HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 01-10
Meridian City Council Meetina
Januarv 10. 2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, January 10, 2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie
Rountree and Joe Borton.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Bill Musser, Steve
Siddoway, Bill Johnson, Brad Watson, Doug Strong and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
RolI~cali Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting to order and welcome you all
here tonight. It is Tuesday, January 10th. It's just shortly after 7:00 o'clock. We will
start the meeting tonight with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 2 is the pledge of allegiance. Please rise.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Craig Flinn, with Meridian Alliance
Group:
De Weerd: Item 3 is our community invocation. We will be lead tonight by Pastor Craig
Flynn with the Meridian Alliance Group. If you will all join us in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence.
Flynn: Just as Mayor de Weerd said, just have a moment of silence. Think of those
that are fighting for freedom and protecting our freedom. Those that are close to you,
your loved ones, family members, your neighbors. God, we acknowledge you as the
creator of the heavens and the earth and that you do as you please. We thank you for
creating us, giving us the great opportunity to experience love, joy, and peace and also
the extremes of suffering, often fighting for what is right. Thank you, God, for this
gathering that you have appointed to make decisions, to look for what's best for the city.
We pray for great communication tonight amongst this leadership team and those that
are here, great wisdom for making decisions. God, we continue to pray for healing in
our city and homes, marriages, relationships. Pray that you will help us be a community
that truly loves thy neighbor. Bless this hour now, God, in Jesus' name, amen.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 2 of 59
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us here tonight. Happy 2006. I would also like to
welcome our new Council Member, Council Member Borton. This is his first full agenda
and we appreciate you being here and look forward to working with you.
Borton: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda. Mr. Strong, were we going to take
you off Department Reports for Meridian Youth Baseball? Thank you. Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move on the Consent Agenda we have got one resolution number 06-500.
As you just stated, under department reports, the Parks Department, we would like to
move that to January 24th, 06, instead of '05. And we do have on our regular agenda
an ordinance and that number is 06-1211. And with that I would move that we approve
the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Do we need to add any letter to Item No. 25?
Bird: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. On the Executive Session we would like to add letter F, along
with letter C.
De Weerd: For potential litigation.
Bird: Yeah. That's right.
De Weerd: Okay. And second agrees?
Rountree: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. There is a motion to adopt the agenda as amended. All
those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 3 of 59
A.
Resolution 06~500 Establishing Appointments
for Board Members and Alternates to the Valley Reaional
Transportation Authoritv:
B.
Budaet Amendment for Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility
Plan Update Project:
C.
Contract for Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan Update
Project with Carollo Engineers:
D.
Contract for Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project
Task Order No.4 with Carollo Engineers:
De Weerd: Consent Agenda, Item No.5.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, the liaison for Public Works has asked us that Items B,
C and D be continued on the agenda on 1/17/06, so with that I would move that the
Consent Agenda, which is resolution 06-500 be approved.
Rountree: Second.
Bird: With the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Items
B, C and D to January 17th, 2006. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
Mayor's Office
1.
Appointment of Mito Alonzo and John Nesmith to Parks
Commission:
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, under Department Reports I have two appointments I
would like to make to the Parks Commission. You should have resumes on each of
these individuals. They have met with our parks director Doug Strong, as well as the
parks commission president, Bruce McCoy and myself a couple weeks ago and talked
about the commission expectations, upcoming goals, and some of the activities that the
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 4 of 59
parks commission has been involved with. They both live in areas that currently are not
represented on the commission. They both bring a different aspect than is currently
sitting on the board and I would like your approval of these appointments. Mito Alonzo
will be -- would serve until October 2009 and John Nesmith to October 2008. Those
would be the terms of this appointment.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can I have one -- I think it's -- you know, a clarification. These two are not
replacing anybody on the existing commission, we are just going to a nine member
commission, am I not right?
De Weerd: That's correct.
Bird: With that I would move that we approve your two appointments, Mr. Nesmith to
2008 and Mr. Alonzo until 2009.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the appointments as listed before you. Is
there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B.
Parks Department - Doug Strong
1.
Discussion of Meridian Youth Baseball and Softball Cost
Issues:
De Weerd: Thank you. Our parks commission has been tabled to the 24th of January,
where he will be bringing back updates on the agreements with both Meridian Youth
Baseball and softball, as well as the cost issues to the construction at Meridian Settler's
Park, as well as the agreement for the Police Activities League, too, for update
information.
c.
Public Works Department - Len Grady
1.
Water Service for Sevoy Antique Store:
De Weerd: Item C, Public Works. Mr. Grady.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 5 of 59
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have a request from Savoy
Antiques for water and sewer hook up. This particular project is a little unusual. I have
got it up here in the screen. It's very difficult for this particular project to sewer out to
Fairview, so they are asking to hook up their sewer service to a private sewer system,
which ultimately runs out to a public system. It's a win-win situation insofar as we do get
this developed and take care of maybe some potential eye sores, at the same time this
particular trailer park has some water hook-up issues, which they will take care of
through Savoy Antiques. So, I guess what I'm asking for from Council is direction to
proceed with an agreement with Savoy Antiques to see if we can enter into a three-
party agreement to protect the city from potential future sewer problems, so the three-
party agreement would be Savoy Antiques, the trailer park, and the city. I have been in
contact with the attorney and, basically, we are both in agreement that this is probably a
good thing to do.
De Weerd: Thank you, Len. Any questions for our city engineer?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I would appreciate a motion to give direction to staff on this item.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we instruct staff to continue the exploration of a three-party
agreement for sewer and water hook up for Savoy Antiques and the adjacent mobile
home park and the City of Meridian.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the request. Any discussion? Mr. Berg,
will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D.
City Attorney - Bill Nary
1.
Discussion of Vicious Doa Ordinance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item D. City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 6 of 59
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have in your packets a draft
ordinance. It probably looks familiar. We had a discussion about this a few months
ago. We have made some edits. We have sent this through the -- both the police
department, our animal control, as well as our prosecution group, to review this
ordinance and they are all in agreement with it. If the Council is of a mindset to want to
move forward with this, I can put this back on your agenda. A couple of points for you
to consider is do you want this in one hearing or do you want to have an opportunity for
some public comment? Secondarily, what I would recommend is that if you were going
to implement this ordinance that we also have some lag time between the actual
passage of the ordinance and the actual implementation, so there is an opportunity for
some public education. I haven't discussed with the chief, but maybe through our
volunteer efforts on animal control might be an opportunity to get some information out
to the public about it. There will need to be some lag time anyway, just to order licenses
and have the actual licenses available, so when the ordinance goes into effect it can be
implemented then, but -- so those two things that you may want to ask if you want to go
forward with this ordinance. I'll await your direction.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary or maybe chief, could you give a little background on some of the
events or incidents that have really prompted this? Chief, would you like to give an
overview on that?
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, while I don't have the specific
instances in front of me this evening, part of what's prompted this vicious dog ordinance
relates to a number of different types of involvements with dogs. Some are actual bites
involving children or other adults in contact with dogs that weren't properly leashed or
kept under control and, then, we also have an issue with dogs that do also run at large
and kill other animals, pets of other citizens here in the community as well. And with the
research and everything that we have been doing on this, the ordinance is an attempt to
try to place a little bit more control on the owners of those types of animals and we are
doing in a rather stringent manner through fines and through additional licensing
requirements that have a fairly hefty fee on them and if that doesn't work, then,
ultimately requesting that they are declared a public nuisance, so they can be
destroyed. And, basically, you know, for public safety. That's the main premise for
where we are headed on this.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Any questions from Council? And they are seeking
direction on how you would like to proceed forward with this.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would like to proceed with it and, you know, like Mr. Nary said, we can give it a
30 or 60 day -- before it takes effect and that way we can get everything ready and get
the public familiarized with it. So, I would move bringing it on. We did have quite a
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 7 of 59
discussion on it earlier, which Mr. Borton didn't have, but I would prefer to get it moved
on and get going with it.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would agree. That would be my preference. Certainly, I think both through
our police department and volunteer staff that the education piece is really going to be
the key component to this ordinance being effective and, really, I think will allow us as a
community to have a better process for these animals and their owners, more
importantly.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for the maker of the motion. Given the
desire to have the public input, do you wish to have waiver of the reading rules or do
you want to have the ordinance read and --
Bird: I didn't make the motion. I would waive it. Like we normally do waive the three
readings. Do the one reading. And, then, if we set it -- I thought that if we went 30 to 60
days before the effective date, that way we could do some education at that point and
get everything in line ready to go. I doubt if we would have much public input anyway.
De Weerd: So, your direction would be to set it for.
Bird: Set it forward and let's get it passed and, then, we can set an effective date. I
didn't make a motion, but I could or Shaun is welcome to.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just in our past experience of the three readings and trying to
seek public input, it's been my experience that both the press and the public react after
the ordinance is passed and I think probably 30 days will allow the reaction time and
some education. So, I would move that we bring forward the ordinance for the vicious
dog next week and bring it forward with the waiver of the reading rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton?
Borton: Maybe Bill or -- someone can answer the question. I see this as an
amendment to the existing ordinance. Was there a history of a problem in trying to
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 8 of 59
prosecute under the existing ordinance, inability to get owners to bear responsibility for
their dogs that these changes are going to now capture? Is that what happened?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Borton, the problem has been the dogs rushing
at persons, as you can see in the part that's deleted. That's the only criminal sanction is
that particular code section. There is no onus on the dog owners afterwards. So, all
there was left was the civil remedy if there was a dog bite and we have had dogs that
have attacked other animals and injured or killed other animals. There was no -- there
was nothing other than the civil remedy available for folks. All this does is decides that -
- I guess hopefully clarifying some criminal aspects of this. Also puts the onus on the
dog owners who have attacked other dogs and their dogs are declared vicious, to put
some requirements on them for maintaining those types of animals, outside of just a
lawsuit or something else that could be brought by one of the victims of the cases. So, I
think that's been the -- that's the reason that the ordinance was recommended to be
amended, was to try to find some avenue to put some -- I guess more requirement on
animal owners that have dogs that get off their property and attack either people,
children, or other animals.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Borton, this is also a result of both citizens that have been victims
or have had animals that have been victims, as well as our animal control officer, as
something that has been a desire to clarify and build in additional consequences. Okay.
So, we do have a motion on the floor to bring this forward. All those in favor say aye.
Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E.
Planning Department - Steve Siddoway
1.
Discussion of West 8th Street Sidewalks:
De Weerd: And 6-E, Planning Department. Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. About this time last
year I was before you with this same project. It's West 8th Street in front of Meridian
Middle School. There is a project in ACHD's five year work program, requested by the
citizens of that area, to build sidewalks for the children who walk to school along those
roads each day. Currently there are no sidewalks. The project would build new
sidewalks along both sides of the street from Cherry Lane to the school. They would
also improve the mid block crosswalk. Okay. So, this is the middle school. We have
Cherry Lane up here and this is West 8th Street. The project would build sidewalks on
both sides of 8th Street to get kids to the school and it would also improve -- there is a
mid block crosswalk right here that connects to a micro-path that goes through the
subdivision at that point. The majority of the project is within ACHD's right of way, but
there is a portion that is not related to that micro-path. The proposal last year was that
the city support this project and help with the local matching funds and we had offered
last year to pay 20 percent of the required local match for them to go after a federal
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 9 of 59
grant to get this project built, with a cap of 5,000 dollars. That was approved. We
applied for that -- we being ACHD, I guess. ACHD submitted the application. It was not
successful last year in being funded. So, I'm coming -- they intend to reapply this year
under the transportation enhancement funds and so I'm back before you with the same
request to see if Council still feels like you would like to support this project. That
application will be submitted at the end of the month and will move forward. Last year
we were ranked third and the first two were funded. So, we were the runner up, as it
were, that wasn't funded and ACHD is putting the polish on the application this year and
we are going to go after the funds one additional year. With that, I will stand for any
questions.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Steve, your time -- are we going to be able to stand the same amount of cost that
we had last year or are we going to have to -- our matching going to have to be a little
higher, because, you know, concrete's probably went from 75 dollars to 100 dollars or
so and --
Siddoway: I asked ACHD, Don Costwick, yesterday if the costs that they were applying
for were still the same and he said yes. So, I think that the same amount of 20 percent
up to 5,000 is still a reasonable match request.
De Weerd: Steve, are we also pursuing other letters of support for this project?
Siddoway: Yes. I have agreed with ACHD to pursue locally some additional support
letters. I intend to approach the Chamber of Commerce. Probably the police
department. We will get one -- I have a proposed one from the City Council that I have
delivered to the Mayor with today's date on it, if you so choose, and it would be open to,
you know, any others that you feel would -- should provide letters of support for that
project. The school district.
De Weerd: Certainly I think the school district --
Siddoway: Yes, the school district. The school district also.
De Weerd: As well as the specific school.
Siddoway: Okay.
De Weerd: You might even ask them from the board of trustees.
Siddoway: I will prepare some draft language and send it to each of those groups.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 10 of 59
De Weerd: Okay. There is a PTA, I believe, in the middle school as well that would be
another excellent group to glean support from. The library, which is in the vicinity as
well.
Siddoway: Okay.
De Weerd: I do have a letter here as well that I would like -- if Council -- it's the same
letter we wrote in support of it last year and I would like your signatures, that we can
send with Steve, then, if Council so desires to approve this request.
Siddoway: One quick word about the accounting side. Even if we are successful this
year, the grant isn't until '09 through the federal process. So, I have already talked with
accounting. They are able to set up an accounting process that will dedicate the funds
this year, but carry it over until it's actually needed for the matching funds to the federal
government.
Bird: We should be able to do the same thing with ours, shouldn't we?
Siddoway: That would be for ours. Yes.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions for Steve? Okay. I would need a motion to
approve this request.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the request by our planning department
Steve Siddoway to put a sum up to 5,000 dollars towards the West 8th Street sidewalks.
If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda onto this
regular agenda.
Item 8:
Request for Release of LiÇlhthouse RidÇle Subdivision from the City's
Referral Area by The Land Group:
De Weerd: So, I will move to Item 8, request for release of Lighthouse Ridge
Subdivision. I will start with staff's comments.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 11 of 59
Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Some of you may recall
this project coming in various forms over the last year and a half. This first came to you
as a request to release this from Meridian's area of referral into Boise and -- I think
October of '04. It was under the name Bradford and Camille Shaw at the time. It came
back to you last summer, roughly July, and with, essentially, the same request. The
area is not just this shaded area -- and the applicant may have to help me a little bit, but
I think it takes in this polygon here, as well as this quarter -- quarter quarter section.
The boundary on the referral area is a quarter mile west of Cloverdale Road, which
moves north up this line and up to Umpqua Subdivision, which is in Boise city. You will
see that it does jut out into -- farther west than that quarter mile line. The discussion in
July at Council, my interpretation was, essentially, that if we -- if the applicant can show
that this can never gravity sewer to Meridian and can gravity sewer to Boise, then, to
come back with that request. There is a memo in your packet, I think it's at the very
end, a couple pages there that somewhat outlines the trail of correspondence between
Kirby Kirkham of the Land Group and me over the interim. At some point in time,
roughly the 1 st of November, I went out myself and looked at this and back up with the
topography, looked at our sewer master plan that was in draft form at that time and did
a sewer-ability analysis myself. It appears that all of this that is west of this very deep
ridge will ultimately sewer back by gravity to Meridian. The portion that is below the
ridge -- essentially, we are talking about this part right here to the north -- will not sewer
back to Meridian by gravity sewer. The applicant has evidently had some conversations
with Boise city that says that portion is sewer-able to Boise. The applicant wrote
another letter to Mayor and Council early December and I think I have the request
straight after e-mailing the applicant last week, is that since some of this will not sewer
by gravity to Meridian and Meridian sewer is not there, that we should release the entire
site to be developed in Boise city. I don't believe that was the direction from Council in
July, so at this time I can't recommend that we authorize release of the referral area.
The applicant is here if you have any questions. The one thing that I didn't point out on
this map is this does show what showed up on our GIS is the flood plain. This is Ten
Mile Creek that runs through here. The develop-ability of this portion seems a little bit in
question. It seems to have a lot of site constraints anyway. So, if you need more
information on that, I guess I would refer you to the applicant. Be happy to answer any
questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make any comment? If you will, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Kirkham: Certainly. My name is Kirby Kirkham. Work address is 462 East Shore Drive
in Eagle. I am representing the applicant and the developer is here as well and he may
be able to address some things as well. As Brad correctly stated, we do own that
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 12 of 59
portion up there, as well as what we will develop together as another portion right at the
very -- as well as this whole area right down here. So, this will all be developed
together. None of that plays into it as much, but it is our desire to develop all this as
one. This bottom portion is within the Boise city area of impact. The impact line or the
referral area line comes up here and is directly adjacent to Umpqua Subdivision. This is
correct. It is right -- now it is a hundred year flood way. That develop-ability of that, we
have done some studies on that. Basically, what it will end up being is there will be a
floodway and flood plain, one which you can't developed in, which will be pretty close to
the bottom. It will run here. This may not be developable, but there is a big corner
down here, based on our studies that we have done so far, and we do have to get into it
a little bit more, because we don't want to spend too much until we know exactly what
we are doing and able to do. But, you know, there is a portion here and we have also
looked into putting some houses maybe tucked back into the hillside, if we can get that
designed and it might be a nice way to kind of overlook a field, as well as to have a
house back in there, if we can get that to work as well. So, that is a very -- is a
possibility in our design. So, that's what we are looking at there. And it is our request,
as, you know, Brad has stated and I agree with him, that the upper portion is possibly
and very likely when sewer gets out there, could be -- could go into gravity into the city
system. However, this is about 20 feet lower than the top and as a portion of it, you
know, we cannot do anything, except for go into -- there is existing sewer line here in
this road and there will be a sewer line required to extend through this subdivision. It is
very sewer-able for the rest of the site and so it would be our request at a minimum,
approximately a third -- between a third to a half is un-sewer-able of the site we are
looking at within the referral area. We would request the whole thing, so we could
develop this as one, so that the site would not get split between basically two different
entities and have to have two different sets of designs and to eliminate that hassle and
complication of developing this project as one and instead of splitting the referral area
right down the middle of the site, like we would have to do if you only released the
bottom portion. So, that is our basic request. And I agree with Brad's findings and that
is why we request it, because we just -- it causes a lot more complications, difficulties in
design, and dealing with things if the referral area splits our property. So, I guess I
would have any questions on design or anything we have looked at from you guys.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess, Brad, if you can give some clarity on -- this is the third time
that we have heard this request. The first two times they said no. What has changed?
Watson: Madam Mayor and Council Members, the owner developer changed between
number one and number two. And I could only find these two -- those two instances in
searching through the minutes of this coming before you. This was the third time. I
thought there was a fourth, but I couldn't find it. Nothing in my mind has really changed,
other than we have done a little more study since July on the sewer-ability of the site.
De Weerd: So, they are not asking for the complete split, just the flood plain area, is
that what I understand?
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 13 of 59
Kirkham: Madam Mayor, Councilmember's, when we first came, I was a little bit green
to this, not dealing with the referral area and that, and so I just thought we'd come and
request it. Once we did a little more study and looking at it and realizing, okay, this
upper portion may be sewer-able, most likely is sewer-able, and the bottom portion
definitely is not, that's when, talking to the developer, we would ask to release the whole
thing, because we have to release at least a portion to be able to develop that, to
develop that portion of the site when we put houses down in the lower portion and
because that lower portion is, we would ask for the whole thing, that way our site does
not get split in the middle with the referral area line. That way we could develop the
whole site as one entity and not have to deal with both the City of Meridian, the City of
Boise, and Ada County at the same time. It's an Ada County subdivision right now, but,
eventually, it will be City of Meridian, City of Boise, and to have to design with both, it
would be much more logical and make sense at least as our point as we look at it, to
develop that whole site as one, rather than having it split down the middle.
De Weerd: But the topography gives you a natural split.
Kirkham: Uh-huh. It does. However, you know, we would have to have access from
the below. We are going to have a road up the hillside. There is a dirt road right there
right now and so it would be part of the full -- of the full design and full package there.
And it would be considered and marketed as one.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Requist: My name is Michael Requist. My address is 4470 West Columbia, Meridian.
I am the current owner of the property. And one thing I did want to emphasize is the
contiguousness of the entire bottom corner and, then, it goes up to the top portion there
that Kirby was showing you. And I think the danger with -- you can seek the bottom
portion where -- through the bottom subdivision, the road actually comes down through
the Boise side, will come up onto the bench and I think it would be extremely difficult in
order to define the lines there. So, I am respectfully requesting that it be released,
keeping in mind that only the -- just the upper portion, which is 30 something acres, is in
the referral area and the contiguous piece, which is the lower corner on Cloverdale and
Columbia, is in the Boise impact area already.
De Weerd: We certainly hear this same request up and down the line, so what makes
this different?
Requist: Well, like I said, the difficulty -- several different things. One, trying to market
a piece, if we are going to be able to split off one-third of the project and have it in
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 14 of 59
Meridian and having the difficulty of inter-agencies trying to go there, half of it, fighting
over road rights and stuff like that coming to the site, because it is, like I said, the
bottom portion from Boise coming up into there, so I think there is going to be a lot of
difficulties for us to try to develop it. The only -- the best way I could describe it, if you
can imagine half of your backyard being on the border of a city and the city requesting
to keep half of your backyard and you're trying to sell your parcel, there would be more
value, obviously, as one piece, one contiguous piece.
De Weerd: I guess you have that control in how you plat it. I wouldn't imagine you
would plat it half in Boise and half in Meridian. We have examples north of this area
where there is part of a subdivision in Boise and part of it in Meridian. So, I was just
trying to find out what would make this different than some of these other requests?
Requist: Well, it would be, obviously, more feasible for us and less expensive to do it as
one piece for sure.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Requist: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, staff would like direction on this item.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I don't see yet again any change -- any different information. We went out
and got the information that we asked for from Brad's field work, that it will sewer to
Meridian, at least a good portion of it. I don't see any evidence or any indication at this
point that I would support a release.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion from Councilor do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Just a statement. I would agree with Councilman Rountree and I believe that our
staff is not recommending this and I have to go along with what they feel in regards to
this kind of a deal and I don't -- I just think at this time that it's not -- we don't need to be
releasing it, so --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 15 of 59
Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I would move that we deny the request for
release of the Lighthouse Ridge Subdivision, Item No.8.
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to deny the request for release. Is there any further
discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Tabled from January 3, 2006: FP 05~O74 Request for Final Plat
approval for 3 building lots and 1 common area lot on 12.01 acres in a I-L
zone for Weed and Pest Control Campus Subdivision by Ada County -
south side of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 9 is tabled from January 3rd on FP 05-074. Anna, on all
of these final plats, do we have agreement that we can consider Items 9 through 12 at
the same time?
Canning: Madam Mayor, no, we do not. The only letter we have is on No. 11.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 9.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we still have not received what we
need to process this final plat request. I think at this point staff would recommend at
least two weeks continuance.
De Weerd: So, to the 24th?
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just also as a reminder, that this only requires agenda notice for these final plats,
so you could -- I think you have continued this one a couple of times. You don't have to
necessarily do it to a date certain either. You can certainly take it off until they are
ready. I don't think that's a problem either. Just an option for you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Ready?
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 16 of 59
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we remove Item 9 and defer it until the applicant
is ready for submitting a final plat.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to remove Item 9 and to reconsider once the applicant has
filed with staff --
Canning: An alternative compliance request.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
FP 05~075 Request for Final Plat approval of 1 multi-family residential
building lot consisting of ten 4-plexes and 6 commercial office building lots
on 5.4 acres in R-15 and L-O zones for WestborouQh SQuare
SubdiYision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 6015 North Jericho Road:
De Weerd: Item 10. PF 05-075. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Westborough Square
application. It's on the south side of Chinden, approximately a quarter mile west of
Locust Grove. The highlights of the development include a request for one multi-family
residential building lot and, then, six commercial lots on 5.4 acres in an R-15 and, then,
L-O zone. The residential lot will consist of ten four-plexes containing a total of 40
residential units. Staff is recommending approval. The final plat is in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat. To our knowledge there are no
outstanding issues before Council, but we were unable to obtain a letter prior to
tonight's hearing, so we just need to hear from the applicant regarding the conditions of
approval.
De Weerd: Is the applicant in approval of staff recommendation? If he is, then --
Rountree: Indicated by thumbs up.
De Weerd: That was a thumbs up. I think that's Jim Jewett in the back. I can't see him
behind the hair on his face. Okay. Council, any questions for staff or the applicant at
this time? The applicant is in agreement with staff comments.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City CounCil
January 10, 2006
Page 17 of 59
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 10, FP 05-075.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to approve Item No. 10. If there is no further discussion, Mr.
Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
FP 05~077 Request for Final Plat approval of 27 residential building lots
and 4 other lots on 7.89 acres in a R-8 zone for Caymus Cove
Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of
West McMillan Road and east of North Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 11 is FP 05-077. As staff indicated, we do have a
letter in agreement to staff conditions. Anna, do you have any additional information on
this item?
Canning: Just one quick note. The applicant did ask for a change to one of the
conditions for a rolling gate, to instead install bollards and staff is in agreement with that
condition. So, they are good to go.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 11, FP 05-077.
Bird: With the changing of the gate?
Wardle: With additional staff comments, yes.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 11 with the additional staff comments. Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 18 of 59
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
FP 05~076 Request for Final Plat approval of 310 residential building lots
and 49 common lots on 88.09 acres in a R-8 zone for Messina Meadows
Subdivision No.1 by Briggs Engineering, Inc. - west of Eagle Road and
north of Amity Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 12 is FP 05-076. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we do not have a signed
development agreement for this property yet, so staff is asking that you either continue
or remove it from the agenda.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I would need a motion to either remove or table it to a date
certain.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you could, again, do this one to an open
date. We have sent this development agreement four months ago. There are some
issues staff is working on on an adjacent on -- not this one -- it's not this one, is it? It is
this one. There are some other issues, so I don't know if we'd end up continuing it
again. So, if you want to continue it to just until it's ready, that's perfectly fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we remove Item 12, FP 05-076 from the agenda until staff has
worked through the issues.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to remove Item 12 until it's ready to be renoticed or put
back on. All those in favor say aye. Any nays? All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 05~054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 19 of 59
Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest
corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: CUP 05~050 Request for a Conceptual Conditional Use
for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center
Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of
Touchmark Way and Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is Public Hearing PP 05-054. Item 14, CUP 05-050. I will
open these two items, 13 and 14, with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Touchmark Center project.
It's located on the south side of Franklin Road west of Touchmark way and that's
approximately one quarter mile east of Eagle Road. This is a request for preliminary
plat and conditional use approval. The project consists of 22 building lots and one
common lot. And, then, conceptual use or conceptual planned development use
approval for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone. The preliminary plat is split into
two pieces here, so this is the southern portion and this is the northern portion on either
side of the entry road there, Louise Drive. The city annexed most of this property some
time ago and at that time you approved a Conditional Use Permit to develop the mixed
use retirement community and, then, it was modified in 2003 to move some of the office
lots to the south side of Franklin Road and, then, it was further modified again in 2004 to
allow the addition of a multi-story retirement center and that's not on this particular piece
of the property, but it is on the overall CU. And, then, a portion of this site was annexed
recently one of the conditions of the annexation was to amend the original Conditional
Use Permit for the planned development. So, the CU that is before you tonight is solely
for the purpose of bringing that recently annexed property into the larger conceptual
plan. So, it's not approving any particular use, it's only kind of bringing that property into
the fold for this whole area. The preliminary plat is fairly straight forward. This is an L-O
zone, the commercial lots. It does meet the requirements of the L-O zone. I do want to
point out that there is the continuing obligation as part of the original conditional use
approval for conditional -- individual conditional use approval on each lot as it is
developed. The Planning Commission did hear this and have recommended approval
at their December 8th, 2005, hearing. Sabrina Whitehead, the applicant's
representative, spoke in favor of the application. No one opposed and no one
commented on the application at that time. The key issue of discussion by the
Commissioners were the existing public utilities and drainage easements on the
western boundary. There was one change to staff's initial recommendation and that
was to modify condition 1.19 to read that the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to
show a 20 foot land use buffer along the western boundary of Lot 6, 7 and 8, Block 4,
due to existing public utilities easement on the west side of the plat. Install shrubs and
other ground cover within said landscape buffer. To our knowledge there are no
outstanding issues before Council. You do have Findings for approval. I did -- I wanted
to point out the requirement for the conditional use approval on each individual lot,
because that's -- you'll see in one of our next agenda items that this comes up time and
time again and the Council may want to consider at some time whether it's appropriate
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 20 of 59
to continue that requirement or if they feel that there has been some sufficient changes
in the zoning ordinance or in how the property is being developed that they want to
remove that requirement, they just -- Council and Mayor just need to ask staff to initiate
a development agreement modification and we will get that in the loop. Other than that,
that's -- I'll answer any questions you have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Good evening. If you will,
please, state your name and address.
Whitehead: Good evening. My name is Sabrina Whitehead. I am here on behalf of
Touchmark Development, as well as Briggs Engineering. My address is 1800 West
Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And as a repeat, I'm here in front of you for the
preliminary plat and the conceptual conditional use permit approval. I just wanted to
note that I have reviewed the staff report. We agree with all the conditions set forth and
agree with their Findings. I would like to note one thing, though, is that the landscape
plan -- we are modifying it to have the 20-foot land use buffer along the west side, as
well as we are going to be modifying the landscape buffer on Franklin, which we have
as 20 and it is supposed to be 25. So, all of the conditions will be met and we are
working on them currently. So, I just respectfully request that you approve both these
applications and if you have any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Whitehead: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on either Items 13 or 14? Okay. Seeing none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 21 of 59
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the public hearings on 13 and 14. All those in favor
say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I would move that we would approve
preliminary plat for Item 13, PP 05-054.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: And that would be also to approve the revision made by staff?
Rountree: That's in the Findings in the CUP.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 13. If there is no further discussion,
Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit 05-050, including staff
and public comments this evening and approval of the Findings of Facts as prepared.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve Item 14. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: MI 05~016 Miscellaneous request to modify the recorded
Development Agreement for Resolution Subdiyision by removing Lot 7,
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 22 of 59
Block 1, from the requirement to obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior to
operation and construction of an office building by Conger Management
Group - 2045 East Overland Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15 is a Public Hearing MI 05-016. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a request by
Resolution Subdivision -- Resolution Subdivision to amend their development
agreement. It's for the property in the brighter purple, located at the corner of Overland
Road and the entrance road to the subdivision, approximately a quarter mile east of
Locust Grove. This is a miscellaneous application for a development agreement
modification. The applicant is requesting to remove the requirement from the
development agreement for just these 2.5 acres and the condition that they are asking
to have removed is the one that requires conditional use approval of -- before a CZC is
issued on the site. Because the original approval was conceptual in nature, the city
required that a Conditional Use Permit be approved on each lot prior to development.
This was the standard requirement of the city at the time. We are trying to move away
from those. This is the third lot that has asked to be exempt from that requirement
within Resolution Subdivision. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan, but
no elevations at this time. Some of the other requests you got both elevations and a
site plan at the time that you were being asked to waive the requirement for the
conditional use approval. What staff has recommended for this particular site is that
they submit -- instead of having to go through the CU process, that they submit for
design review and meet the standards for design review that are in Chapter 3, Article A,
and those are largely geared toward large structures, but they are also geared for
entryway structures. So, there are some design standards there. They are mostly
geared toward breaking up mass, but we found that they work fairly well at also
breaking up landscaping and making sure that we don't have single block buildings, no
matter what size. The staff is in support of the development agreement modification
with that change, because we feel we could get enough staff review of it that it wouldn't
need to go up to the Planning Commission for their review of the elevations, essentially.
Again, staff has some concern -- a little bit -- this is the final lot in Resolution Subdivision
to be developed, but there is this outstanding conditional use requirement for any use
that goes into it. So, even though all those structures have been built now, if there were
a change in use, which one change in use might be going from an accountant office to a
medical office that -- the zoning code actually treats those differently, because one is
put under medical office -- kind of the larger medical use. So, technically, that would
require a conditional use approval in the future. This is another one where staff would
like some direction from Council, if you -- now that the project is built out, that there is
an established look to it, would this be the appropriate time to remove the development
agreement condition for this subdivision as a whole, to initiate that action with all those
property owners. I leave that open for your consideration. It's not actually part of
tonight's hearing, but I wanted to raise the issue, since you're now considering the last
one in the development. And with that, I will answer any questions. You don't have
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 23 of 59
Findings on this one, because it is a modification to the development agreement that will
be done through the city attorney's office.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dave McKinnon, 735
South Crosstimber. I have read Craig's report, agree with the recommendation. If you
guys have any questions of me.
De Weerd: That was short and sweet. Council, any questions --
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: -- for Dave?
Rountree: I won't comment.
McKinnon: Thank you. Sorry I missed the pledge tonight.
De Weerd: You know, as a former staffer, we just like to give you a hard time. Okay.
This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this
item? Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 15.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 15. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
Wardle: Yes.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 24 of 59
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, before we have a motion on this item, just as far directions
from staff. Anna, it would be my preference, now that the project is built out, that we
somehow look at a way to remove those development agreements within the
subdivision. I don't -- in my mind, a change from a dentist's office to an accounting
office or some change like that doesn't need to come all the way up through the City
Council for such a process. But I'll leave that to discussion.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess to follow up on that comment, five years ago when these types of
agreements -- even three years ago, it made a lot of sense, because we didn't have the
UDC, we didn't have the review process that exists today. I think what Mrs. Canning
has raised is -- it would be less cumbersome to amend these development agreements
on every small use. I'm sure some of the Council remembers we placed conditional use
requirements on every building and use that was being proposed three to four years
ago. Maybe as a method -- and Mrs. Canning might have a different perspective.
Maybe as a method -- we have been talking about the possibility of doing a workshop of
some sort with the Council and this might be a good topic to talk about, is some
proposed amendments to the code or some proposed direction that we would want from
the Council and that might give an opportunity to have a more thorough discussion
that's not just tied to one project, but tied to the bigger picture. But I think what Mrs.
Canning's raised is probably something worthy of Council's consideration. But, then,
you wouldn't have to see these. You have probably noticed you have seen a half a
dozen of these in the last six or seven months, because of some very specific
conditions that were placed on these agreements two, three, four, five years ago that
are still existing that may not be very practical any longer.
De Weerd: Thank you. So, I guess, Mr. Nary, what the suggestion is to amend the
development agreement to remove CUP conditions within the subdivision as a whole,
but to put on a design review criteria for the remaining piece?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the request before you tonight is just
with regard to this one specific lot.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: And, then, I would be happy to talk about this at a workshop. That would give
me the ability to work with Mr. Nary and maybe come up with a list of where we have
these development agreements and look at exactly what the language says and get
back with you at a workshop setting. That would be --
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 25 of 59
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would agree and I think that's what Mr. Wardle was saying, it would be a nice
item for a workshop, because I think there is a lot of things that we need to be careful
about. Sometimes these restrictions we put on was for a purposes and it worked out
real well. So, I think we -- I think we need to tread softly as we want to change all our
rules and regulations and stuff and make sure that the public is still guarded very well.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I concur in the need for a workshop, but to get us back to the subject at
hand, I would move that we approve Item 15, MI 05-016.
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Okay. With the condition of design review as suggested by staff?
Rountree: As outlined in staff's report, yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: VAR 05..025 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-
3E.4.C.1 to exceed maximum structure size for a temporary sales trailer in
the R-4 zone for Redfeather Estates No.2 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - 4132 East Race Street:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 is Public Hearing on VAR 05-025. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request of Redfeather
Estates. It's located south of Ustick, approximately a quarter mile east of Eagle Road.
This is a variance application and the applicant is requesting the variance from UDC
code provisions that restrict temporary use structures to a maximum of 500 square feet.
Staff has recommended denial of this application. As you know, there are three findings
now in UDC that you need to make with regard to granting a variance. The first one is
that the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed
in the district. As noted before, the UDC does address temporary uses. Temporary
uses are allowed as an accessory use in the R-4 zone. However, it's very clear that the
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 26 of 59
size of any structure that's not going to be a permanent structure, any kind of temporary
structure associated with this temporary use, is limited to 500 square feet. Staff finds
that if the City Council grants this variance request for the 672 square foot temporary
structure, it would be granting a special right or a privilege to this property. In addition
to that, the applicant does have a mechanism for getting a larger area in which to
conduct their sales. They can build a model home and use that model home for their
sales area. They have -- are, instead, asking for the 672 feet -- square feet is to have a
single wide trailer on the property. The second finding that the City Council needs to
make is that the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the
site. Again, there is no real physical characteristics of the site that would preclude it
from being used as a model home site in particular. It is -- the lot is specifically
designed to accommodate the model home. The dimensions of the lot don't in any way
prohibit it from having a 500 square-foot building, instead of a 672 square-foot building
or structure. And, then, the final one is that the variance shall not be detrimental to
public health, safety, an welfare and staff was able to make that finding. But the first
two findings staff could not make. Now, staff understands that the difference between
the 500 square feet and 672 square feet is not huge. But staff couldn't make the
findings for approval. So, you do have a -- you don't have Findings tonight for approval.
If the City Council is inclined to grant this variance, staff just asks that you give us some
direction on what you would like to see in the future. If this is -- when other people
coming in and asking for this variance, would -- how should we direct them or what
guidance can we give them as to maybe how you will feel about it. Conversely, if you
feel that the code is wrong -- and this is a brand new code. This is the first time we
have run into this. If you feel that the code is wrong, if you could just direct staff, we will
put it on the list for a text amendment and we will deal with it that way. So, I do ask if
you are inclined to approve this, if you'd just give staff some direction, that will help us
prepare the Findings as well, if you go that direction. With that I'll answer any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, was there any particular reason why 500 was magic?
Canning: No. It wasn't. And I think we were just looking for a number that kind of didn't
get too large and, you know, 700 feet accommodates a single wide trailer and that's an
acceptable temporary use structure that the Council -- the Council feels should be
accommodated, then, you know, maybe 700 square feet is more acceptable. But there
was no magic to the 500 square foot number.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 27 of 59
De Weerd: But you had people on that committee that developed this that had had
these kind of temporary structures in the past.
Canning: The representation on the process improvement group, they tend to probably
use mobile homes more than they do sales trailers, although the representative for
Redfeather was on the group as well. We did talk about this 500. It was not as if it
never got discussed and I made a particular point to actually raise it at the Planning
Commission and the City Council level, because it was a -- kind of a brand new
standard for these temporary uses that we have been struggling with and there was
never any discussion on the 500 square foot number from Planning and Zoning
Commission or City Council.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here this evening? Okay. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Talla: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members.
Discovery Way in Boise.
Joe Talla.
6223 North
De Weerd: Thank you, Joe.
Talla: I'd like to request that you approve the variance for this. It's true that there is no
site hardship that we are encountering in this, but there is an operational hardship for
us. The sales staff, not realizing the 500 square foot restriction, ordered the sales trailer
to meet their specific needs and on this particular plat they have three agents -- you
know, they need a conference room and a place for the plat and, you know, to operate
the sales trailer effectively and efficiently to sell homes out of that. Typically, they work
out of a model home, use a three car garage, and if we assume that a three car garage
is 20 by 30 minimum, then, that's 600 square feet, which is more than the 500, you
know, as stated in the UDC. Also, this sales trailer won't pose any particular burden to
anybody in the area. As you can see on the plat, the area to the left is not currently
being developed, those are future phases, and the lots in the immediate vicinity of the
sales trailer are also either undeveloped or currently under construction. So, finally, I'd
like to stress the fact that this is a temporary structure. There is currently a model home
being built across the street from this sales trailer and that's expected to be completed
by the end of March. So, we are only talking about a small period of time to allow the
sales staff to make sales until they can move into the home. The problem we are
running into is no home construction can begin before the final plat is recorded and, you
know, it takes, depending on who the builder -- you know, could take up the four or five
months or longer to build a home to house the sales staff, so -- and that's why we
needed the sales trailer for this instance and, again, it's very temporary until we move.
So, any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have a question.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 28 of 59
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You say that the model home is going to be done March 31st or is that when it's
going to start?
Talla: No. It should be --
Bird: Come back and said it would be six to eight months.
Talla: It should be complete by that time.
Bird: So, if we was to grant this variance with a limit of April 15th, would be no
problem?
Talla: That would be acceptable to the applicant.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Tal/a, if your sales staff had realized the requirement of 500 feet, would
they have ordered one that met that requirement and still have gotten the job done for
you?
Bird: Yes. I did talk to the sales staff about this and the reason they did order the larger
one is because they felt they needed that. They have worked in smaller spaces before
and it was just too difficult to accommodate people visiting the site and the agents that
have to work there, you know, on a regular basis.
Borton: Would you think in future situations with this type of work that for any type of
trailer to do sales like what you're doing, 500 feet doesn't cut it?
Talla: You know, I don't know enough about the sales end of the business to really
make an educated judgment on that. You know, I'm sure that it can be accommodated
at 500 square feet, but, again, I don't know the specifics of, you know, how they
operate.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just to weigh in on Mr. Borton's question and maybe not this
specific application. Having worked once or twice in a sales trailer, the more space that
you can have within a reasonable amount of square footage is preferred. I think we
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 29 of 59
need to look at the code. I'm not sure that 500 would accommodate all types of sales
trailers.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I'm looking at -- since this is being
asked to be -- for a variance is 11-3E.4.C.1, which has the 500 square foot limit, that is
the -- that is for all types of temporary sales facilities. So, this is not just for these types
of offices, they are for hotdog stands and everything else. You may want to look at --
and I didn't discuss this with Mrs. Canning ahead of time, but 11-3-6 is the standards
for subdivision model real estate sales offices. It implies that these are model homes,
but there is some language in here -- if you're going to grant a variance, this doesn't
have a 500-foot limit or limitation. If you're going to grant a variance because you'd like
us to revisit the ordinance, as Councilmember Wardle is suggesting, that's a defensible
reason to grant a variance and this is probably the section you'd rather amend, because
it kind of deals with your specific issue of sales offices within subdivisions, rather than
all sales facilities in temporary natures. So, that might be your better avenue, even
though it is requested under the other section, you can certainly grant the variance
based on this section of your code, instead, with that direction to staff to revisit this
portion of the ordinance maybe allow some type of these temporary facilities within --
within the subdivision that might be temporary in nature, not a model home, something
like that, that would be able to match the other architecture or similar, so that you don't
have eye sores and things like that in the neighborhood, but I don't know, is that
practical, Mrs. Canning? Is that a --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it is -- it is practical. I just want to
point out that this -- the 500 square foot standard is in the section that applies to all
temporary uses and, then, there is further standards for subdivision and model homes, I
believe. I haven't got it completely memorized yet, but I think that's the way that section
is set up, and so we just have to be careful that if you want to give greater allowances
within that second section, we can just refer back to the first one. But I think that the
first -- the 500 foot is a general standard.
Nary: And I would concur in looking at that. I think there are some language in the
early part of the section, not in the one for structures, but in time period, for example,
that could be applied to structures that -- it says unless it's otherwise defined elsewhere.
So, if you want to define it elsewhere for those types of structures in subdivisions and
neighborhoods, then, you could even with the way the code is drafted now, find
language that would allow you to do that and still grant the direction to this particular
application and, then, for us to reevaluate some other ones that might be more
applicable within the subdivision.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 30 of 59
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, hopefully this isn't confusing
the issue, but I know we are going to get variance requests from the fireworks stands to
exceed the 500 square foot for their tarp structures, because a lot of them are quite
large, So, that's why, in particular, I was asking for some additional direction, is
because I'm pretty sure that those are going to pop up in -- you will have some requests
in May and June, I suspect.
De Weerd: Thank you. And maybe in the meantime Mr. Nary be thinking about how
they can -- if Council would like to approve these request for a variance, how they could
do that. Is there -- are there any other questions for the applicant? Anything further?
Talla: No. Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a can of worms. Is there any testimony on this application? Okay.
Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no further testimony, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item
16.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 16. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Nary, could you give me the section that deals specifically with the model
home numbers again.
Nary: Yes, Councilmember Wardle. It's 11-3E-6 and the section that if you were going
to grant a variance, subsection C says the sales office shall meet the construction
standards for commercial occupancy and obtain all necessary permits. If you wanted to
grant a variance to allow the structures within the confines of C to be temporary in
nature and up to 700 square feet, you could probably put that direction and that would
be adequate for that and we wouldn't be necessarily addressing fireworks stands in the
variance, because it does allow you in the general section to specifically change it in the
lower section.
Meridian City Council
January 10. 2006
Page 31 of 59
De Weerd: Did you follow that?
Wardle: I'm going to give it a shot.
De Weerd: Good deal.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item 16, V AR 05-025, and direct staff to prepare
Findings based on the UDC 11-3E-6, subsection C, to allow this temporary trailer up to
700 feet -- square feet.
Bird: Seven hundred square feet.
Wardle: Square feet. Thank you.
Bird: Does this put a time limit on it?
Wardle: And to allow for the trailer to stay until April 30th, 2006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve with the changes as noted or clarification as
noted. Is there any further discussion? Does staff need any further classification?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, does the maker of the motion direct
staff to bring that back in two weeks? Is that what you -- was that included? Those
Findings?
Wardle: Yes.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: AZ 05~046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 31.72
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Estancia Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC - 1990 East Amity Road:
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 32 of 59
Item 18:
Public Hearing: PP 05-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 103
single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 31.72 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for Estancia Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC - 1990 East Amity Road
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 17 and 18 are public hearings AZ 05-046 and
Public Hearing PP 05-049. I will open these two public hearings, Items 17 and 18, with
staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Estancia project. It's
located off Locust Grove at the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Amity. It is
comprised of 103 single family residential lots and seven common lots on 38.5 acres
and this is a straight R-4 subdivision, no planned development. These all meet the R-4
lot standards. I did want to point out that as -- going through the process there was a
requirement that one of the stub streets be moved from Barkwall to Melwood and,
normally, I wouldn't point this out to you, except that ACHD has prepared a new staff
report which we got this afternoon to accommodate the traffic calming measures that
they were requiring between Melwood and Barkwall. I think they were concerned
originally that this street -- I believe it's this one and I apologize, forgot to look up the
street names before tonight. But they were concerned that they were -- they would
need traffic calming measures on some of the streets, because they got fairly long. The
Commission has recommended approval at their December 15th, 2005, hearing.
Shawn Nickel spoke in favor of the application at that time. The key issues of
discussion were high groundwater and the fact that this site is not impacted by
groundwater the way that Bellingham Park just north of it was. So, they did discuss the
issue, but this isn't like what we saw in the -- just to the north where it was constrained
by high groundwater. And, then, also they talked about cooperation with the Bellingham
Park Subdivision homeowners association and the availability of pool and clubhouse
located within that subdivision. I think they are proposing that they be part of that. The
key Commission changes to staff recommendation, there weren't any. And to our
knowledge there are no outstanding issues. I heard vaguely that one of the neighbors
may be objecting to one of the stub streets, but I haven't heard from them directly. So,
there may be someone here to testify tonight. I did want to point out that you do not --
you have findings in front of you, but I would ask that you not approve those Findings,
because we did get a new staff report from ACHD, so we would like just one week to
get you the Findings that incorporate the new conditions of approval from the ACHD
staff report that was sent over today. With that I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: So, Anna, with this being in a high groundwater area, would you be asking
for certain procedures or standards in the building or building code to caution or to
mitigate?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my understanding is that this is not a
high groundwater area. That's why I clarified that although the discussion was on high
groundwater, it was the fact that this site is not impacted by high groundwater like
Bellingham Park was just to the north of it. Even though it's close proximity, the issues
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 33 of 59
are not there. And I think the applicant's engineer can probably address that a little
better. But my understandîng is that groundwater is not an issue on this site.
De Weerd: Well, having lived in a subdivision that was -- it was not an issue when the
subdivision that was was built, ours resulted in having some high groundwater issues
and that was ten years after the fact. So, I guess you never know how some of these
subdivisions change these things. But I would certainly like to hear from the engineer
on how that works. Would the applicant lîke to come forward?
Nickel: Good evening, Madam Chair. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Wînding Creek Drive,
Suite 201, in Eagle. Thanks for the opportunity. Staff did a good job of explaining the
application, so I won't go into too much detail. And my engineer is available to add
additional comment on the groundwater concerns. As you know, the Bellingham
Subdivision and Messina Heights is located to the north. In your Comprehensive Plan
the way this area is kind of developing, the intent was to decrease the densities as you
went further south. So, we thought -- and I heard a little sigh when you guys -- are you
disappointed that we don't have a PD in front of you with this application? We did --
De Weerd: It's refreshing.
Nickel: I kind of thought so. We were kind of proud of ourselves as well. And that is a
result of your new -- your new zoning ordinance, which allows us to do subdivisions
without using the PD process. This is, however, a straight R-4, as staff indicated. We
do have approximately ten percent open space within this development and we will be
utilizing -- because it's the same developer as Bellingham, utilizing the pool and
clubhouse to the north in Bellingham Park within the subdivision as well, in addition to
our own stand-alone open space tot lot and recreation area in this development. That
îs, really, all I have. We are in favor of all the conditions of approval as recommended
by staff and Planning and Zoning Commission and we will stand for any questions you
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Rountree: I have none. Thank you.
De Weerd: I would like to hear from your engineer about groundwater.
Bailey: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, David Baîley, Bailey Engineering.
Office address is 1500 East Iron Eagle in Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bailey: We had some soil testing done on this and, actually, it was at the end of the
irrigation season last year, so we expected it to be close to the highest level and the
shallowest groundwater we found was in the northern portion of the site at about 5.5
feet. Your -- the city requirements are that we certify as the engineer that the highest
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 34 of 59
groundwater level is -- or, excuse me, the center line of the street is at least three feet
above the highest groundwater level. So, we will be certifying that with the plans and
we have been doing grading plans on most of our projects and those have not been
common in the past, to do a complete grading plan. We have been doing those and I
think this, actually, is a requirement in the -- in the staff report. But we will do it in any
case. And what we do on those is we show the final grading contours of it, we show
what we expect to be the highest groundwater areas and we also show minimum finish
floor elevation for each of the houses on the site, so that we can prevent that. And the
water in crawl spaces, from my experience and -- well, let's put it this way, I spent a
whole summer crawling around in Rose Creek in Boise, if you have heard the name of
that. So, I have had quite a bit of experience with water in crawl spaces. Most of it is
due to runoff and sprinklers and poorly drained, as opposed to actual groundwater
encroaching into the crawl spaces. So, having the grading plan allows us to get proper
grading away from the house and, of course, keep the groundwater out of the crawl
space, but we have information on the soil that will, one, prevent drain water and
sprinkler water from getting into the crawl space, because we are grading away from the
house properly and, two, insure that the foundation is set high enough that we don't
have a problem with that -- that issue there. So, I hope that answers your question on
what we are doing on this. We had committed in the Bellingham Park Subdivision to
require the builder to build all of the -- all of the houses with slab on grade construction,
which avoids the problem altogether. And that's where we had the very shallow
groundwater areas. We are also doing quite a bit of fill on the Bellingham site to raise
the site up and still meet the three foot requirement of the city on that project. And I
think those plans are done and I think they are either approved by the city or very close
to being approved by the city for Bellingham Park. So, we do have some experience
working with this kind of problem and this site just doesn't have the same problem that
Bellingham has. It's away from the Ridenbaugh Canal and a little further from the Ten
Mile Drain and so we don't have the groundwater issues that we had in Bellingham.
De Weerd: I think some of the results of the issues in the older subdivisions that are
affected when a newer one is built next door, is how the drainage is designed for the
roads and sometimes those have a negative effect on it and certainly in the case that I
sited that was an issue and you have sump pumps running quite a bit this winter
because of that. And so it is an issue in our community and, you know, it is something
that we need to be aware of when we make decisions to make sure that the long term
viability and health of what we approve today is not compromised.
Bailey: And I certainly understand that and we share the same concerns, obviously, as
the engineers. Our name's on the plans for -- you know, when you look back at that ten
year old subdivision I bet you found out who the engineer was --
De Weerd: Oh, yeah.
Bailey: -- early in the process. And so we certainly had that same concern and we
don't want to have the same problems that have occurred around the valley and so we
are very sensitive to that. This -- the drainage on this site -- actually, the groundwater is
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 35 of 59
shallow enough that we are requesting from the highway district that we have the road
side swale that's the section that we show on the plans and those appear to be working
fairly well. It also allows us some really nice landscape areas, boulevard strips within
the project as well to use that type of drainage design.
De Weerd: As long as you have a good maintenance plan.
Bailey: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Bailey?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I can address the one question about the condition of
approval. There is a condition that says the soils report that was submitted is only a
limited time frame of groundwater monitoring. The applicant shall submit updated
groundwater reports at the final plat application and at that time the grading and
drainage plan may be required by Public Works as deemed necessary by the city
engineer.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bailey: Madam Mayor, we have continued to monitor the groundwater and will continue
until the time of construction and probably through it as well. We have pisometers that
are monitoring the groundwater level and we measure those levels every month.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18. Is there
anyone from the public who would like to comment? Please come forward. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Dalton: Thank you, Madam Mayor and City Council Members. I'm Sharee Dalton. I
live at 1771 East Lorawood in Eagle. I own the property at 2180 Amity, which is -- could
we get the green one? Anyway, it is immediately to the east side here of the property to
be developed and it's a piece of property that I have been working on for about five
years in planning a senior housing PUD. It would be primarily a pedestrian community
of very fewer automobiles is what the concept is I'm working on and I'm kind of
concerned about this stub street. Would you put that back for me? The stub street as
we -- this one that you brought up, Barkwall here, dead ends into my property and I'm
here to request the City Council members to please consider extending the services
onto the east and onto my property, but I don't feel that this is in an appropriate location
for the future planning of the development adjacent. The other thing I was just looking
at was as this is parallel to Amity, I would be very concerned if a roadway of that nature
was to run all the way back down to Eagle Road. It would become a secondary, you
know, road to Amity, which might create quite a problem. But just -- it is not -- it doesn't
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 36 of 59
work in terms of running a street -- a public street into another community where you're
going to have elderly people who are primarily walking around the property. I'm happy
to answer any questions. I apologize for, you know, coming at this late date. I tried
many many Planning and Zoning meetings trying to meet them on time, but wasn't able
to meet them and I also wasn't aware that I could request that this public road not be put
in. I thought that if you were going to run services you had to have a public road. But I
think that it's very important that, you know, we consider this be a condition that we may
not ask that this go through as a public road. Maybe just be another park space or
something.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Dalton: I can answer any questions about groundwater. We have completed ours and
found that the water is not very high in that location. We have done a 14 month study.
De Weerd: Okay.
Dalton: And don't have any groundwater adjacent.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Okay. Mr. Nickel.
Nickel: Madam Mayor and Council, again, Shawn Nickel. To address Mrs. Dalton's
comments. First of all, as Anna stated in her presentation, this stub is, actually, going to
move to the north and will stub in this location. As you all are aware, when ACHD and
the city staff review an application, they look for the interconnectivity in the
neighborhood and in this case ACHD did request a stub street to the east for later
connectivity. I don't know what stage Mrs. Dalton is in for her design, but that is
something that could be looked at by ACHD at the time that her design is submitted to
the city and goes through the review. However, we are required by ACHD and I believe
your staff also supports having that stub for future consideration in the event that -- for
whatever that develops at to the east, so you do have that interconnectivity. So, with
that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I don't know that I heard, you might have said it and I probably missed it, but
ACHD has made some comments about traffic calming requirements. Are you in
agreement with those?
.... -------....,
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 37 of 59
Nickel: Yes, we are.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, may I address the question of not
having the stub street or should I or -- since I have opened the door, I guess I better
start -- keep on going, uh. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as you know our
Comprehensive Plan talks a lot about interconnected neighborhoods and not having
developments that only turn inward and don't provide connections to other -- other
adjoining properties and the idea is that we don't want people to have to go out onto the
arterial streets in order to get around within the sections. Say someone in the
retirement community wanted to visit someone in Bellingham Park, we don't think it's
appropriate that they have to go out onto Amity and, then, Locust Grove in order to get
there. In particular, the zoning ordinance -- the Unified Development Code is very
explicit about gating private streets and that is not something that can be done and
ACHD doesn't allow public streets to be gated. Also, the only private streets -- the only
residences you can get on a private street is really for an apartment complex. So, there
is not really going to be an opportunity for this property, probably, to develop without
having a public street network. So, I would encourage you to keep that stub street as
part of this application.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no further discussion, I move that we close the
Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Items 17 and 18. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion? Do I have a motion?
Rountree: No discussion? Madam Mayor, I'll just make a comment about the internal
networking and public streets and I agree with the direction that ACHD is going and the
city supports. Speaking for the senior guys on the Council down here, that if we were in
a senior development and my grandkids were in this development and I wanted to go to
their birthday party at either the swimming pool or the public park or the neighborhood
park, I'm not sure I'd necessarily want to have to get out on ultimately a five lane facility
to do it and I think by moving this stub street to the location that's been suggested, you
eliminate the potential for a lot of through -- cut-through kinds of moves that might
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 38 of 59
occur. So, having said that, I would move that we approve Item No. 17 for the request
for annexation AZ 05-046, subject to comments.
Wardle: I will second that. Does that include preparing additional Findings?
Rountree: Preparing the new Findings.
Wardle: And closing the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Be it noted for the record that our senior member made that motion.
Rountree: I think we voted to close the hearing.
Bird: No, we didn't vote to close the hearing.
Rountree: Oh, we didn't vote to close the hearing?
De Weerd: Yes, you did.
Nary: Okay. I didn't hear it.
Bird: Bill and I was talking.
Rountree: That's the seniors down there.
De Weerd: They had a senior moment. We have some residents for your
development. Okay. We do have a motion on the table to approve Item 17. Ifthere is
no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 18.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve Item 18, preliminary plat PP
05-049.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 18. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will
you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 39 of 59
Item 19:
Public Hearing: AZ 05~042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Item 20:
Public Hearing: PP 05~043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29
single-family residential building lots and 8 common area lots on 8.57
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Item 21 :
Public Hearing: CUP 05~044 Request for approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for Medford Place Subdivision that
includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street
frontage by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 19, 20, and 21 are public hearings AZ 05-042, PP 05-
043, and CUP 05-044. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Medford Place application
or project and it's located on the west side of Eagle Road and the south side of Victory
Road as shown on the vicinity map. It's an L-shaped property. The applications do
consist of annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use approval. The
conditional use approval is for a planned development. I hope this is the last one. I
think this is the last one to make it through the process. This one I'll explain why it got
delayed as we go through the project. The project consists of 29 building lots and eight
common lots on 8.57 acres and the applicant is proposing to set aside 12 percent -- and
I do have to clarify that the staff report actually says 12 acres instead of 12 percent, but
it's 12 percent open space, which is 1.02 acres. And that's excluding street buffers.
Normally, five percent would be required, so they are requiring quite a bit more than is
mandated by the current code. The other amenities include two tot lot areas and a
micro-path school site. Let me go up a couple. You can see the school site to the west
of the property. So, this does adjoin it on the lower portion of the reverse L. The micro-
path lot is right there. And this is an open space lot. The gross residential density is
5.83 dwelling units per acre and that's largely because a portion of this site is reserved
for multi-family uses. These have -- these were first heard at the Planning and Zoning
Commission on October 6th and, then, on December 1 st and the reason for the long
delay in those two Planning and Zoning Commission applications is because staff
realized that the zones that the applicant was requesting for -- even though it was
requesting a planned development, that the multi-family uses were not allowed within
the requested zone. So, they have come back and requested both an R-8 and R-15
zone for the multi-family portion and I can -- I think I have a nicer one. Yeah. Here we
go. You can see that the kind of darker green areas are the multi-family lots. So, what
you have is a four-plex -- two four-plexes at the north end of the site, divided by a
parking area to serve those two four-plexes and, then, two more -- or three more sets as
you go down Eagle Road. So, this would be zoned R-15. The multi family and the
single family would be zoned R-8. I do have some elevations of the proposed multi-
Meridian City Council
January 10,2006
Page 40 of 59
family units. These are similar to kind of the concept that the -- was brought to you last
week where you have a single multi-family structure that's kind of made to look more
like a large house. So, these are what would be along Eagle Road and, then, you
would have the smaller single family homes behind them. These also provide a nice
buffer to those single family uses from the fairly traffic'd Eagle Road. The Commission
has recommended approval at their December 15th hearing. Kevin Amar spoke in favor
of the application, as did Bob Aldridge. No one spoke in opposition, although there was
two commenting parties, Mark Hartenstein and Chantelle Krasinski. I hope I got those
names right for those in the audience. The key issues of discussion by the Commission
were the elevations and the construction materials of the four-plexes, the traffic near the
Eagle Road and Victory Road intersections and fencing. The key Commission changes
to staff's initial recommendation were to add two conditions. The first one would read:
Incorporate site elevations provided by the applicant, which were included in this
testimony as samples of the elevations of the four-plex units. Each building shall
include items such as rock, stone, brick, stucco, or masonite. The -- I'm sorry, there
was three conditions. The second condition would be to add: The applicant has agreed
to concentrate more of the trees and bushes and shrubs on Victory with heavier
landscaping and to not see a sea of asphalt in the parking areas from the road. Also,
the applicant agrees to try and concentrate landscaping around the trash enclosures,
which will be in the rear of the project closest to Victory, the trees of different obscuring
things. Also, to modify condition 1.14 to include the applicant's proposal to construct a
six foot tall vinyl fence along Victory Road and Eagle Road. So, again, a lot of that
discussion focused on the northern portion of the site along Victory Road. Outstanding
issues for City Council, to staff's knowledge there are none. You do have Findings for
approval. With that, I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question on the condition 1.38. Each building shall include items
such as rock, stone, brick, stucco or masonite. The way that's written to me you could
pick one of them and you meet the conditions stated. It seems to me that it's -- the
intent is a combination of rock, stone, and brick in combination with stucco and
masonite type siding, whether it's hardy board or whatever. What was the intent?
Canning: Sir, I have to admit I didn't go back and read all the minutes, but I do believe
that the intent was to have a variety of material, particularly along the elevations that
front Victory and Eagle Road. So, you could -- you could clarify that condition to be at
least two or three of the following materials.
Rountree: Okay. And the second condition, 1.19, help me visualize obscuring things.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 41 of 59
Canning: You know, sir, I -- that one, obviously, caught me a little bit. I believe that the
intent was to focus the landscaping -- instead of doing a -- kind of a uniform of one tree
every 35 feet, to cluster those trees at the end of the parking aisles, so that you're
obscuring those things from view, rather than the elevations of the homes, which are
fairly attractive.
Rountree: So, we could do a little wordsmithing there?
Canning: Yes, we certainly can.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Amar: I will. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is Kevin Amar.
My address is 2364 South Titanium in Meridian. It's hard to remember your new
address when you move. This project, as staff suggested, is on the corner of Victory
and Eagle. It is in a -- again, a dynamic area. There is significant changes and
significant growth in that area, not only as residential, but we have got the Silverado
Business Park, as well as the EI Dorado Business Park. We have got a lot of
entertainment coming in with the new theaters at the interchange. So, with this project
we looked at it trying to think how can we transition from, obviously, a very busy corner
into what is a -- primarily single family residential subdivision, that being Tuscany Village
or Messina Meadows, I believe. It might be Messina Hills. I get those two confused.
So, with this project we have incorporated -- our first thought was to do some more light
office type space in this area. We were, actually, approached by the neighbors on other
three corners who are proposing a Comprehensive Plan change to -- I believe it's a
mixed use, so they can do more light office, but with this property and talking to staff
and in analyzing the area, this square mile is primarily residential and they really -- staff
being they -- encouraged us to keep that as residential, so they could support it and the
city will still get a consistent look in that area. As I stated, we have Silverstone and EI
Dorado business parks and a lot of other growth in this area that is more commercial in
nature. So, looking at this site, utilizing a -- more of a mixed use type development in
the residential end made a lot of sense to us, as well as staff and, therefore, we have
their support and recommendation for approval. We also have -- as seen by the
absence of the neighbors here tonight -- worked pretty hard with the neighbors in order
to accommodate their concerns with the project. Initially when we came forward with
this project at approximately this location is Falcon Drive to the east. Our first proposal
was to align our entrance road up with Falcon Drive. That was a concern of the
neighbors, simply because they have lived with that location and they deemed it too
close to the intersection of Victory and Eagle simply to get on and off traffic. So, we
were able to work with them and I actually have a letter from them stating to ACHD they
would support the proposal we have now or at least the traffic proposal we have now,
moving our main entrance down to the south and still providing future access for
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 42 of 59
interconnectivity. This road that goes to the west generally lines up with another road
that comes from the Tuscany Village project. So, this will be able to be redeveloped
most likely with another cul-de-sac type design, all being accommodated for future
growth and working that out. The intersection of Eagle and Victory is -- currently there
are plans and ACHD has acquired right of way to improve that intersection. So, that is
underway and that is ongoing. So, with this new road layout we have worked with the
neighbors and we are proposing a better solution to what was originally planned and we
appreciate the neighbors' help on that. They actually gave us some insight as to what --
to what current conditions are out there. When we came with this proposal, we
proposed an R-8 zone and as we got to the Planning and Zoning -- the first Planning
and Zoning meeting, we realized -- or staff helped us realize that we needed to -- rather
than R-8 and incorporate what we have, have two different types of zoning, but the
actual application has not changed from the first -- from the first submittal. At Planning
and Zoning we discussed at length the Victory and Eagle section. And I know it was
brought up tonight the landscaping. What we are proposing is not to decrease the
amount of landscaping along the entire boundary, meaning we will have a minimum of
one tree every 35 feet as per city code, we will simply increase the density of the
landscaping adjacent to the parking areas, as well as adjacent to the trash enclosures,
only to buffer and mitigate the view as you see it from Victory and Eagle. This site in
itself is quite a bit lower than the corner of Victory and Eagle. So, as you look -- you
won't look down and just see asphalt. We want to be able to buffer some of that with
landscaping. Obviously, we are going to have a fence that will border the entire
property. But, again, the topography is such that it is quite a significant downgrade to
this property and we plan on buffering that. We are working with -- through our
engineering plans to have a grading plan, because there will be significant grading.
Currently there is an old spanish style house on the property, as well as a couple of
older barns and things that will be removed, but in doing that we will have to re-grade
the property in order to make it work for a development. With the types of multi-family
units -- Anna showed a picture -- and if we could go back to that illustration, Anna, of
the four-plexes or the multi-family unit, we have designed these in such a way that as
you look at them they are not a typical four-plex. I mean you don't see all four doors at
once.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Amar, I also have the photos
that Shawn gave me. But you want the elevation?
Amar: You know, if you do it on the overhead and use both of them, that has the rear
elevation also and an illustration of the variation of types. So, if we can use that on the
overhead, that would be great.
Canning: Okay.
Amar: The discussion at Council -- or at Planning and Zoning was the view of this site
is primarily going to be from Victory and Eagle, so although the fronts of the homes or
the structures look nice, people, other than those that are living in it, are going to see
the rear of this building. So, this is what is going to be seen from interior of the
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 43 of 59
subdivision. As you can see, there is one primary entrance and, then, a vestibule
inside, with stairs inside that you access the other units from inside. So, as you look at
it from outside, it looks like a nice single family -- single family home and it gives it a
better feel, more of a residential feel than a commercial or an apartment feel and that's
what we are looking for. As you look from the back of the -- Anna, if you could do the
illustration, the actual pictures? You know, I have some that are actually hatched.
Canning: Yes. Do you want me to--
Amar: Yes.
Canning: -- just show that one?
Amar: Yes. So, some of the concerns or questions at Planning and Zoning is if you
look at this, this is generally the style that you would see from the rear. You can note
the individual or private open space, the 100 square feet minimum that is required and
we will make sure that that is adhered to, but I have hatched these areas simply as an
indication -- at Planning and Zoning it was discussed -- we need to do a variation of
building materials. So, let's assume this is -- this is --
De Weerd: You're not putting lattice on it?
Amar: No. This is my handcrafted drawing. No lattice. No. No lattice. Not even in
front of the windows. And it reduces the cost of shades on the interior when we do
lattice on the exterior.
De Weerd: Kevin, that's really ugly.
Amar: I'm sorry. I won't do lattice then. I'm not an artist and you can tell. So, as you
can see, primarily the rear of this building is stucco. Our intent and our -- one of the
specific conditions of approval from Planning and Zoning was to use a variety of
materials. So, if this were stucco, we would do some sort of masonry on these two
columns or maybe on the middle columns, but as you drive down the Victory and Eagle
Roads, it doesn't look like one building material the whole way. We are trying to
increase the look on the rear, as well as the front, because, as I said, the rear is going
to be seen more than the interior of the subdivision and that was a major discussion of
Planning and Zoning and this was something that we all came up with, without the
lattice, and I will specifically exclude the lattice, if you would like that. We can make a
specific requirement that no lattice will be allowed on the rear of the elevation.
Bird: Heck, I thought it was a security screen.
Amar: It could be. Could be.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Mr. Amar, you might want to show them the rear elevations,
so that they can see that those are bay windows underneath the lattice work.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 44 of 59
Amar: Yes. That would probably be a good idea. This is a different style of a rear
elevation. You can see on the other one this is a hatched area or lattice area, if you will,
but it is, actually, a bayed window, so it's not one solid rear wall, it's a -- I guess there is
some relief to the rear wall as you look down it. Again, giving it more of a residential
house feel, more than a multi-family -- more than a multi-family feel, which is what we
are going for. And we have another example of the other lattice if you'd like to see it.
There it is. Again, just looking for a variety of homes or a variety of style. I know one of
the conditions also speaks to the trash enclosures. We will be using obscuring things
and I can define things a little bit better. Simply more of landscaping and bushes and
that type, so you don't look at it and see a trash enclosure, but you see -- see something
pleasing to the eye. And, again, no lattice. We will try to do something different.
De Weerd: Kevin, can you tell me where the dumpsters will go?
Amar: Yes, I can. Anna, can you go back to the subdivision layout on the computer?
Apparently we are working with Bill Gregory, but our intent is to put those in the rear of
the -- of the parking areas, if you will. He has indicated that's generally acceptable, he
just wants to look at it a little more. But that gives the direct in and out, no opportunity
for trucks that need to turn or anything else. It's the most efficient so far. And that's still
up to his final approval.
De Weerd: They will have enough room to turn around? They won't have to back in --
Amar: That's what he wants to look at. So, there may need to be another location, but,
again, that will be something that he needs to tell us. We have offered the suggestion
and he's generally supportive, he just wants some time to look at it, So, I believe that
will be more something that will be looked at and approved with the final plat and the
development plans in coordination with Mr. Gregory. But we are cognizant of his -- it's
hard to turn those trucks around, especially in a parking stall such as these.
De Weerd: And every single week.
Amar: Every single week. Oddly enough, they come every week. So, we will work with
them and we are aware of that. We have been working with them on a number of our
developments. We are making him one of our regular contacts. With this project also
there are actually two separate tot lots. We have one in this location that will provide for
the -- for the northern part of the subdivision and we also have one down here to the
south. This one most likely will be moved into this area just to keep it away from the
main entrance of the subdivision and we will coordinate that with staff. We also have a
pedestrian pathway that will connect to the school and we have coordinated that with
the school district and they are supportive of that, they will want to be able to restrict
access during school hours, but that's something that your staff had suggested and we
will agree to and think it's a good idea. There is other common areas throughout the
project, just to make it feel a little more open. The density is actually just over five units
to the acre. The subdivision itself consists of 9.6 units -- or 9.6 acres. So, our density is
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 45 of 59
-- falls directly in the middle of a medium density project and we will be consistent with
that. On the exterior of the property will be all a vinyl fencing - six-foot vinyl fencing, so
it will be nearly maintenance free until wind storms blow it over, things of that nature,
and we will coordinate that during the course of development.
De Weerd: So, Kevin, on the maintenance around each of the duplexes, is that
common area that the homeowners association maintains or what is the plan for
maintenance on that?
Amar: It will be owned privately, but it will be maintained by the homeowners
association. Actually, probably a separate users association for the multi-family will be
set up between these units and those units will have the maintenance of the common
area, specifically related -- or the open areas specifically related to the multi-family.
And, then, the overall subdivision will maintain the balance of the common area, the
frontage landscaping and such. So, there will most likely be two separate entities
maintaining the landscaping.
De Weerd: And the buildings would be individually owned?
Amar: Could be. I mean one person could own them all, but our intent right now is to
set those all up as an individual lot, so all of them would be on their own lot and are able
to be purchased individually.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Is there a sidewalk incorporated in the surrounding landscaping on --
Amar: There is. One of the conditions from Ada County Highway District is we put up
money for the portion of sidewalks from this point to this point, simply because in the
course of development of their intersection they don't want to remove sidewalk. So, for
those portions we will work with Ada County Highway District and either construct it if it
can be built or we will provide the funds for it to be constructed in the future. For the
balance of the property there will certainly be sidewalk provided with the development,
as is consistent with Meridian code, as well as Ada County Highway District code.
De Weerd: Are you giving enough so it's detached?
Amar: It will be detached.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 46 of 59
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Your architect's rendering of the four-plexes I find refreshing. I hope you can
accomplish that. I'm a little concerned about the real life example you gave for what the
rear of the -- of a complex looks like and that's very much reflective of the kinds of
things that I am adamantly opposed to, where we have, essentially, a military war era
compound, everything is the same, everything is the same color, so if you can assure
me that that is not going to happen, I'd appreciate it.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, we have not built any of these four-
plexes and that's why we don't have a rear elevation. These were as close as I could
find, but the lattice area, one, will be able to break the compound military area -- era up
and we do intend on making them similar to what we have shown in the renderings. In
fact, I think it's one of the specific conditions within the development agreement, if I
remember that the -- the elevations would be similar to those as shown, correct, Anna?
So, we are certainly --
Rountree: Varying colors and materials, so every unit is not a clone of the next one.
Amar: Correct. All the -- now, let me clarify. All the front elevations will be the same,
but we will use different materials.
Rountree: Yeah.
Amar: Correct.
De Weerd: I think where you show the front elevations, there is warmth and I think not
using the stucco -- your example here is a stucco and I think what attracted me on the
front side of those was the warmth and the curb appeal that you would not get with
stucco.
Amar: Correct. And there will be a variety of building materials. That was why at
Planning and Zoning they specifically asked us to bring back examples of rear
elevations and we had that discussion about a differing material on the rear, so you get
the warmth and the variety. We intend on meeting that requirement.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Kevin, you mentioned earlier about each unit could be individually owned?
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 47 of 59
Amar: Each -- I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Councilmember Borton, each multi-family unit.
So, each four units could be individually owned. This is not a condominium project. It
will be a subdivision, I guess.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is an open Public Hearing on Items 1 9 through 21. Is there
anyone who would like to provide further testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing
none, Mr. Borton, would you like to close the Public Hearing?
Borton: I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Would that be on Items 19 through 21?
Borton: It would 19 through 21.
De Weerd: I thought that's what your motion was.
Wardle: Second agrees.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes--
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: And congratulations.
Bird: It took you long enough kicking you in the shins to get you to say something.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: We weren't going to let him get out of here until that happened.
Bird: I can't believe it's out of a lawyer.
De Weerd: Anna, did you have comment?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, perhaps they are not appropriate to
make, but -- now that the Public Hearing's closed, but I guess I just wanted to reflect
what I was hearing from Council is -- Councilmember Rountree as far as the changes to
the conditions on 1.3.8 and additional comments by the Mayor that perhaps what you
wanted to include was items such as rock, stone, and brick as accent materials and I
also heard limiting stucco, perhaps. So, I just -- that's what I heard. So, I just wanted to
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 48 of 59
-- if Council provides clear direction in their Findings -- in their motion, I'm sure I will be
able to figure this out, so --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, maybe to assist you, if what you're
seeking and if you're approving this, on 1.3.8, is something to the effect of a variety of
colors and materials includes differing items, such as rock, stone, brick, or masonite, as
accents on the rear elevations, but that it would still be consistent with the front and I
think I heard Mr. Amar say that the fronts were going to be similar, but you, obviously,
want the rear to have some relationship to the front, but something of that nature would
at least get some clarity into those -- into that condition that I think Mr. Amar was
comfortable with was providing that variety and differing look among those things. And
on 1.1.9 I think what was intended was that it be trees and other site obscuring
vegetation or landscaping, not just obscuring things. I think that's what -- what the
discussion was.
De Weerd: Obscuring vegetation. There we go.
Nary: If Mr. Amar had something else he wanted to add, he probably could tell Mrs.
Canning, so that if she wants to put that on the record, we can probably do that.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you need any further information? Did some of that
direction help in crafting a motion after we hear from Mrs. Canning? I guess, Anna, it
will be your call if we need to reopen the Public Hearing to get comment from the
applicant.
Canning: Madam Mayor, no, I don't believe it's necessary. I believe that staff can take
direction from Council to revise the findings and we will run them by the applicant and
make sure that we are all on the same page.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, do you need any further information from staff or are
you ready for a motion? And I'm sure you probably aren't going to make Mr. Borton
make this motion.
Bird: I thought he would be glad to, being a lawyer.
Rountree: I see Mr. Rountree made --
Bird: He's sure being quiet, because the last lawyer we had --
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree has a made a lot of notes. Does that designate you as the
motion maker?
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 49 of 59
Rountree: I can do that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: If you want to go ahead and do the annexation and preliminary plat --
Bird: Yeah, I will.
Rountree: -- I will do the CUP.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I'd move that we approve AZ 05-042, incorporate staff, applicant,
and public testimony.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 19. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Canning: Clarification, Madam Mayor? Since I anticipate that we will have some
changes that need to be made to the conditions of approval regarding the preliminary
plat and the CUP, would that motion include directing staff to bring back Findings in two
weeks?
Bird: If I make it it would be. But why -- Anna, why would we have any changes in the
preliminary plat? Wouldn't all those changes, like the building materials --
Canning: Yes, sir, they could be.
Bird: That's right, the road. We have to change the road. That's right. They did move
the -- or was that under the -- so we would have nothing under the preliminary, it would
be all under CUP? Am I not right?
Canning: Yes, sir. They could be done there.
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Madam Mayor, I move we approve PP 05-043, with applicant,
staff and public testimony, and for the Findings to be returned for approval in two
weeks.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, we still have a motion to approve on 19 that I haven't asked for
the vote on.
Bird: We voted on it.
Meridian City Council
January 10,2006
Page 50 of 59
De Weerd: I don't believe I have.
Bird: You asked Charlie to vote. We voted.
Rountree: You helped me vote.
De Weerd: Oh. Sorry. I wanted to wait for you to vote. Sorry about that. So, do I have
a second to Mr. Bird's motion?
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: There is a motion to approve Item No. 20. Is there any discussion? Mr.
Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit, Item No.
21, for Medford Place Subdivision, CUP 05-044, with the following changes to staffs
recommended conditions: Condition 1.13.8 would read, second sentence, each
building exterior shall include a variety of materials and colors and using such accent
items as rock, stone, or brick in combination with stucco or other appropriate siding
material. The second condition, 1.1.9, the last words in that condition, obscuring things,
be deleted and substituted: And differing vegetative screening. And also address the
road modification as presented.
Canning: Sir, I think there is a little confusion. The road modification was on the
previous application.
Rountree: Okay. It's the sidewalk. Condition as explained by applicant.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have second?
Bird: I second that.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I do have a question for the motion maker, that you're
suggesting that those buildings be stucco with accents?
Rountree: I have no objection to stucco.
De Weerd: Okay. It won't look like the elevation on the front side, then, with stucco.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 51 of 59
Rountree: They could put stucco where the lap siding is shown, in combination with
accent material.
De Weerd: Okay. So, you could use masonite.
Rountree: You may use masonite, you could use hardy board, you could use cedar or
lap siding if you --
De Weerd: No. Please don't.
Bird: You could use brick.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor:
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I think that also included two weeks for Findings on that?
Rountree: New findings. Yes.
Bird: New Findings.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: Exchange of City~owned Property and Privately
Owned Property located at 55 E. Broadway Avenue:
De Weerd: Two weeks is the magical number. Okay. Item 22 is Public Hearing on the
exchange of city-owned property and privately-own property on 55 East Broadway
Avenue. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Anna or Bill, I don't know
who is taking this.
Nary: Madam Mayor, I could probably start. This is the Public Hearing for a land
exchange that is being proposed. The map that's up there on the board indicates
Broadway to the north. There are three different parcels that we are looking at. The
city owned parking lot that is currently on the south side of Broadway is adjacent to what
was formerly a gas station, it's now owned by Dave Buich. There was a project that
was approved by the Council in 2005 for a condominium retail office project on that site.
What is being proposed here is that the current city lot -- there are 35-foot wide lots in
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 52 of 59
this Old Town area of downtown Meridian. The city owns the portions that are currently
on this map immediately adjacent to the Buich property, 30 feet wide, and, then, the
middle portion on this -- on this color -- on this rendering -- or this picture is part of the
city's lot. The portion on there that is pink is actually attached to the creamery lot that's
immediately to the west of the city parking lot. What is being proposed is Mr. Buich was
going to purchase that 30-foot wide portion of the lot there adjacent to the creamery and
exchange the -- what's the yellow piece that's attached to his -- or next to his property,
exchange that for the 30 feet on the other side of the city parcel, that would remain the
city's property. That would allow for continued parking, what Mr. Buich has discussed
with the Meridian Development Corporation administrator and also with the Ada County
Highway District is because although the properties would be of similar value, they
couldn't re -- they couldn't recreate the same parking lot configuration as currently
exists, based on new parking requirements for backup drive aisles, handicapped spaces
and the like, they would need more space -- they'd have less parking spaces in the new
lot of those two parcels. Mr. Buich would, then, provide I believe what was -- was last
told was 17 parking spaces on Broadway to compensate for the loss of parking spaces
in the public lot. The only thing I am not aware of -- and I was reviewing while we have
been here some e-mail correspondence we have received from the administrator from
the Meridian Development Corporation, is I don't believe the purchase of the property
from the creamery portion has been completed yet by Mr. Buich. What this Council can
do, if you want to, is if you wish to approve the land exchange, you could take action on
that tonight, you can hold off on the ordinance effectuating the exchange until we either
have an MOU agreement to make sure that's accomplished in case the deal somehow
doesn't occur, although I don't -- from what I have been told that doesn't appear to be a
likelihood, but it hasn't been completed yet. You could hold off on that ordinance a
week or two until it is completed. Again I don't know the time table for that. Mr.
Bowman indicated he was out of town tonight, so he wasn't able to be here to give you
more detail. But that's as much as I know. Essentially, the exchange is a like value for
like value, because you are exchanging, essentially, identical properties, the only
difference is that one of them is -- currently has some remainder of the creamery is on
that, if you have noticed in the top portion of that pink parcel that the city -- the city
would be receiving in this exchange currently has a loading dock there, so there is a
portion of that that's going to need to be cleared and such and I don't have any further
information if that was part of the exchange or whether that was going to be completed
prior to the transfer of the property. I believe that was the intent was that lot would
become like for like with the city's parcel by that portion of the property being cleared to
be able to be made into a parking lot. Again, all of those fine details haven't been
completed, so if you want to grant approval to the exchange and hold off on the
ordinance until some of those other details are completed, you certainly can do that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 53 of 59
Bird: I believe that this is a process that's being done and as I understand it from the
seller, that he will turn the property over with that grant, so it will be like property. As I
understand, they are working on that.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I guess I remember it being stated that, you know, it -- he would
develop that. So, that would necessitate that ramp being gone if that is to turn into a
parking spot.
Bird: It is. The ramp does go. As I understand it, the seller will have it gone when the
buyer buys it.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Bill, what's the -- tell me what the point of approving the transfer now before
there is a memorandum of understanding of how it's going to be developed into parking
and holding off on the ordinance versus waiting until that agreement and understanding
is settled?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Borton, the statutory requirement is to hold your
Public Hearing tonight, so you can take an action to go forward with the transaction
pending those other outcomes to occur. My only reason for wanting to complete at
least that portion of it is to make sure, from a planning standpoint, that we have satisfied
all the requirements of the Public Hearing portion and if the Council wishes to take
action to go forward, holding off on the ordinance -- if the ordinance actually directs the
transfer of a deed as part of the transaction and there is some other things that needs to
occur prior to that, that was my only thought was to at least hold off on the ordinance
portion and the direction to actually transfer the property until the rest of the things have
taken place. But if the Council wants to simply make a motion and action to agree to
the transfer pending the other things, you can do that. Does that make sense?
Borton: Uh-huh.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I should know the answer to this, but I don't remember the discussion. Will
the pink parcel, for lack of a better word, be graded, drained, and paved, so it will
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 54 of 59
function as a parking lot? Striped and access. That was my understanding, but it
wasn't stated. And I can see that that's like for like, the green lot -- I assume that's
green -- will function as more of a driveway to access that parking and provide access
to the expanded parking of the future development on the corner of Broadway and Main
and that additional parking -- public parking will be provided on Broadway as parallel
parking to compensate for the loss of city parking in that lot. So, there is -- parking
come out whole in this deal.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of --
Rountree: Minus, I believe, one or two -- or the city actually gains several.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Rountree, yeah, just so
that the record is clear, you're correct, the intent is is to take the parcel that is
immediately currently adjacent to the creamery property to make it a like exchange, to
make it gradable and graded, so that it can be converted to a parking lot. The drive
aisle, from what my understanding is, the middle parcel in this picture that still is the
city's ownership currently and would remain, basically, becomes a portion of the drive
aisle of the parking lot. So, currently, the way this is -- and you can kind of see it
underneath the colors that are there, the portion of the parcel that is on the eastern side
of this three pieces has parking spaces on it, the portion that's in the middle has parking
spaces. They no longer will have parking spaces on both of these. One will become a
drive aisle, the portion that Mr. Buich would retain would become an access point to his
property for parking and the like. I don't believe there is parking that's intended to be on
it. And the portion that is adjacent to the creamery property, the pink one on the picture,
would have parking spaces and, then, the net gain to the city is the -- with those parking
spaces and the street parking that are required for Mr. Buich to make this all happen,
there will be an actual increase of a space or two than what currently exists in that
parking lot.
Rountree: But my concern, for clarification -- or need for clarification is that I'm okay
with the way the deal's structured, as long as in the transference or in the memorandum
of understanding, somehow the city is indemnified against any liability of something
happening on that piece of city-owned property that is going to become a service
entrance to a private endeavor.
Nary: The city-owned property -- I believe, Councilmember Rountree, the city-owned
portion, the middle portion of these three parcels, will be the service entrance to the city
parking lot. The portion that Mr. Buich would get in this transaction would be his
property and that would be the entrance to his parcel.
Rountree: Okay. Okay. So, there is going to be a line of demarcation?
Nary: Right.
Rountree: All right.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 55 of 59
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Hearing none, I would entertain a
motion, I guess, to close the Public Hearing.
Borton: I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I will second it.
De Weerd: All right. Johnny on the spot. There is a motion to close the Public Hearing
on Item 22. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Do you dare make a motion as well?
Borton: I do. Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve the exchange of the city-
owned property and hold off on the ordinance pending approval of a memorandum of
understanding to secure a build out and completion of the magenta parking portion.
Wardle: I will second that motion and ask just for a quick clarification from the motion
marker. Is hold off a legal term?
Nary: I believe so.
Bird: I don't care whether it's legal or not, at least it's layman. I don't want these two
guys to get talking their law jarbridge that we can't understand it.
De Weerd: That's jargon. Is there any further discussion?
Borton: Being that it's my motion, I'd like to discuss it a little while.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: No. 1--
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: I would like to make a comment that Mr. Borton's partner was the only one
objecting to the action.
De Weerd: Which may really be appropriate to ask him to--
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 56 of 59
Bird: He made the motion.
Borton: He'll have the minutes on his desk.
Item 23:
Ordinance No. 06~1211
Exchange of Property:
Ordinance
Authorizing
the
De Weerd: Item 23 is Ordinance No. 06-1211. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this
ordinance by title only.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't do it, so you don't need to.
Nary: I would simply ask, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you would give us
two weeks and, then, we can either put it back on your agenda, if everything is
completed with an MOU or an update to you as to what is necessary and if it needs to
be further, we can bring that back to you. But I don't know how long Mr. Bowman is out
of town and I want to make sure we have all of those details done before we bring it
back to you. So, if you could delay it for two weeks, that would probably be sufficient.
Item 24:
City Council President - Election of Officers for City Council:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 24. I will turn this over to Council President
Wardle.
Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. It is time that we elect our City Council president
and vice-president by statute and city ordinance, so I will open this for nominations.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would nominate Shaun Wardle for president of the -- this year, '06.
Wardle: Mr. Wardle will accept nomination. Any further nominations?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Bird: Hearing none --
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that the nominations cease.
Bird: I second that.
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 57 of 59
Wardle: Nominations have been closed for election of Council President. Mr. Nary, do I
an affirmative vote?
Nary: You could do it by voice vote. That's probably adequate.
De Weerd: I would roll call.
Wardle: Just so the Mayor can break a tie. All in favor of Shaun Wardle for City
Council President, 2006, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: I will now open nominations for council vice-president.
Bird: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would nominate Councilman Joe Borton.
Borton: Accept the nomination.
Wardle: Mr. Borton accepts nomination. Further nominations?
Bird: I move that nominations cease.
Rountree: Second.
Wardle: Nominations have ceased. All in favor of our new Councilmember Joseph
Borton as vice-president say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wardle: Thank you. On that note I would thank you for the election again. I will work
harder this year and do a better job. And I know Joe will make me do a better job.
Borton: No question.
De Weerd: Well, I think the men on my right had a senior moment or something, but I
will honor the new vote and welcome our new vice-president.
Borton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 25 is Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(c)
and (f). Do I have a motion?
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 58 of 59
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we go into Executive Session per State Code 67-2345(1 )(c) and (f).
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll-call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 25:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67~2345(1)(c):
De Weerd: Thank you. We will adjourn into Executive Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: Can we just have the record show that we made those motions?
De Weerd: Just one more time, humor.
Bird: I move that we come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: Adjournment?
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
Meridian City Council
January 10, 2006
Page 59 of 59
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
---L-I Z 4- I ¡; t
DATE APPROVED
-