, so all the units went in at one
time.
De Weerd: And what is the water table out there? Is there an issue with the water
table?
Canning: Not to my knowledge, but I'll let Mr. Watson answer that question.
Watson: Madam Mayor, it doesn't appear that there are significant concerns in the staff
report.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your
name and address.
Boyle: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Clint Boyle with Landmark
Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. And
it's a pleasure to be here this evening. It's been an interesting evening with those
agenda items. There has been a lot of garbage discussed on the agenda. Hopefully,
we can get through that trash talk and get on with this Sicily Subdivision here. Sicily
Subdivision -- we got to at least give some crack. I mean you talk about garbage, what
can you do but just kind of shake your head and laugh. Sicily Subdivision tonight is a
74 lot subdivision with five common lots. This particular project is virtually an extension
Meridian City Couneil
June 28, 2005
Page 32 of 78
right now of Chatsworth and Roseleaf Subdivisions. Not only will there be the two
connections to those subdivisions, we have also provided a stub street to the north that
will tie in with future development as it occurs north of this development. This particular
project has well over the five percent minimum open space requirement. The central
area that you see on the subdivision plat as you come in from the two stubs provides a
recreation area, just in itself that is roughly five percent of the site. The developer, if you
have seen the landscape plan in our packet, tends to have some nice landscaping there
with some basketball facilities, some park benches, and pathways, make that a nice
entry into the subdivision where as people come in from Chatsworth and Roseleaf, they
are seeing a lot of landscaping and park area as they come into the development So,
there has been a lot of forethought put into that. As far as the storm drainage, there are
some retention areas, primarily up in the northeast corner of the site. Again, those will
be designed in accordance with your landscape ordinance and will be another open
space area that people could potentially utilize. That particular area will be primarily for
storm drainage to the central park. We are going to try to keep any storm drainage
facilities out of that area if possible. The low point on the site is in that northeast corner.
As far as the variance application, we are requesting a block length variance. This
particular subdivision abuts the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ridenbaugh Canal is along the
west boundary of the project. I don't have my laser pointer tonight, but somebody's
doing a good job of pointing out --
De Weerd: There is one right in front of you.
Boyle: Thank you, Mayor. So, again, along the west boundary is the Ridenbaugh
Canal. Very significant water, as I'm sure you're all aware. That particular feature we
are requesting a waiver from the ordinance from tiling that feature and also due to that
feature that provides a barrier to providing a stub street that would break up that block
length. So, again, the waiver for the block length is due to that significant natural
feature that extends along the west boundary. We did look at some other options that
would have reduced the block length by a couple hundred feet and that would have
been to have stubbed in this location here, which is pretty much a straight shot from the
western most road to the north. We can certainly provide the sub there, if the Council
desires, to make block length a little shorter. However, the developer preferred to shift
that stub street over and, again, it was just a matter of traffic calming, not knowing what
would develop north of this site and how long the street would become, kind of a
straight shot into the site. That was the reason that that stub was located where it was
on the north boundary. Outside of that, we have met with the parks department on this
particular site, met with your staff in pre-app meetings, had good discussions with both
entities. The parks department we discussed potential pathways, particularly along the
Ridenbaugh Canal and in our meetings with them they have indicated that a multi-use
pathway would not be recommended along the north -- yes, northeast side of the
Ridenbaugh Canal and I think that you have their comments or no comment in your
packet. Outside of that, we do agree with the staff comments in the staff report and
request your approval on all of the agenda items associated with Sicily. Thank you very
much for your time.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 33 of78
De Weerd: Council, do you have any question?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I forgot to note in my presentation that staff has recommended approval of
the variance application and you do have Findings for approval with your packet.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Okay. Hearing none -- Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, hearing no further comment, I move that we close the Public
Hearing.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Items 18, 19, and 20; is
that correct?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I believe we have to approve the variance first is that --
Baird: One at a time.
De Weerd: The annexation first.
Wardle: Okay. I move that we approve Item 18, AZ 05-014, annexation for Sicily
Subdivision.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 34 of 78
Bird: And include the Findings of Facts?
Wardle: And to include the Findings of Facts.
Bird: I second that.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 18. If there is no further discussion,
Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 19.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 19, V AR 05-012 and to approve the findings.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 19. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Berg: Hold on just a second. I wasn't prepared. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: And that was all ayes. Motion carries.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 20.
Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 20, PP 05-016 and to approve the Findings.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 20. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 35 of78
Item 21:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.3
acres to L-Q zone for Ashtvn Park by David Price - SWC of North
Meridian Road and West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 21 is a Public Hearing on AZ 05-020. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this project is called Ashtyn Park.
It's located on the southwest corner of Meridian Road and Ustick Road. A church is
located immediately to the west. A small residential subdivision immediately to the east.
and Settlers Park. The site currently has two structures in it. One is within the ACHD
right of way -- or at least a portion of it is. What the applicant is requesting is to rezone
2.9 acres to L-O designation. The property currently has a Comprehensive Plan
designation of both residential and public, quasi-public. This portion of the property was
included through a property boundary adjustment in Ada County prior to this. It was
formerly part of the church's land holdings, but now has been combined with the parcel
to the north. The parcel to the north is the one that had the residential designation. The
church, as the Comprehensive Plan went through, all their holdings were classified in
the public, quasi-public. The recent text amendment that Council approved for the
Comprehensive Plan allows properties to -- that have a residential designation, that are
less than three acres in size, to request office uses at Council's discretion. That text
amendment also talked about what would be appropriate for the development or
redevelopment of properties that have a public, quasi-public designation if they weren't
being used as was anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan went through. So, kind of
have both sides of that text amendment in play here, because the property does have a
dual designation. It does meet the -- it is less than the three acre threshold that is in the
Comprehensive Plan text. The applicant has submitted a couple different conceptual
site plans. This is one. This is the other. They both have a single access to Meridian
Road and both the access points are in the same location. ACHD has asked that this
property align their driveway with the -- with this public street entrance to the subdivision
immediately to the east. It doesn't officially meet their offset standards for arterial
streets, however, ACHD felt it was better to have the two aligned, rather than to have
the entrance to the commercial development be offset, because the offset wouldn't meet
their standards either way. So, they felt it was more appropriate for it to line up with the
existing street. The conceptual site plan has approximately 30,000 square feet of office
space in six buildings as shown. They have not provided elevations. Again, this is just
a conceptual site plan, because they are not bringing a development application in with
this annexation request. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend
approval with conditions at their June 2nd hearing. The key issues of discussion --
there were several. David Price and Greg Thueson spoke in favor of the application
and those -- the discussions were vehicular access and cross-access to the west and to
the south. And this became particularly important, again, because of the -- this offset.
At some point ACHD may decide that this offset is insufficient for full access and they
may limited this to a right-in, right-out only. If they do that, then, it becomes critical that -
- that the folks using this office area be able to get out through the church property and
staff had committed to working with the applicant to make sure that the cross-access
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 36 of78
didn't provide a cut-through traffic to encourage people to come whipping through the
site either. So, I feel confident we can work with both the church and this property
owner to have some cross-access points that will facilitate that. The second issue of
discussion was future uses. As staff -- as these have come in, we haven't necessarily
taken a consistent approach on all these little office exceptions, but we sat down and we
came up with -- looked at some of the past approvals that you all had done and tried to
come up with a consistent approach. What we felt was the best was to limit it to strictly
office and clinic uses on this property, consistent with what -- the intent of that text
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission did also recommend that the
applicant be allowed to come back in for day care on this site, if that's what they chose
to do in the future. So, they did open it to office, clinics, and a day care. The third issue
of discussion, the hours of operation. Staff had originally recommended 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. After discussion, the Commission has recommended the hours of 6:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. The fourth and last major item of discussion was the existing eight inch
sewer line for the church. This sewer line goes -- it's the service line for the church. So,
the service line would be coming through this property. I think the Public Works staff
just wanted to make it clear during the Commission's Public Hearing that that could not
be used as a main, it's only an eight inch service line, that they would have to bring in
separate service lines for the -- or a main, I believe, for the -- for the other structures.
They couldn't tie into the existing line. I did notice that there is a letter from Chris Boyer
regarding this application. He's a resident of the Waterberry Subdivision and he was --
took an interest in the subdivision, since that went through, and he has some important
points to make here. I'm not sure that staff has -- or I'm not sure that Council had an
opportunity to read that letter. It is three pages long. I can read it into the record if
that's Council's desire. He does make some good points.
De Weerd: It's two pages and if you could -- if you have points you want to point out.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Have you been able to read that? If there is anything specifically that you
would like to make comment on.
Canning: I will summarize for the audience, as benefit perhaps, but that would be the
best thing. It does -- he points out that this was zoned as a mix of residential and
public, quasi-public in the Comprehensive Plan and he doesn't feel that the office uses
are with the intent of that Comprehensive Plan. He didn't feel that the applicant's
justification of having a more intense use here, because it was a busy street, he felt that
that was kind of -- that this -- that adding more offices to a busy street just makes it an
even busier street. And, similarly, with the noise I think was the other big issue that the
applicant had stated that the noise from the park made it such that noise from this
property was justified, I suppose. And so I think that's the main points of his letter.
Now, I can provide this to the applicant for his review, if he hasn't already gotten a copy.
I'm not sure who the applicant is. There you go. There he is. I think those were the
main issues discussed in the letter.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 37 of78
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I do not, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? If you will, please, state
your name and address.
Price: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, my name is David Price, I live at 2291 North
Greenview Court in Eagle, Idaho. It states it at the top of that paper that I just gave you.
First of all, my purpose in talking with you for just moment is that I wanted to mention a
couple of things. First of all, the preliminary draft that was up onto the screen, I just
wanted to make sure you or other people would understand that that was just a
conceptual type drawing, in that in actuality before we would be able to go forward we
have -- our plan is to do a planned development or subdivision type development on
that property. So, when the actual time comes and the layout and the plotting and when
we try to actually have the place parceled, then, we would have to come before the
hearing process again, of course, and actually have that be exact. But that was just a
couple of ideas that we put together to try to see how the street would line up in relation
to different buildings and structures and where the existing eight-inch sewer was and so
forth. I wanted to just mention to you that our purpose in -- or our thought in going
forward with a limited office or light office zoning, limited office zoning, for L-O zoning
designation was -- was separate and aside from the special resolution and what I have
placed on that paper was I have gone through the Comprehensive Plan and tried to
outline some of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan and objectives that I think apply to
this particular piece of property and one is to locate new community commercial and I
should say that when they mention commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, my
understanding from my reading of it was that they combine anything to do with
business, whether it be office or whatever, as commercial. To locate that in areas near
arterials, which, of course, this property would be, and in such a way as to compliment
adjoining residential areas, which I will address here. The second is to identify
transitional zones to buffer the commercial and residential uses and to allow such use
as offices and low intensity uses and that's another thing that I believe our development
will do. Our goal four was to protect existing residential properties from incompatible
land use development on adjacent parcels and I believe as I go through this I will help
support that that would be the case. And, then, finally, to identify locations for low traffic
generating uses on key corridors and so, again, that was -- if we are going to go into
something other than residential, that this would be a relatively low traffic generating
portion to do. On part B it indicates the applicable Comprehensive Plan amendments
and those were the ones that took in December of last year and in those the staff, of
course, because it's under three acres, felt that this would -- or we gave a
recommendation because of the special resolution that allows for consideration of that if
it was under three acres and on major -- on arterials. Also, on a few pages later, on
page 99 in that Comprehensive Plan, it indicates: Additionally, as noted in the
residential district section of the Comprehensive Plan, light office uses may be
appropriate in limited circumstances and at the discretion of the City Council. My point
in bringing this up is that we felt that because of the way that the property is located --
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 38 of78
the area the property is located in and what is adjoining the property, we feel that in and
of itself is a reasonable and good use for light office space separate and aside for
something under three acres of the special resolution part that's on page 95 and we are
asking for your consideration on page 99 as the reason for approving it, because our
desire is to not have it limited to only a specific use and to be able to be open on that,
realizing that the public and the neighbors will still be protected from any type of future
use, because of the requirement of conditional use permits if we are ever going to
deviate from that, to not place that restriction on it. And I gave the reasons why I think
it's a goöd fit for light office on the second page and indicated, first, it's by two primary
arterials and that the noise and traffic of that intersection itself is much more compatible
to light office use than to residential. Secondly, that the use would be comparable to the
light office designation that's exactly kiddy-corner to this on the northeast corner of that
intersection, which is already designated where the red lines are -- yes, right in there,
that's already a light office designation. Third, that the property -- a property would be a
low intensity buffer, because of the inherent light office traffic and noise factors that are
there, as compared to a regular commercial shopping center or something like that or a
Maverick like was tried to be brought up before to the Planning and Zoning. Four, that it
would be less intense at times than the current church. For example, the church now
on Sundays has much heavier use than this would have or like in the month of May
when they had their large carnival and filled up all of the -- filled up a good portion of this
property, plus all of their property parking lot with activities and so forth and the area
seemed to handle that okay. Fifth, that it could be less intense in traffic and noise than
Settlers Park at times. That doesn't mean that Settlers Park is tremendously noisy, but
it's surrounded by the neighborhood there and that that area, in and of itself, would
generate its own noise, it wouldn't necessarily be excessive over what this would be.
And, sixth, that three out of four of the corners of this intersection do not have
residential housing. Only the small residential section that is located at the southeast
corner and, then, just to the south of the property there are two large acreages that I
think are ten acres -- five or ten acres, I can't remember which, and the Sweet family
owns them, which I think they are here tonight to testify. Anyway, that those are the
only area's residential that really directly surround it. And, finally, I did hold
neighborhood meetings in the area, I sent out notices to all the neighbors; I personally
met with the neighbors closest in the subdivision that's there, the two that are closest to
the property. I spoke a fair amount of times with Dan Sweet, who was on the second
large parcel to the south and have communicated clearly to the neighbors -- at the
neighborhood meeting no one came and to the Planning and Zoning hearing no one
came. And, in fact, until the letter that was just read and I think that the Sweets are
going to testify, I have not known of any opposition to this until just now. Finally, I think
that regardless of whatever designations -- I mean once it's put into light office, that the
neighbors are -- again, are fully protected, because this is only a zoning change and an
annexation and it's not our planned development application yet or our subdivision
application. So, that would still be in the future and if there was some type of use, even
if it's a conditional use, it would still be protected, because it would go through the
hearing process and I realize that on page 95, the light office zoning designation
resolution limits it to have no commercial use whatsoever, including even a day care.
But the Planning and Zoning at least allowed us to have that put in the record that we
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 39 of78
could have that. We are requesting that you consider doing it, because of the nature --
the unique nature of this property, that three out of four of the corners do not even have
residential and are already either public or commercial or office type -- light office type
use. And the fact that -- that the public itself would be protected with any future usage
because our need for hearings, we would like to have it just be regular light office and
then -- and not have any specific limitations placed upon it, other than what a normal
light office space would have and to base that on the part of the resolution that's on
page 99, rather than 95. Finally, on item two, as far as the time restraints, while I would
suspect that most use that would be light office would be between the hours of 6:00 and
10:00, we are at least able to get it to that range. I would -- in listening to that, I listened
to Councilman Bird and when he mentioned about rules and regulations and my only
feeling on it is that the Comprehensive Plan doesn't state anywhere that there has to be
a time limit on properties that's arbitrary or just placed on them and I feel similar to what
Councilman Bird had said before, that I just think that if there needs to be some kind of
time limit, it should be placed on when it comes through the planned development
portion of it and not just in the zoning itself and that light office itself doesn't call for a
special time limit on it. And so we would like to at least in the initial stages not have a
specific time limit placed on that as a means of further regulation, when nothing in the
Comprehensive Plan requires that and the public is still protected again that if some
type of use of concern were to come in the future, it would have to come through this
hearing process anyway and, then, that could be specific to that use. And I gave
reasons for that. I covered number one. I would mention just a couple of things, that I
know from just being at the property there are times when the church usage is later than
that. There are times in medical clinics -- I know in my own chiropractic clinic I have.
come in for people on an emergency basis that have been later than 10:00 o'clock or
earlier than 6:00. Medical clinics, if the doctor has to come in on an emergency basis
at a time other than that, and I realize that in Planning and Zoning one of the members
said, well, you know, well, I don't think anybody is going to actually be out there setting
a time watch and enforcing it, but I feel like if -- that there shouldn't be a rule placed on
that you're not going to expect to be kept and that there is not a reason to place some
arbitrary limit when it's already going to be protected with conditional use. And, finally, I
wanted to -- on number five I wanted to make a little change there. I'm not great at
writing this stuff, but I put lawnmowing -- I meant yard work and, then, I put in number
five and extending well past, meaning that there have been times when I have gone
passed, people are out right at dusk or something like that that would go past 10:00
o'clock just finishing up in what they might do in yard work or on car repair. Within the --
and, finally, I would just ask that those type of limitations not be placed on the property
and that you use the designation on page 99 for the special resolution to finalize our
approval, rather than on page 95. That's my thought. Thank you for your time and
attention.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time?
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 40 of 78
Donnell: Just a question for Anna. Excuse me. The letter that we received from Mr.
Bohr -- is that right?
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
Donnell: He states that he lives off Meridian Road in Waterberry Park. Where is that
subdivision in relation to -- on this map? Can you point it out?
Canning: It's--
Donnell: Is it here?
Canning: Right over here. He is not within the 300-foot notice.
Donnell: Thank you.
Price: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I do have two people signed up in opposition. If you'd like to provide
testimony, when I call your name, please, come forward. Molly Sweet. If you will,
please, state your name and address.
Sweet: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council members. Molly Sweet. I'm located at
82 East Eastbrook in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sweet: We are the property that is directly across from this location. I wanted to first
address Mr. Price's issue that no one showed up to the meeting and point out that that
happened to be the evening of the carnival or large use of the parking lot. My husband
went over and could not locate Mr. Price, as he had never met him. So, we did attempt
to go to the meeting and are not trying to blindside him here. One thing I want to speak
to is the fact that he keeps mentioning that three of the four corners -- well, we are that
fourth corner and we were there first. There are 11 families there and when I say
families, I mean families, and we have children and the -- there is a lot of traffic there
already and while I understand that the ACHD wants to put the location directly -- the
drive directly across, they don't live there and there is a center lane that -- although it's
illegal for people to drive down that when they want to turn left, they do it anyhow, and I
can count on fingers and toes how many times I have almost been hit attempting to pull
out when people are obeying the law and allowing us to do that and I just feel that that's
going to compound the problem even more. With issue to the church use, they are not
directly across from any neighbors and so I believe that's a separate issue in terms of
use. My concern with the use until 10:00 p.m. is the lighting. I assume there will be
parking lot lights, which we will kindly see from our home and I believe all 11 homes will
be able to see that. Which take into consideration the effects of what's going to be there
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 41 of78
and with no elevation plan, we would like to know how tall do they want these buildings
to be. And let's see. Yeah. My main issue is the driveway there. We have already
battled the Maverick and it is inevitable that something is going to go in there, but with
due respect to the neighbors what can we do to make it the safest for the children that
play in the neighborhood as well. I'd also like to speak -- I know that Ida Sweet does not
care to speak and she is my grandma, so I will speak for her, if that's okay. For her the
main issue is esthetics, as well as the lighting issues. That a vinyl fence, if this does
pass, that it be mandated that a vinyl fence go in there, along with the landscaping
issues that I know are required -- I believe are required with the issue. So, that's it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Molly. Any questions for the -- for Molly?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: If the testifier could indicate -- there is a little laser pointer on the podium --
where your house and your grandmother's are.
Sweet: That's me. I'm shaking. I'm sorry. And grandma is over here.
Canning: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any other testimony on this application? Okay.
Would the applicant like to respond?
Price: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and Councilmembers. I think -- is your name Molly?
I had a chance to meet Molly when she was out mowing her lawn when I went over to
talk with her at one time and I'm aware of where she lives in that area right in there. I'm
sorry, I'm kind of nervous here, so I better put it on here, so I can hold it still. I would
say that if I lived in her house I wouldn't blame her on the concerns, but just so that
everyone would be clear, the issue that we are simply bringing forth now is for a zoning
change. Those type of things will be addressed on the planned development. If I were
her, as far as lighting, I think it would be reasonable to put lighting in that has blockages,
so that it doesn't -- it blocks the shining to go onto that -- onto the street, because also I
think we would want to do lighting that blocks to here and a lighting that blocks it this
way, so that it's onto the parking lot and I think in actuality in the end, if it has proper
lighting, it would enhance the area, because it would keep the neighborhood somewhat
lit with street lighting or at least the parking lot lit, as opposed to having the area be
dark. But I think I would want them to be shadowed -- I would want to be shadowed if I
was them, too. Additionally, as far as the fencing and those things, those are all issues
that when it comes to the planned development, I think they would be protected on.
And, then, also I was going to mention our -- just for Mrs. Canning, we might have put
down wrong numbers on that sheet or something, but our calculations were that rather
than 30,000 square feet, we figured that it would be more in the range of 25,000 would
be the maximum we could put on and still get on the parking and per square foot
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 42 of78
allowance -- or parking per square foot allowances that we need. So, we may have
done that. Sorry for that, if that was off, so -- I think that was everything that I wanted to
mention. Do you have any other questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Madam Mayor.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a quick question, Mr. Price. You refer to -- and I understand the issues
with the fencing are in the planning process and those sorts of things. Are you at least
amenable to considering that with the neighbors, the requirement for vinyl fencing when
that comes forward?
Price: Well, Madam Mayor and Mr. Wardle, I would -- I would want to -- we want to be a
good neighbor with the people and our intent is if I lived there I would want to have a --
we can do shadows on the lighting and put structures over the lights, as I have seen in
parking lots, to block it from going horizontally in a direction that you don't want it to go
horizontally. And, then, with the fencing, just for the esthetics of the development itself,
I would think that you would want to have -- you would especially want to have fencing
along here, not -- I don't mean that it's a bad property at all, but it's just kind of a grazing
type field right there and so I think for our own -- for our own development we would
want to have it -- you know, make that a separation. So, I have no problem with that.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, a question of Anna and, then, maybe a follow-up question, Mr.
Price. Anna, to bring forward for any sort of a building permit, would they need to bring
this forward as a conditional use and through the hearing process?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Wardle, no. Once
the zoning is there, they could build a principally permitted structure with just a
certificate of zoning compliance.
Wardle: And a follow-up question, Mr. Price, would you be -- and certainly you have the
intention to bring this forward as a -- as a subdivision development and to, I assume,
plat the entire property, bring it forward with elevations. Is that something you would be
comfortable with as a requirement of the zoning application?
Price: Well, I would -- Madam Mayor and Mr. Wardle, I would be happy to do a couple
of things. First of all, our intent is to do a subdivision type of development, so it's like a
typical office-type space with independent buildings. If, for some reason, that changed,
though, I would have no problem if you wanted to put in a requirement that the
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 43 of78
neighbors be protected in their lighting and fencing be used in that area, I would have
no problem with that. And, then, of course, anything that's not on the list that's on your
fourth page, that is a conditional use, it would have to come before you automatically.
So, I don't have any problem in either one of those.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I need to clarify that statement. The
only use that wasn't a principally permitted use that was allowed -- recommended as --
for approval was a day care. So, if it's -- there is very limited number of uses there.
Most of them would not currently require conditional use approval. It seems like a more
appropriate development agreement condition in this case might be that they obtain
preliminary plat approval, rather than conditional use approval. Or one or the other.
Either a preliminary plat approval for the subdivision or conditional use approval for a
single structure on the site.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, so either of those preliminary plat or conditional use
require a Public Hearing, a notification of the neighbors?
Canning: Yes, sir. The preliminary plat will automatically come up to you under the
new -- under the new code you may not see this Conditional Use Permit. Depending on
if you pass it that way.
Wardle: Okay. So, Madam Mayor, follow-up question. So, we would need to place
upon this annexation the condition of preliminary plat.
Canning: Prior to release of any building permits on the property.
Price: Madam Mayor, Mr. Wardle, I would certainly support that. I just wanted to clarify
one thing. When Mrs. Canning was talking, she was referring to the fact that on your
fourth page that there are the permitted uses that come with the light office zoning
automatically and I believe are all allowable underneath that -- the resolution on page
95, with the exception of day care, child day care, day care that the Planning and
Zoning added to it and said we could do a conditional use on that, because page 95
inherently says, in essence, that no other conditional uses can be made on that
property. What my request was in coming before you was I would like to have light
office approved, but I would like it to be approved based on -- based on your resolution
on page 99 that doesn't place the restrictions on, with the recognition that any
conditional use that I would ever desire for that property would have to come through
you anyway and you would be welcome to place that as part of the resolution, so that it
could have approval and the neighborhood would be protected and there would be --
that there would be nothing put on that hadn't gone through all of the hearing process,
so --
De Weerd: And I think the point is by putting on the preliminary plat a condition, it would
still have to come back, even the permitted uses --
Price: Yes.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 44 of78
De Weerd: -- so that the neighbors would have an opportunity to see elevations, to see
how things would align.
Price: And, Madam Mayor and Mr. Wardle, I'm perfectly okay with that. Yes. So, there
are probably a couple things. I completely support that, so the neighbors can see that,
and Mrs. Sweet in this section below can see that there is fencing there to protect her,
that Molly would have a chance to see the lighting is protected from, you know, their
homes, and, then, I would just ask for you to consider page 99 as our reason for
approval, so that we do not have page 95 limitations.
Canning: Madam Mayor? The Comprehensive Plan test amendment specifically noted
that no ancillary commercial uses would be appropriate with these -- within these
residential designations. The findings that you have before you tonight do not support
the applicant's request. They are only for that very limited number of approved uses
that came to you from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I guess I should state that
I'm -- I think that it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to allow the
full range of L-O uses that are listed within the current zoning ordinance. Thank you.
Price: Madam Mayor and Council, so I would ask Mrs. Canning, then, are you feeling
that they would not have the option of doing it under page 99?
Canning: Would you like me to answer that question, Council? Okay. I'm just trying to
get the conversation going through you and I don't -- it didn't seem appropriate to go
through him. I believe he's talking about the Comprehensive Plan text and I don't have
a copy out right now, but whatever pages he's referring to wouldn't have the
amendment text in there, so the office designation is only talking about a very limited
number of places where we put that light purple on the Comprehensive Plan.
Price: Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, I didn't know -- I'm sorry.
Canning: And so I think that there is some confusion if you're only looking at the
existing Comprehensive Plan, because we have not published a new Comprehensive
Plan with that text amendment in it. But that text amendment was very clear that it was
only for office uses and no ancillary commercial uses. And in the past you have not --
we have limited it to office uses for these things.
De Weerd: Okay. So, what are you referencing?
Price: This is part of that resolution that I pulled up from the computer from your date of
December 14th, 2004. That's part of that resolution. I quoted the resolution is what I
mean.
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call a five-minute break, so that Anna can
reference what you're talking about. We will reconvene at 9:20.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 45 of 78
(Recess.)
De Weerd: Okay. I will bring this meeting back to order. I will, Anna, ask for your
comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry for the initial confusion. I
understand the logic the applicant is using now and let take a moment to explain that to
you. As I spoke before, I talked to you about how there is actually a dual designation on
the property of residential and public, quasi-public. When we wrote the staff report, in
order to keep confusion to a minimum, the staff report really talks about the residential
exception, the 3.0 acre residential exception, for a couple of reasons. It gets quite
confusing talking about two Comprehensive Plan designations. The L-O -- the
residential exception you have seen a little bit more and also it has a little more clearer
language on it. What the applicant is asking is that instead of the residential exception,
you consider the language that was added in the Comprehensive Plan text amendment
regarding the quasi-public use instead. That one didn't have a size limitation. It talked
about redevelopment or development of church properties or public, quasi-public uses,
when it's been determined that that's not the best way to go or that that property won't
be used for that use. And that's where the 95 versus -- page 95 versus page 99 come
in. He was -- the pages refer to the Comprehensive Plan, but he is referring to our staff
report, which references those pages. So, page 95 talks about the residential exception
that's three acres or less. Page 99 talks about the quasi-public uses. And so let me
read that text, since we haven't spent much time on -- on these kinds of exceptions, I'm
going to read the added language a little bit. It says upon redevelopment of such
properties, public, quasi-public, a change in designation and use may be appropriate.
The redevelopment of this area should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the
underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the
property, and transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the
property. The appropriate land use designation and the accompanying zoning for these
areas will be determine by City Council on a case-by-case basis. So, the question
before Council is do you want to let it open to a number of commercial uses or do you
want to limit those that would be normally allowed under the L-O zoning in general or do
you want to limit it to the office uses and clinics and day care, as recommended by the
P&Z, which would be more in keeping with the residential designation. If you decide to
go with the quasi-public, we probably need to get you a new staff report and new
findings, because, really, it's written more for the residential exception. Did that clarify
things at all?
De Weerd: It sure did, didn't it? It did for me. I'm sorry. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. So, Anna, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussion
and the addition of the day care end of that was based on the residential qualification; is
that what I'm hearing?
Canning: To my knowledge. Now, I wasn't there for the hearing, but I'm not sure that
this change in thought ever took place there. I think it was -- my understanding was that
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 46 of 78
the discussion was just about the residential exception and limiting the uses based on
that. The day care is not really a retail use or commercial use, it's still somewhere
between an office and a retail use. It's actually -- the industrial land classification
doesn't have it as retail, it has it as a service organization, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any information that you still need?
Donnell: I'm totally confused, so I don't want anymore information.
information.
No more
Rountree: I'm fine. I'm clear.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess we always allow the applicant to have the final word. Did
you have any -- and if you will, please, keep it brief.
Price: Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, I will keep it brief. Just to clarify that, we
are simply asking -- there are two designations as property that make it zoned quasi-
public and also residential. There are two different ways that this can be made limited --
made light office. One is through residential, which has its own specific limitations, and
the other is through public, quasi-public, which is regular light office. We are asking that
you do it based on the quasi-public. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. And the lower impact would be the residential exception.
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If there is no further comments, I move that we close the Public Hearing on
Item No. 21.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close on 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 47 of78
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: It's not often that we have a proposal brought to us that's somewhat
speculative in nature and in my eight years off and on the Council I can only remember
one and that one created a fair amount of havoc through the years and it's just some
eight or ten years later that it's now actually being developed. I recognize at some point
in time this piece of property will be annexed to the City of Meridian and it will be
annexed with a known commodity. Not knowing what the future brings, other than
speculation that it might be L-O, I'm not inclined to favor annexation of this piece of
property at this point in time.
De Weerd: Council, I don't know how many of you were on Council, but we have a
similar issue right now, because we annexed without a plat, and it was on a corner and
it certainly doesn't allow the public to comment and it just adds confusion. We annexed
with a conceptual plan and it's really proved to be a bad choice. So, traditionally, the
Councils of the past have asked the plat to come forward with annexation, that it gives
the public an opportunity to comment and to know what they will be seeing and I guess
after the one exception we made -- or one of the few exceptions that have made that's
kind of shown why that that seems pretty wise. Okay. Council? Are you still on break?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If there is no further comment or discussion, I move that we deny the request
for annexation as outlined in Item 21.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny the annexation on Item 21. Do I have a
second?
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to deny the annexation on Item 21. Is there any
further -- is there discussion?
Canning: Madam Mayor, can I ask the attorney a question. Do they need to direct me
to come back with different findings or --
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council and staff. No.
Canning: Okay.
Baird: On annexations it's totally a discretionary legislative act. They don't need to give
a reason, although you do have one on the record. No findings necessary.
Canning: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 48 of78
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.3
acres from RUT to L-O zone for Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark
of the Treasure Valley - south of East Franklin Road and east of South
Eagle Road
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 22 has been requested to continue because
of the public posting issue. So, I guess we would need to know the date to continue it
to.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I believe we decided July 12th was the appropriate date.
Bird: You're going to open the Public Hearing, aren't you?
De Weerd: I can't open the Public Hearing that's not been posted.
Baird: Actually, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- let me jump in here. And
, what we'd like to do in these situations to avoid having to re-send the radius notice, for
anybody who happens to be here, go ahead and open the hearing, acknowledge the
flaw, and set it for a date certain on the record.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone here for this particular item? Item 22. Well, good.
I'm glad not to disappoint you. Well, I will go ahead, then, and open the Public Hearing
on Item 22 and, as requested, it needs to be continued, so the property could be
appropriately noticed and the continuation date would be July 12th, 2005. Do I have a
motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue item -- or Public Hearing AZ 05-022 until July 12th, 2005.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to continue 22 to July 12th. All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 49 of 78
Item 23:
Public Hearing: PP 05-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16
building lots and 1 other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for
Devon Park Subdivision No.3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East
Fairview Avenue:
Item 24:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a Planned
Development for a 16 lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No.
~ by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 23 and 24 Public Hearing PP 05-018 and CUP 05-023. I will
open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is an application for both a
Conditional Use Permit and a preliminary plat on Devon Park. The site is located as
shown here. It's off of Fairview Avenue and North Lakes Lane. The entire property is
shown here, although it has been subsequently subdivided. There are two parts of this
application. One is for the preliminary plat, which is located approximately in this area.
The other is for the Conditional Use Permit to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to
exist in the Hastings building. I'll just go ahead and kind of get that one out of the way.
It's an office use. It's -- although it's generating a lot of traffic in that area, that parking
lot seems to be able to accommodate it and staff is recommending approval of the
conditional use. This is one of those that prompted us to, in the new ordinance, except
out office uses, public office uses. Other public uses are difficult to anticipate what
impacts they may have, but we felt in the ordinance that we could say that office --
public offices could be treated just like any other office, rather than having to go through
a conditional use approval for a quasi-public use or public use. So -- and, then, that
brings us to the plat. The. plat is nearing accommodating some of the conceptual and
final development plan that's already been approved on the property. It puts those lots -
- or it puts those structures onto individual lots and accommodates the parking layout.
There are 16 build-able lots and one other lot on 3.26 acres. It is currently rezoned C-
G. And as I mentioned, these will accommodate relatively small office structures and
the Conditional Use Permit is to allow the existing -- oh, I'm sorry. The square foot of
commercial is 31,400 square feet. I do have elevations. There is the landscape plan.
And this may start to look familiar to you. You have seen it a couple different times.
De Weerd: Only a couple.
Canning: Fourteen to 16, to be exact. These are the elevations. So, there you go.
P&Z has recommended approval. The key issues of the discussion were the wattage of
the lights to be used and the applicant stated they will be similar to Devon Park No.2
and in compliance with the Public Works standards. So, to accommodate that they did
modify condition number four of staff's original recommendation. The second issue of
discussion was that the applicant was not eligible for a building permit prior to
recordation of the plat. They were able to do that at the very beginning, because they
had a separate parcel that did not have a building on it. But this is just a remainder
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 50 of78
phase of that parcel and it is not eligible for a separate building permit. To our
knowledge there are no outstanding issues, except we anticipate the applicant may
bring up the question of the eligibility for the building permit again. And with that I'll end
staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, is this going to be subject to -- hopefully our new ordinance will be in
place, but, again, we have small subdivision lots and a future client who might want to
consume two and build one building, bringing us back to where we were on another
project similar to this a couple weeks ago. Where we went around and around trying to
figure out how to do that. Is that going to be taken care of with the ordinance change or
is there something written in this one that would allow that as it relates to the
subdivision?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, and Councilmember Rountree, I
don't believe that this one addresses that and I'm not sure it could. But the new code
does. We specifically made sure that there were provisions in the lot line adjustment
section that you could reduce the number of lots in a plat. So, there are provisions in
the new code to allow that.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? If you will, please, state
your name and address.
Engroff: Yeah. I'm Beth Engroff. My address is 5211 Barber Station Way, Boise,
Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Engroff: And like I think it was pretty much stated, this is Devon Park Three and it is
basically what we refer to as Office West and will pretty much mirror what we have
started, which is four buildings on Office East, and will be 16 individual office buildings
to be used for business.
De Weerd: And it is behind Hastings?
Engroff: Yes. This is located directly behind Hastings.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 51 of78
Engroff: And the DMV is on the west section of the Hastings building. So, a lot of -- like
the streetway landscaping is already installed, along with the street lighting, because
those were issues with the other Devon Park One and Devon Park Two that have been
brought before. This, basically, just subdivides those into the different -- actually, 16
different lots.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Engraff: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay.
Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no more testimony, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items
23 and 24.
Rountree: Second.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 23, PP 05-018, preliminary plat for Devon Park
Subdivision No.3 and to approve the findings.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 23. Anna, do we need to do anything
about a building permit?
Canning: No, ma'am.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page52 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 24.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 24, CUP 05-023, Devon Park Subdivision No.2,
Conditional Use Permit.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 24. Roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 25:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-025 Request to modify the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit 1 Planned Development to include changes to
building elevations, parking area and amenities for Trov Place
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 1236 East 2 % Street:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 25 is Public Hearing CUP 05-025. I will open the
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Troy Place and this is actually
a request to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for the planned
development and primarily to accommodate the -- a change in the structure that they
are proposing, which necessitated a change in the parking area and the amenities. It's
located at 1236 East 2 1/2 Street. As you can see, it has residential properties around
it. You can see the school across the street. Yeah. And, again, the aerial, it's a little
difficult to see the property. I'll point it out. There you go. And, then, this is the site plan
that the applicant is proposing. This is an existing triplex unit and you will see the
parking that was approved. That really hasn't changed much. This is their turnaround.
And, then, these are the two structures. I'm going to show you also the previously
approved -- here is the two structures. One and two. So, there was one, two, three,
four units. No garages. Parking out in front and a straight drive aisle. Same
turnaround. Same triplex. So, the units that they are proposing, these are them. These
are them. That's great.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 53 of78
De Weerd: These be them.
Canning: It must be like 10:00 o'clock. Oh, a quarter to. Okay. These are the new
elevations and you will note they have a garage on the ground floor. These are tandem
garages, so they go the full breadth of the building, and, then, the units go up above
that. It's not divided straight vertically. I believe that front half is one and, then, the
second in the back half is the other unit. But the garages do go the full length on each
one. This would be the rear elevation. So, these, actually, face east and west. And
this is the south elevation. And I think the north also. These were the previously
approved units. In the two stories there was -- there was discussion at the previous
hearing by the property owner to the south about the number of windows facing his
property. In the new one there are no windows. When this came through I couldn't, in
my head, see that this was the same thing that Planning and Zoning and the City
Council had approved. The units were just so drastically different and their relationship
to the surrounding properties, that I felt it was necessary for them to come back to you
and that's why it's before you today, so -- the gross density is 15.06 units per acre.
That's also the net density, because there is no road constructed with this. That has not
changed from the initial conditional use application. The applicant is, however,
requesting reduced building setbacks of seven feet on the side, five -- and currently five
feet per story is required, ten feet in the rear, and, then, 15 is required and 25 feet in the
front and currently we only require 20. There would also be -- I should point that out as
part of the site plan -- there is also parking in front of the tandem units, so there would
be guest parking in front of the tandem units as well. And I believe there is some guest
parking in this area also. There is two or three spaces there. So, it does provide more -
- it does provide garage parking and it does provide some guest parking. The garage
parking was not in the previous approval. The P&Z has recommended approval with
conditions and they heard it on their June 15th hearing. They changed the
recommendation regarding construction of a new fence along the north property line
and, basically, the changes to the fence were just to accommodate the two large
existing trees. And I do have a photo of that as well. You can see those large trees
going along that fence line there. And so instead of just a fence, it was a combination of
fence and shrubs to accommodate van access from this -- the gentleman that lives here
is -- does require a handicapped van and I think he needed some additional -- just
access room in this area. So, the fencing proposal accommodates his needs. Megan
Leatherman and Michael Morrison did speak in favor of the applicant at that hearing.
To my knowledge there are outstanding issues before Council.
De Weerd: Anna, can you go back to the site plan or that -- what all is landscaped? I'm
sorry, I didn't wear my glasses.
Canning: The landscape -- there is a narrow strip that comes up here along -- this is
pavement and, then, you get pavement going in -- these are, basically, the driving
surfaces.
De Weerd: Is there any green in the front?
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 54 of78
Canning: Yeah. This is all green.
De Weerd: I mean in front of the buildings.
Canning: In front of these?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Canning: No. I don't believe so, unless there is some small planter. But I don't believe
that there is.
De Weerd: So, you're just going to drive and see pavement and garages?
Canning: In this area, yes. And there is green just around the -- around the perimeter
of it.
De Weerd: I guess it's tucked back behind the road.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
Canning: Sometimes in situations like this we will see a very small planter island
between the two garage faces, but generally they are not wide enough to really support
decent plant growth, to be honest.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I guess the question -- and maybe this will be when the applicant speaks -- is
why the necessity of the change? I guess I just don't understand why they changed it.
So, we will wait until the applicant comes and we will ask that question.
De Weerd: Okay. I would agree with you. Would the applicant like to come forward? If
you will, please, state your name and address.
Leatherman: Megan Leatherman. 12552 West Executive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Leatherman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, thanks for your time tonight. I'm just
going to touch on a few things and, then, answer your questions. First of all, we did
hold an additional neighborhood meeting when that application -- we decided to redo
the application and one of the concerns with the design was the south boundary, having
those windows facing their property, because they are single family homes right there,
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 55 of78
and we decided that after talking with them, that we wouldn't put windows there,
because that's what they preferred. And, then, additionally -- Anna, could you go to the
site plan? I'm sorry. On the northern boundary she mentioned an agreement that
actually changed from then. When we met with Stevens, the property owner on the
north, he requested that we actually continue the fence on, but that at the large tree it
would taper down to about four feet and, then, to three feet as it got close to the road.
He said that -- and his caretaker said that this would allow them maneuverability, but
also kind of give them a little bit more privacy from neighbors coming over there. So,
yeah, about 15 people showed up to the meeting and everyone seemed pretty pleased
with it. It's kind of a mixed area with uses. To the south is also a commercial use of
salons there and across the street is a gymnasium of the school that is planned to be
built there. That just went through in the last P&Z meeting at the same time we had this
P&Z meeting. And, then, on the east boundary there is also multi-family units that
border there as well. So, it's definitely a transitional area, but we do feel that this use
fits this site really well and necessarily a single family use wouldn't be as successful
here, because it is by the commercial and the heavier uses. And you were asking --
okay. The question why we changed it to switch the design from the previous layout.
Okay. There was a couple of reasons for that. There were a lot of concerns wîth the
neighbors about the parking in the area and they -- that came up a lot in the previous
CUP and they were also going to keep a garage on the north of that triplex and, then,
there would actually be a lot more traffic closer to that property line as well, so we felt
that -- that having the extra garages on the units provided more parking and removing
that garage there kind of was a better suit for this and that's why we had to orient the
buildings around, too. Does that make sense? I'm sorry. One of the concerns of the
people who came to the P&Z meeting, neighbors, Mr. Morrison, we worked with him,
but he had -- one of his concerns was parking and so this design was really suitable for
him and we thought better for the site.
De Weerd: So, what did you gain in parking, then?
Leatherman: Well, we gained -- not having to do as much parking in the front -- can you
pull back to -- in not having to do parking -- we didn't really gain numbers, but we gain
the area of parking that was exposed more and, see, the north there, that whole
property line was exposed just to parking and now more of the space is used in other
ways instead of parking. Since it's underneath the units, they can have a little bit more
open space. We are going to be able to have a picnic area -- well, that's not going to be
there anyways, but --
De Weerd:
pavement?
So, you did gain open space?
I mean grass open space, not just
Leatherman: Will you turn it back, Anna? I'm sorry. We gained over there on that -- on
the northern property line and there was a lot more asphalt right here and the parking
right here. Instead it's in between these units. This is the drive aisle and now there is
open space here and more of the parking is centered here. The open space before was
right here. A little bit over -- so, it provides more open space on the northern boundary.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 56 of78
De Weerd: Okay. And I guess to kind of elaborate on Council member Donnell's
question, you have explained some of the reasons to change it, but, then, the decrease
setbacks, why that?
Leatherman: Well, actually, the setbacks we are actually asking for less of a reduction
from previously. Our setbacks. I'm not positive what they were before, but we are
actually having more of a setback. I don't know if you could -- Anna, do you know? I'm
sorry, I don't -- see if I can look in my file, but it might take me a minute. I know Craig
brought that up, too, in the P&Z hearing, so maybe it's in the minutes from the P&Z
hearing.
Canning: Madam Mayor, if you would like me to address that I can. They were
previously approved for reduced setbacks, but their request still was, as I understand it,
that it -- that the 20 foot front, ten foot rear, and seven foot side along the north and,
then, ten foot side on the south, not per story. So, the three -- the five feet per story
would require a 15 foot.
Leatherman: Okay. That's the same as the last time.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Leatherman: Thanks.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony on this application? Yes, Clair.
Bowman: My name is Clair Bowman, 4400 West Legacy Lane, Meridian. I am here as
the administrator for the Meridian Development Corporation. I come without any official
guidance from the board. I did not realize this item was on your radar screen until about
two weeks ago, after the most recent MDC board meeting. So, we had not had a
chance to meet formally on this item. I have conducted a discussion with the board
chairman and with legal counsel. We are in the process of working out how I provide
comments on projects like this to the MDC board, because of the presence of two city
council members on the board and not wanting to engage them in exparte
communication. So, we have not had a conversation, other than with one board
member. But there are a couple of items here that warrant comment and what I'm going
to provide you is what I would provide the MDC board as comments as well. One of
those is supporting the provision of additional urban housing, whether or not you
appreciate the style of one of those versions versus the other, having additional high
density urban housing in the core area of the urbanized -- of the city is, indeed, an item
that I would recommend the support of you in particular and of the MDC board more
generally. The second is to recognize that there is an issue here that is touched on in
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 57 of 78
the downtown Meridian transportation management plan, but has not been addressed
formally by MDC and I don't think by the Mayor and Council. That is the future
extension of 3rd Street to the north as an alternative. In the event that 3rd Street is
extended, my understanding from conversation with ACHD last week was that it would
require the acquisition of one of the buildings, eastern most building on this site. And
that right now there is only one house blocking the access from the current alignment of
3rd Street all the way through to Fairview. That is an issue you can't do anything about,
because you have already approved the Conditional Use Permit. My purpose for
commenting on it tonight is simply to put items like that on the radar screen for future
consideration and that would be the extent of my comments. I would certainly be open
for questions if you have them.
De Weerd: Any questions for Clair? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there any further
testimony on this application? Would the applicant like to have a final word?
Leatherman: 3rd Street --
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name.
Leatherman: Sorry. Megan Leatherman.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Leatherman: This street here does not go all the way through to Fairview. Is that what -
- is what I understand what he was saying. Was that it would connect through to this --
2 1/2 is the only street that goes all the way through.
De Weerd: I think what they are looking at is there is a stub that is not shown on this to
the south of the road and they are trying to connect it up to Fairview.
Leatherman: Okay.
De Weerd: Megan, can you tell me what is north of that piece of property, other than
that one house? What is that? Is it all vacant?
Leatherman: Pretty much. There is some, I believe, mobile homes over here.
De Weerd: Okay. So, what is the neighbor that doesn't want windows?
Leatherman: Mr. and Mrs. Rhodes. They, actually, came to testify and --
De Weerd: And where are they?
Leatherman: I believe this is them here. One of these two. This one.
De Weerd: So, up on that road, then? Are they a distance from that property, then?
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 58 of78
Leatherman: Yeah. I mean I don't know how far they are, but this is the salon. They
were just concerned with the fact the people could look into their property and they
testified at the initial CUP -- when it was initially approved they testified against it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council. I have already asked if there is further
testimony.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to -- hearing no further testimony, I'd like to make a motion that we
close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on this item. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we approve CUP 05-025, the request to modify
the previously approved Conditional Use Permit, since it's already been approved once
and this is coming back and I can't see that there is any necessarily dramatic changes
that we affect either the neighborhood or what they are doing and I can't imagine at
what point that 3rd Street would go through there, I would just make a motion to
approve this.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 25. Is there any further discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Although I probably will vote in the affirmative on this particular item, if there
is ever going to be an item that's going to move me to support design review in the city
of Meridian, this will be one that can.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 59 of78
Donnell: No kidding.
De Weerd: Amen.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd also like to say that I certainly do like the fact that -- I mean this is what I
see as being in-fill. This is taking use of some property in the middle of our town and
providing housing for folks, so they can enjoy the center of our city, so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Well -- but I agree with Councilman Rountree. We have to encourage in-fill,
but it doesn't mean that it should look -- anyway. We get it. So, is there any further
discussion from those that can vote? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Berg: Madam Mayor, could I ask a question of the planning director if these findings
that are prepared meet the intent of the Council's motion.
Canning: Madam Mayor, yes, I believe they do. The fire marshal was talking to me
during the fence discussion and I just wasn't clear if I needed to change the condition of
approval on the fence regarding the northern fence. Okay. So, the findings you have --
Donnell: So, the maker of the motion needs to include also the approval the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions?
Berg: Yeah.
Canning: If you would like.
Donnell: I certainly do make that amendment to my motion.
De Weerd: Does the second agree?
Wardle: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay.
Berg: Madam Mayor, I'm sorry for that --
De Weerd: No. I appreciate the clarification.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 60 of 78
Item 26:
Public Hearing: PP 05-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
building lots on 4.31 acres in a L-O zone for Julie Subdivision by
Paramount Development, Inc. - northeast corner of North Linder Road
and West Cayuse Drive:
Item 27:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development with reductions to the minimum requirements for
street frontage and building setbacks for Julie Subdivision by Paramount
Development, Inc. - northeast corner of North Linder Road and West
Cayuse Drive:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 26 and 27. Certainly, we appreciate your staying to the very
end. I will open the public hearings on PP 05-011 and CUP 05-013. Open the Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, just for the record, we do not put Mr. Turnbull onto the end of
the agenda on purpose, it just happens that way. This is Julie Subdivision.
De Weerd: I guess someone has to be last.
Canning: It's located on the northeast corner of Linder and Cayuse Drive. It is an
application for a preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, for a planned development.
There is our site. Currently zoned L-O. This is one of those plats that really makes a lot
of sense when you see it, so we will go down to the planned development. The
proposal is for 12 office lots on 4.31 acres in the L-O zone. The square footage of
commercial is 41,760 in those 12 buildings. I have elevations. The P&Z has
recommended approval. They heard it on June 2nd. The key issues of discussion were
the need for cross-access easements for interior lots with no street frontage. So, just to
add a general cross-access condition of approval for basically everything except these
two lots in front. They also talked about perimeter setbacks and the applicant has
already submitted a revised layout that meets the appropriate setback. The
Commission changed condition number 16 also to address that issue. And the
applicant -- no. There was one letter -- no one testified against it at the hearing, but
there was one letter from a Lochsa resident that was put into the record and it was
complaining about traffic impacts on the surrounding properties. So, other than that one
letter there are no outstanding issues before Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from for staff?
Donnell: No.
De Weerd: Would the applicant like to comment? Since you stayed here all this time,
I'm sure you have something profound.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 61 of78
Turnbull: I look at this as an opportunity, being last on the agenda, to take a look at a
whole lot of ugly stuff.
De Weerd: Okay. With that said, your name and address.
Turnbull: I don't know if I want to now. David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in
Boise.
De Weerd: I'm in complete agreement with you, by the way.
Turnbull: I have nothing to add, really, to Anna's staff report. The elevation that you
showed, though, is the Heritage Commons elevation, not the Paramount elevations.
Canning: Did we provide the wrong one?
Turnbull: That's the Paramount elevation.
Canning: So this one's incorrect?
Turnbull: That's Heritage Commons.
Canning: Okay.
Turnbull: Little bit different style. But we think it looks good.
Rountree: Very nice.
Turnbull: I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: You scored on that one. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Turnbull? Thank
you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay.
Hearing none, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If nobody wants to talk anymore, I move we close the public hearings PP 05-011
and CUP 05-013.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 62 of 78
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 05-011 and I believe that includes the Findings for Julie
Subdivision by Paramount Development, Incorporated.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 26. And 27?
Bird: Beg your pardon?
Rountree: Did you move on 27?
Bird: Don't they go together? I'd just as soon do it separate.
De Weerd: Separate? Okay. The motion is to approve Item 26. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve CUP 05-13 for Julie Subdivision by Paramount Development,
Incorporated, and include the findings.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 27. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 28:
Ordinance No. 05-1161 AZ 05-011 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 6.26 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for lyndhurst Grove
Subdivision by Highland Development, LLC - 2820 West Pine Avenue:
Item 29:
Ordinance No. 05-1162 AZ 05-010 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 4.63 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Wvndstone Place
Subdivision by Quasar Development, LLC - 1151 South Wells Street:
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 63 of78
Item 30:
Ordinance No. 05-1163 : RZ 05-004 Request for a Rezone of 2
acres from I-L to C-G zone for Jackson's Food Store by Jackson's Food
Store, Inc. - southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine
Avenue:
Item 31:
Ordinance No. 05-1164 : AZ 05-003 Request for an Annexation
and Zoning of 76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for Kinasbridae Subdivision by
Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
Item 32:
Ordinance No. 05-1165 Amending Title 12, Chapter 13,
Section 7-8 Regarding landscaping Mulch and Title 12, Chapter 13,
Section 7-13(B) Regarding Water Efficiency for landscape Mulch:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32. If there is no reason to otherwise, I will
ask the clerk to, please, read these items by title only.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird.
Baird: I think I know what you meant with your last comment, did that include the
request of the audience to see if anybody wants to have any of them read in full?
De Weerd: I will ask that after he reads them by title only.
Baird: I'm sorry, I'm gumming you up tonight, aren't I. So, my apologies.
De Weerd: I'm paying attention on this.
Baird: We've had way too many of them on the agenda.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 05-1161, an
ordinance Lindhurst Grove Subdivision for property located at 2820 West Pine Street,
east of Ten Mile Road in Meridian, Idaho, Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West
of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in the Attachment A and
annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and
contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of
Meridian, establishing and determining the land use classification of said lands from
RUT to R-8, Medium Density Residential in the Meridian City Code, providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County
recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law and providing for a
summary of this ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing
for an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 05-1162, an ordinance Wyndstone for annexation of the property
located in the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 64 of 78
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in the Attachment A and annexing certain
lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT
to L-O, Limited Office, in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance
shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission, as required by law and providing for a summary of this
ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing for an effective
date.
Berg: Ordinance 05-1163, an ordinance finding that Jackson's Food Store and the
owner of certain real property have made a written request for rezone of the zoning
classification for real property located in the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Pine
Avenue, south one half of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, as described in the Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning
certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate city
limits of the City of Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said
lands from I-L, Industrial, to C-G, General Retail, and Commercial in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of the ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required
by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 05-1164, an ordinance Kingsbridge Subdivision for property located
within a portion of the south one half of the northwest one quarter and the north one half
of the northwest one half of the southwest one quarter, Section 28 -- did everybody
follow that? Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as
described in the Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada
County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate city limits of the City of
Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land
use zoning classification of said land from RUT to R-3, Medium Density, in the Meridian
City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required
by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 05-1165, an ordinance amending Title 12, Chapter 13, Section 7-8
regarding landscaping mulch and Title 12, Chapter 13, Section 7-13B regarding water
efficiency for landscape mulch of Meridian City Code and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing an effective date.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Have you asked already if somebody wants to hear this?
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 65 of 78
De Weerd: No, because Mr. Berg just stopped talking.
Bird: Okay. Hurry up and ask and, then, I will pass all five of them.
De Weerd: You have heard Items 28 through 32 ready by title only. Is there anyone
who would like to hear them read -- any or all of these read in their entirety? I'm more
asking the gentleman behind you, Clair. Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve 05-1161, 05-1162, 05-1163, 05-1164, and
05-1165, with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items 28 through 32. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 33:
Discussion of Public Parking and Right of Way Vacation:
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Okay. Item 33. I will ask Mr. Bowman if he could
introduce this item.
Bowman: Clair Bowman, 4400 West Legacy Lane, Meridian. I'm here as the
administrator for the Meridian Development Corporation. I have had two hours during
which I could have gone home and gotten the graphic that I forgot, but it was only about
three minutes ago that I realized I didn't have it when I opened up things, so I rapidly
sketched one that Anna will be placing up here on the overhead shortly. We are talking
about the block bounded by the railroad on the south, Broadway on the north, Meridian
Road on the west, Main Street on the east. That block is split by a 16-foot right of way
or an alley on an east-west alignment. There is an old railroad line running down
through that, through part of it. And there -- the city has, I think, an eight-inch line under
-- sewer line under that as well. In addition, the parcel that's identified here as
Creamery B, consists of nine individual lots in the original town site plat. In the title
search for this, it was discovered that when Railroad Avenue on the south of this was
abandoned back in '29 or '39, one of those times, the city, then, placed an easement --
De Weerd: Keith's the only one that could remember that.
Bird: No. No. That's before my time.
Bowman: The city, then, placed an easement for 16 feet on the north end of those nine
lots. So, in addition to the 16 feet that are reserved for the alley, and which ACHD
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 66 of78
claims as its property, there is another 16-foot easement right across the north half of
these -- or the north end of these nine lots. In the same title search it was discovered
that the parcel on which Zamzow's sits there is an 18-foot easement on the north half of
the five lots, I think it is, that make up the Zamzow's parcel. We had a meeting recently
of the principals in RSCI, which is the company that has the option to purchase the
creamery. That option was supposed to have been triggered last Friday. They have
extended their option for 30 days, because in part of wanting to be certain we get this
title cleared up and get the process started for a vacation on this property. In the same
meeting we had Dave Buich and Greg Hall representing the property that you see
labeled as Buich and Hall on the northeast corner of this block and they have contacted
Jim Zamzow and had spoken with him prior to our meeting. They would jointly like to
request that the alley be vacated and that the easements on the north side of Lots 1 to
14 -- I think that's the numbering of them in the original town site plat -- be vacated as
well. They would like to have -- the situation they would like to have happen is that 16
foot right of way that's identified already, be divided equally and shared with the
properties on the north and south. That would be this right of way through here would
be split into two eight foot strips and it would, then, be attached to the properties
adjacent to it. So, the City of Meridian would pick up an additional eight feet on the
south end of its property right here, Buich and Hall would pick up an additional eight feet
there. Zamzow would get eight feet on the -- additional on the north of his property.
And this could effectively become one parcel. In addition, they would like to request a
vacation of those original city easements for -- dedicated for streets on both the
Creamery B and the Zamzow parcels. I have spoken with two of the Ada County
Highway District commissioners on behalf of this issue, they have indicated that the way
for that to happen is for the city to agree to this and request the Ada County Highway
District to initiate the process. Ted has been exploring the details of that and I think will
fill you in on what that request needs to say. I think I'm right in that, that you will be
prepared to do that. So, that's the first item for the discussion tonight. Then, I have a
second as well relating to the City of Meridian parcel. It was Lots 1 through 15 on the
south. Zamzow's has the original Lots 10 through 15 on their parcel. And the
easements -- none of the easements are shown on this map. This is a 1959 map that
Lila Hill found for me and we are going to copy that, so we have it as part of what we
can provide to our RSCI to help with the work on that site.
De Weerd: Are you sure it wasn't older? I think she had it on deer hide.
Bowman: Is this my copy. then? I think this is her original.
Berg: Yes.
Bowman: I'm supposed to get it copied and I was going to bring it to Brad tomorrow to
see if we could figure out a way to get it copied or if I just need to take it down to get it
copied. So, the first request is that the city initiate the process of requesting the
vacation of these alley rights of way. Madam Mayor, do you want me to stop there and
have a discussion about it or do you want me to go ahead with the other item first?
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 67 of 78
De Weerd: Why don't we first have any questions.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Clair, you mentioned a city line through there, sewer or water or --
Bowman: City sewer line.
Rountree: So, what happens to that? It has to be relocated?
Bowman: That would be relocated at the expense of the developer -- of the land
holders. The two developers are prepared to undergo that expense.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if I might follow with a question to the Public Works director.
Is that reasonable -- a reasonable expense on the part of these folks or is there a
considerable effort involved to do that?
Watson: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, Council member Rountree, according to the
map that we have here, it looks like this line serves Zamzow's, what was formerly the
Shell station, as well as a four inch service that crosses over to Frontier Tire. So, it is
an active line. I'm not sure where we would move it to. This is the first I have heard of
this, so --
Bowman: I forgot to touch a base.
Watson: We are probably limited on sewer. There is one south of the railroad tracks in
Bower Street, which anytime you bore into a railroad that's a significant cost. The next
one north is the alleyway behind City Hall right back here.
Bird: They don't flow uphill.
Watson: And I haven't checked elevations. I don't know.
De Weerd: I guess it would matter if they are going to build a building on it.
Watson: Yes.
Bowman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the folks from RSCI indicated that
they have no plans to build a building over that. We did not talk about the possibility of
leaving it there. I didn't talk in detail with them about what their options were for moving
it. I anticipated that they were going to contact Brad to talk about that and I'm a little
surprised that hasn't happened yet. Although I know leek Johnson and Dave Buich are
both out of town most of this week. That may be why they haven't done that yet.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 68 of 78
Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, I don't intend to engineer that this evening, but that's an
issue that needs to be resolved, I think, before we move forward.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Clerk, on our property do we not have to have two exits, entrances, and that
was -- which nobody knew until the other day, that was a federal grant that got that
property. Is there any strings attached there?
Berg: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I'd like to say before me, but I think it was
finishing up during me. I'm not sure what type of grant it was. Clair and I were talking
about that. I'll have to dig up some old records. I thought part of the condition for that
parking lot because we couldn't turn around very easily there, that we had two
entrances, the alleyway and Broadway. But I will have to look. That was a joint grant
that did both parking lots, the one on Broadway and the one on Pine. But I will have to
research that out a little bit more. Wayne Forrey did administer that grant for the city.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions on the vacation?
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: And Members of the Council, I want to -- just to make a couple of comments
here about the extra 16 feet that's been referred to as an easement. I have the
document here and it was, actually, deeded to the village of Meridian as a right of way
to be a public street, so it's not just an easement, it's dedicated as a road, and the
research I have done, if it's a right of way, we can't sell, we can't give it away, they can't
adversely possess it and ACHD claims exclusive jurisdiction. So, ACHD has to be the
body that's going to vacate it. I think this is being presented to you tonight mainly for
information only. There is a process, of course, this would go through, they will have to
make application to Planning and Zoning Department, the Planning and Zoning
Commission will consider it and make recommendations to you and that would include
probably the information -- if it includes the Zamzow's portion, it would include what
restrictions we have on our parking lot. So, all would be packaged up and brought back
to you later for deliberation and a decision. So, I would advise you against proceeding
much farther tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 69 of 78
Bowman: Madam Mayor, may I ask Ted a question -- in this case Mr. Baird. You have
added a wrinkle to this tonight that adds significantly to the time dimension over what I
was prepared after my earlier conversation with Mr. Nary. So, your understanding or
recommendation here to the Council is that this can only come to them from
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission?
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Baird: Would you like me to answer that question?
De Weerd: I would really be curious myself.
Baird: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in my research of our code this
week and, you know, what the process is, I came upon the procedure for requesting a
vacation and it is, indeed, sort of a recommendation that we make as a city to ACHD
and, unfortunately, the Sterling code link has been down all week, so I had to look at an
old printed version of the code and I want to have Anna chime in here if she knows
anything different on the procedure, but the procedure that I read from the old printed
version state application, Planning and Zoning Commission, recommendation to you,
and final recommendation from this to ACHD. That's the procedure, as I understand it.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. The one -- it is not a
Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, so that's the one good
news for tonight, Mr. Bowman, but -- so it just -- it could go a little -- it wouldn't take a full
six to eight weeks to go up to the Planning Commission, we could do it sooner than that.
But it does require a recommendation by them before it comes to you for approval. We
are probably talking about five to six weeks, maybe four if we hit all the time lines
correctly.
Bowman: I need to let a couple of developers know yet tonight, probably, because they
were anticipating some action tonight. Okay. May I, then, go on, Madam Mayor, to the
second item? The developers for the -- the folks who hold the option on the creamery
property at this point have talked conceptually with me and met with the owner
participation agreement subcommittee of the MDC board last week to talk about this in
greater depth. That consists of Chairman Craig Slocum, Vice-chairman Clarence
Jones, Counsel Ryan Armbruster, and myself as the committee to hear these
discussions and ultimately take recommendations back to the MDC board for potential
action. The discussion is that the developer here would like to carve off some additional
land on the east portion of what's labeled here as Creamery A, transfer title of that
somehow to the City of Meridian or to the Meridian Development Corporation and, then,
consider a parking structure of approximately four stories to be constructed on that site.
They are looking at the financial implications of that right now. Clarence Jones, on
behalf of the MDC OPA subcommittee did some initial calculations that indicate it might
even as much as carry itself, based upon some of the assumptions he was making for
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 70 of 78
the financing in there. Right now that would be a joint effort of Buich and Hall team and
the RSCI team to construct that, with MDC ownership or participation, however that gets
worked out in details. What that allows is for this property, which currently has a
relatively narrow, long building approved on it, at a three-story height, to have a
substantially larger footprint and to go up at least one more story. There would be some
additional amenities in terms of a small sitting area park that Mr. Buich and Mr. Hall
talked about the other day as part of what they would agree to put into that in addition.
That triggers the issue and this is the second question I had for the Mayor and Bill Nary
the other day, is who should be in the parking business in the City of Meridian. Should
it be the city itself, which currently holds title to that parking lot and does the
maintenance on it, or should it be the Meridian Development Corporation in the
downtown urban renewal area. Our discussion led to the potential conclusion that it
should be the Meridian Development Corporation. That is a part of what the Council
expressed in its resolution of formation of the Meridian Development Corporation. It is a
part of what has been anticipated in the economic feasibility study and in the marketing
strategy. We anticipate there would be more specifics added to it as we develop a
master plan, but for the moment it appears that both the Meridian City Council and the
MDC board are moving in a direction that would assign responsibility for constructing
and maintaining parking to the Meridian Development Corporation owning it and things
like that. Police power, however, for enforcement of any rules that would be made
about that has to rely with the city. MDC as no police powers. That would entail some
kind of written agreement between the city and the MDC board ultimately to provide
policing authority for the parking. This would be the first issue and that is potentially
transferring title to that property to the Meridian Development Corporation, provided that
it does not violate any of the provisions of the grant with which the land was purchased
in the first place. So because of the uncertainty about that grant, we are not prepared to
ask for any action on this tonight and I have not met with either Mr. Baird or Mr. Nary on
what is the procedure we have to go through to make that happen, but in the event that
the Mayor and Council concur with the notion that parking becomes an MDC
maintenance and provision function, rather than for the city, this would be one of the
first lots we would look at to ask you to transfer title. And, Mr. Baird, I presume you
have some background on how that would have to happen.
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Idaho Code Chapter 50, Title 14, sets
forth the provisions on which we can convey real property that's owned by the city and
one of the subsections in there does allow us to transfer it to other governmental entities
at -- for no compensation, if you find that it's in the best interest of the citizens to do so.
It would require a resolution of the declaration of intent to convey the property, followed
by a Public Hearing, followed by another resolution directing the Mayor to execute the
deed. So, it's at least a month process to get the notices out, have the hearing, and
transfer the property, but it's definitely allowable by code, if that's the direction that you
want to go, but to make clear, we are not talking about handing this over to a private
entity, it's government to government.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 71 of78
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Anna.
Canning: On the -- I'm sorry, I just skipped ahead with out realizing it. I was going to
comment on the portion that the current -- the RSCI wants to donate for the purpose of
the parking structure. We do need to have to legal mechanism for them to divide that
off, but they do have a number of the original platted townships, so it appears that the
city owns most of the lot -- or of Lot 22 and a portion of Lot 23. So, depending on where
that line, Mr. Bowman, you just need to do a lot line adjustment for what they want to
do, unless it's all of Lot 23, then, there is no problem. But if it's a portion of one of those
original town plots, then, for the remainder of Lot 23 I would say the --
Bowman: Madam Mayor and Anna, I believe it's the rest of the partial lot and one
additional lot in the original plat that they are talking about at this point.
Canning: If it's their -- if that is the case, then, you don't need to do a lot line
adjustment, it would just be if it got to be a portion of another lot other than 23.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, these are certainly technical details that I think can come back
to us in a concept plan. I have said it before and I'll say it again, that I believe it is the
purpose -- should be one of the most important purposes, if not the most important
purpose for the MDC to provide public parking and so in that concept I agree, one of the
things that I will say is that it's important to realize that that needs to be public parking. I
will also add an additional comment and is if Clarence Jones can -- has a formula that
says that this parking lot will carry itself, then, I know why he is in the position he is as a
professional, because that is -- would be and should be and is an amazing feet and if it
could happen it would be wonderful.
Bird: CCDC would love to have him come over.
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: So, what do you need from us, Clair, from Council tonight?
Bowman: I -- Madam Mayor, I believe what the developer would appreciate is some
notion of what the sentiment of the Council would be given what you have heard now,
especially with regard to the parking. Is that a comment that is likely to be shared by
other folks when it comes to a point action. I don't know how far you can go in that
explanation right now. I suspect it's not terribly far.
Baird: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council.
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 72 of78
Baird: I would advise caution. Mr. Bowman's in a difficult position here. He's trying to
move this option along into a confirmed deal, but you're in a position that you have
notice and hearing provisions that you need to follow. So, you know, give him what
signals you can, but I'd advise against much more deliberation. We will have a full and
complete hearing on the record down the road.
Bowman: Thank you all. I appreciate it very much.
De Weerd: So, Clair, are you clear on the steps that are going to be needed for -- for
what you came here tonight?
Bowman: I am clear, Madam Mayor, that I need to get with Mr. Baird in the morning to
get those details or -- okay. I will be over there anyway.
De Weerd: It seems like your list is growing.
Bowman: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Well, thank you.
Bowman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, just a heads up. The Capital Soccer League is hosting a
tournament on their Lake Hazel field -- their fields on Lake Hazel. They will be
expecting 195 teams from out of the area, thirty of them are local, and over Fourth of
July week, and they have invited our Meridian businesses to promote their business at
no charge at the games, so just an FYI for you. Also, Anna and I have been discussing
-- there is a lot of growth pressures in the south. We have given permission to staff to
move forward with the sewer study. In her enhancements for next year she is
requesting money for the land use side of that. I would like to your consideration of
moving forward with that as an amendment to start taking a look and working with the
public down there to look at--
Bird: Run that by us one more time. What kind of a -- what kind of a study are we
having? Another sewer study?
De Weerd: You approved that like two months ago.
Bird: Well, yeah, I realize that, but --
De Weerd: It's not back to you for the sewer study, it's back to you to consider the land
use part of that on what best would be utilized in our area of impact, what the people
there feel, and it's all the diligence you need for the county and to determine what future
area of impact might be.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 73 of 78
Bird: I understand now, but you said sewer.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, maybe I can speak as -- and, Anna, if you can help me --
correct me if I get our conversation wrong. As Anna's liaison, Anna and I have reviewed
your budget and reviewed her request. One of the requests that she had was for this
southern study. My direction to her, as a liaison, was that certainly if she, as director,
felt that she needed to bring that forward, that she could do that at budget time.
However, given some of the other pressures that you're going to see within the budget, I
didn't necessarily discourage her from bringing that forward, but thought another budget
year might be better served for that. In any case, I would prefer not to amend our
current budget to have that study and I would like to see that come forward. If Anna
feels that it's important to come forward within our next fiscal year budget and have that
discussion at that time. Did I get that right?
De Weerd: Council, I guess I appreciate those comments, but at this point there is a lot
going on in that area and staff has an opportunity to do that now. They do have a
window if it would be the desire. We do have a couple of enhancement requests
coming up for next year that will put a lot of time constraints on it. Now is a good time,
in conjunction with the sewer study.
Rountree: What kind of money are we talking about?
De Weerd: Anna, what was the budget you set for that?
Canning: I believe that project was about 60,000 and it was -- I know it's a large
number. It was largely a public participation effort to really do -- the first time that I think
the city has really done a significant outreach to the residents of the area. There are a
lot of new one acre, very expensive homes out there that -- on those non-farm
subdivisions and I don't know how to plan for it. I have no idea how to plan for that
area. I think it would -- it's critical to talk to those people and try and find out from them
what to do. So, it was kind of a pricey enhancement for me, not for Brad, but from our
budget it was pretty pricey, but it was mostly for public participation.
De Weerd: And, Council, I guess it prompted it even further last week when I was at the
Urban Land Institute talking about the Blueprint for Good Growth. There is a planned
community that is -- is looking at a two square mile area in that particular designated
area. We need to started getting some of these answers and it's better sooner than
later, in my opinion. So, I would look for your direction on that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 74 of78
Bird: Clarify something for me. You said that the staff right now had an open window to
do this? What did you mean by that? Their workload's down, so they got time to do it
or what?
De Weerd: Well, if --
Bird: No, I'm being very serious about this, because I got to reply to it, if they are.
De Weerd: And I understand that. She is just getting done with the Unified
Development Code and so this project was -- I guess it's best answered by Anna, but --
Canning: Yes. Madam Mayor -- and I'm in an awkward position here, because I don't
think that -- I wish this could be put off to a future budget year, in all honesty, and it's
just -- the more I hear from Kuna, I'm scared as to what they might do in that area, to be
quite honest, and the Unified Development Code, the design guidelines, the downtown
transportation management plan, are wrapping up and should wrap within the next
month, month and a half. The north Meridian area plan I think is finally to a point where
it will start going quickly -- more quickly than it's gone before. So, there is a short
window there and I admit it's short, a couple months, where we could at least be
sending out the RFP's, sending out the RFQ's, getting started on that process, so that
we could hit the ground running probably September or October before -- before all the
other enhancements get in. My problem, all my -- this is pre-budget stuff, but all my
enhancements are just for projects that I see -- either ones that you have directed us to
do or ones that seem critical at this stage of the city and if I get approval of all of them at
the same time, I'm afraid that trying to start up all those, even if I cut them in half and
start six now and six in six -- and the other half in six months, then, it's going to be
difficult to get all those started at the same time. So, it seemed maybe appropriate to
talk about getting this one started early, because this one seems to be the scariest.
De Weerd: And I guess just to add to that, Mr. Bird, I do want to bring it up while Clair
was here. Clair has been serving on a committee for Kuna on their sewer site selection
and he could -- if you wanted further information on the growth pressures in that area,
that has really made this more of an item of priority in our planning efforts, certainly we
can ask comment from Mr. Bowman.
Bird: No. When you said an open window and they were short, I was just going to --
what's our application length of time, like CUP and stuff? Are we still four to six
months?
Canning: We are still four to six months and we have had a rash of people that haven't
posted properly lately and that's been the only thing that's really slowed things down.
And some high groundwater issues that the applicants had to address.
Bird: And we have got plenty of staff time to work on that and stuff, bring that up?
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 75 of78
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, right now the three staff that are
working on these studies, for the most part, are Steve Siddoway, Brad Hawkins-Clark,
and myself. It's not those folks that are processing applications. In the -- I did anticipate
that under the enhancements requesting there is one small one that I wanted Craig
Hood to work on, but that's the only associate staff that I had anticipated working on any
study.
Bird: Thank you very much, Anna.
De Weerd: Would you -- do you need any comment from Clair or -- or I would
appreciate your direction on this. We see the urgency behind it and the ability to plan
for it and respond as the site selection committee and proceeds forward and finding the
appropriate spot and working in conjunction with the sewer that Brad's department has
started.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if Clair's willing to share and can share some information, I
would like to hear what's going on.
Bowman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- it is after 10:00 o'clock. Excuse
me. I was asked by the mayor of Kuna to participate on a wastewater treatment site
selection committee for the city. They had completed their technical analysis of what
they needed. They were now looking at sites. A week ago this past Monday we had a
review of approximately 16 sites. Three of those are north of Lake Hazel, one would lie
immediately adjacent to the Ten Mile. And the other two are slightly to the west of
there, including my property. That's why they asked me to be on that site selection
committee in the first place, because one of the sites immediately adjacent to my
property, is potentially being donated by a developer for the site for a wastewater
treatment plant. After our review of sites last week, the last Monday on site, driving
around, getting out and walking, talking about things, we narrowed down the list of 15 or
16 sites to, I believe, seven. The three that I referred to north of Lake Hazel are still all
included in that final location, the final set of seven that will be evaluated in more detail.
I have a meeting with the Mayor and with the -- Mr. Watson tomorrow morning to review
in detail. I have copies of the maps and specific site information that I can to share with
her and with Brad at that time.
Bird: Thank you, Clair.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I -- just listening to the conversation this evening and I mean it makes certainly
good sense that we need to proceed with looking at what direction we need to take in
that part of our -- that part of the county, but 60,000 dollars to me sounds like an awful
lot for the study that involves the affected folks out there, which I'm assuming that's
what it is, is to get that public input. So, my question, I guess, would be I would like,
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 76 of78
before I could really support that, I'd like to see what that's paying for. You know, what
actually are the expenses there in doing that. Not necessarily that it's not the right
direction to go.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I could address that comment and, then, just readdress my earlier
comments, and that is I certainly agree with that, especially when you see the scope of
the entire budget enhancement from Planning and Zoning Department that will come
forward for next fiscal year and to find out exactly how that fits in. My recommendation
would be to look at it in full. My personal opinion is that, especially an expenditure of
that size, deserves Council's scrutiny, public scrutiny, everyone to have a set of eyeballs
on it and to take a step forward and so that would still be my current recommendation to
the Council, as well as the director.
De Weerd: Well, Council, you have certainly the budget authority and I guess our staff
lives with the people knocking on their door and certainly they have been knocking on
both Planning and Zoning and Public Works and the growth pressures in Kuna are very
vast and so I guess with the growth that we have been having, it -- if we don't have this
couple of months to get on top of it, it piles a lot of work that needs to be done over this
next year into a shorter window to get it done. If you would like, Anna, to come back
with more detail on what that money is about and more detail, certainly we can bring
that.
Donnell: Or Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Donnell: Perhaps that could just be outlined and e-mailed to us, so that we could
review it.
De Weerd: That would be great.
Donnell: That would at least speed it up some.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, if I could just make this comment and that would be regardless
of which department, I would never support a rough dollar figure for any type of a setting
that I hadn't seen before or give any direction as to whether I would like to see that go
forward or not. So, I mean, Council, please, give your input, but from a budget
enhancement point of view, I want see to see -- even if the director feels that it's so
critical that she would need to land this on her next department report, I think anything
less than a full enhancement to this Council is -- shouldn't be considered.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 77 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. We can get more detail. E-mail it out as per Councilmember
Donnell's suggestion and see what additional information you might need. Does that
work, Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm in -- the work that -- yes, it works.
The work that you're asking me to do is basically what I would have done after knowing
that the funds were approved, if that makes sense. I'm trying to understand the process
a little better. I haven't done all that many budgets. My enhancements do not have
detailed requests. I did do them based on conversations with appropriate consultants.
I'm not saying -- it will take me awhile to get to that level of detail that you're asking me
to get to, because I have not gone there. I will, basically, be preparing the RFP, which
is fine, it's work I need to do eventually anyway. But I will be -- I will try and get that
prepared. It probably will take me some time, because I need to finish the Unified
Development Code up first. So, I can't prepare that level of detail until probably the
beginning of August.
Bird: That would be fine with me. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'm sure that there is some consultants out there to help you scope out this and
the cost, I'm sure you have got -- you've had some -- you have talked to somebody, if
you got a 60,000 dollar figure you're throwing around.
Canning: Exactly, sir. It's just that I'll detail it out you and think about exactly what
would be in there, but --
Bird: Yeah. You know, that's -- I'm like Shaun, I'm not -- just having a figure thrown at
me that -- and expect me to change it, you know, if you have got a lot of extra money,
we are under-funded and understaffed at the fire department.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird. There was no request to approve any money to -- it's just to bring
more detail back to you for your consideration.
Bird: That's -- yeah.
De Weerd: Because we certainly would ask that. Okay. I would entertain a motion to
adjourn.
Donnell: First, Madam Mayor, do we meet next Tuesday on the 5th?
De Weerd: No, we don't.
Donnell: Okay.
De Weerd: Our next meeting is on the 12th.
Meridian City Council
June 28, 2005
Page 78 of 78
Bird: I won't be there.
Donnell: Madam Mayor, I would make a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Sorry, Madam Mayor. If I could ask the question that was raised before the
meeting tonight was the budget workshop on the 19th. And Charlie has a point to
make.
Rountree: Not a point to make. I have a board meeting to attend in north Idaho, so I
won't be here on the 19th.
Donnell: And nor willI. I will be out of town.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, so much for trying to plan in advance. Okay. Why don't we
adjourn and, then, we will figure out a date.
Bird: Call for a vote.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :04 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
1 / 26 / tl$"
DATE APPROVED