HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 03-18
Meridian City Council Meeting March 18, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on
Tuesday, March 18, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, and Cherie
McCandless.
Members Absent: Bill Nary.
Others Present: William Nichols, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Brad Watson, Ken Bowers, John
Strong, Dean Willis, and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ O__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird
___X__ Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: Okay. I will now open the regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, March 18,
2003, at 7:04 P.M. and have roll call attendance, please, by the City Clerk.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. Item Number 2 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: One addition to the agenda, if the Council so moves. On Item 15, we'd like to add
the El Tenampa License and, outside of that, I don't know of any other deals. I would
move that we adopt the agenda as noted with the one addition.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the agenda with the Item
Number 15 being added. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say
aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. January 21, 2003
Approve minutes of Pre-Council Minutes:
B. February 25, 2003
Approve minutes of City Council Regular
Minutes:
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 2 of 45
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 02-
028
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1
Gemtone Center
other lot on 12.081 acres in an I-L zone for
Subdivision No. 5 (formerly known as No. 4)
by Thomas T.
Wright – west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-004
Request for a Variance to allow a reduction of the front
building setback from 30 feet to 22 feet for the Meridian Fire
Locust Grove Substation
Department -- 3545 North Locust
Grove Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
02-047
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development to include adding a new 4 classroom seminary to
Mountain View Senior
back of existing site in an R-8 zone for
Seminary
by Lystrup/Jensen Architects – south of East Overland
Road and east of South Locust Grove Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 02-
009
Request for a Rezone of 0.17 acres from R-8 to O-T zones for
Bentley Apartments
by Tamura and Associates – 518 East
Broadway Avenue:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
02-048
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family
Bentley Apartments
dwelling unit in a proposed O-T zone for by
Tamura and Associates – 518 East Broadway Avenue:
H. Resolution No. 03- : Intergovernmental
Agreement between Ada County and City of Meridian
providing for areas outside the city limits to be included within
an Urban Renewal Area:
I. Memorandum of Understanding between City of Meridian and
the Meridian Chapter, Local 2311 for driver positions at Fire
Station Number 3:
J. Well 24 Pumping Facilities – Award Bid:
K. Design of Well 25 Pumping Facilities:
Corrie: Item Number 3 is the Consent Agenda.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 3 of 45
De Weerd: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as written and authorize the Mayor
to sign and the Clerk to attest the appropriate agreements.
Bird: Second. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before we have a vote on that, we need a Resolution Number on that one
resolution on the Consent.
Corrie: Okay. Resolution Number 03-400, Governmental Agreement. Okay. Any other
discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, absent; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. Consent Agenda approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Department Reports:
Corrie: Item Number 4, Department Reports. Any Department Reports?
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda):
Corrie: All right. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
Item 6. Ordinance No. : Meridian Police Department
Rules and Policies:
Corrie: Okay. Going on to Item Number 6. This is Ordinance Number 03-1013, the
Meridian Police Department Rules, and Policies. At this time I would like to have the
City Clerk read Ordinance Number 03-1013 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1013, an
Ordinance amending Tile 6, Chapter 1, Section 5, Meridian City Code, to give the Chief
of Police authority to enact rules and regulations as he deems necessary for the routine
operations of the police department, including the conduct of the members of the police
department, uniforms, equipment to be worn or carried, hours of service, vacation,
employee conduct, grievance procedures, and all other matters for the better efficiency
of the Meridian police department and not in conflict with other city policy, deleting the
requirement of approval by the Mayor and Council for such rules and regulations and
providing an effective date and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules.
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1013 by title only.
Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Okay.
Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the resolution.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 4 of 45
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve Ordinance Number 03-1013, Meridian Police
Department Rules and Policies and to suspend -- suspension of rules, pursuant to
Idaho State Code.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03-
1013, with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote,
Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, absent; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2003: Comprehensive Plan
Text Amendments regarding Urban Services Policies in the 2002
Comprehensive Plan:
Corrie: Item Number 7 is a Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2003, the
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments regarding Urban Services policies in the 2002
Comprehensive Plan. I will continue the Public Hearing at this time and invite staff's
comments, Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, at your last meeting -- well, it was
two meetings ago, you had continued this item in order for staff to get together with the
Building Contractors Association and the Ada County Association of Realtors. As the
minutes reflected that were in your packets for tonight, there was two outstanding
issues, one, Mayor, you had requested that we get a letter from John Eaton, which that
was submitted in terms of their request for continuance. I did meet with Mr. John Eaton
and Mr. Mark Estess this past Friday that -- with the legislature -- Legislative Session
going on, that was the soonest that these two gentlemen could get together. We
reviewed two different documents, both of which you have received in the past. One
was the North Meridian Area Plan section, which is in Section B of the North Meridian
Area Plan it's Roman Numeral II, Urban Services. That language was drafted by Mr.
Mike Wardle as part of -- part of that private development effort to put this plan together.
That is a simpler -- more simple, straightforward approach, which these two private
industry groups prefer. We did also review the proposed urban service policies that I
th
had submitted to you as part of a February 24 memo, which does go into a little bit
more background on this -- this policy of city services within the area of impact, but
outside the city limits. After that meeting I guess I came away feeling like there was --
there was a pretty good understanding as to the direction that they wanted to go. I think
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 5 of 45
I understand clearly where these two private industry groups say -- I just wanted to
emphasize for the record that no other groups have been specifically met with by staff.
Mr. Wardle has certainly, as part of the North Meridian Area Plan process, met with
numerous parties and he feels as part of this -- this language in that North Meridian
Area Plan that it does represent the feelings of other potential developers or existing
developers that he's talked with. In a nutshell, I think -- I think that the main difference is
that the section -- the urban services section of the North Meridian Area Plan has just
five policies that are fairly broad in nature. It does state that the city policy is to require
any development to connect to the city system, water and sewer. It leaves no room for
the developer to submit an application, for example, like the Silvercreek Development
Mr. Lee Centers came with last month. That kind of development under the North
Meridian Area Plan would require connecting to the city's water and services and it
would have to conform to our -- to our facilities plan. The language that I proposed in
th
the February 24 memo that proposed some changes to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan
as you adopted it -- and I will just put that on the screen right now. This was some
proposed new language, which is probably familiar to you. Essentially, it's just a
justification statement that says the reason for the urban service planning area
boundary on the map. It lets developers or builders or other property owners who are
coming into the city maybe for the first time, that gives them just a little background as
to why this line is on the map. Mr. Eaton and Mr. Estess wanted this deleted, they didn't
feel like it was necessary in a policy document, they wanted to just omit it all together.
Staff feels that it really provides no positive or negative impact. It's basically an
educational statement or a justification statement as to what the boundary is for. So we
are proposing to leave that in. Then, these next five items that are on the screen have
to do with new policies that were not adopted in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, but that
staff was looking at adding and the two gentlemen from BCA and ACAR that I met with
are in agreement with these, with the exception of item three, and I did not add that in
there, but the proposal is for that item number three to say all city sewer and water
inspection and plan review fees of the lines -- or of the trunk lines in effect at the time of
the development are paid to the City of Meridian. That, essentially -- for example, in a
Vienna Woods or an Edinburgh Subdivision type scenario, that would insure that the
City of Meridian does receive payment for our inspectors to go in when our lines are
extended outside. Item number four deals with park impact fees. The concern that was
expressed to me there was that the City of Meridian doesn't have currently a formal
agreement with Ada County that arranges for the City of Meridian park impact fees to be
collected and, in their opinion, that ordinance needs to be worked out between the City
of Meridian and Ada County prior to us actually putting a policy in there. I think it's a
little bit of a chicken and egg scenario that as a policy it may give us the -- you know,
the framework to go ahead and adopt an ordinance. Our new Parks Director would
need to be pulled in on this. He's not had a chance to review this yet in terms of how
that agreement with Ada County would work out for collecting of those impact fees.
With those two changes, that item on number three, adding the plan review inspection
fees of the lines, and, then, item number four, their proposal for that to be removed,
these -- these we are in agreement with. Now, I should say that the Public Works
Department wasn't able to be there Friday of last week. We did talk about it briefly. I
think the direction that we agreed on was that some of the details of how these kind of
developments specifically would work out would be best put into an amendment to the
Public Works Ordinance, so that they could outline how the -- how exactly the -- these
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 6 of 45
lines, should we extend them, how they would be affected if there is any no built
restrictions placed on lots, you know, other kinds of permitting coordination. The
Comprehensive Plan probably isn't the right document to put that kind of detail into, this
is more policy guidance, and so those kind of discussed -- an amend to the sewer and
water ordinance would probably be the best way to go on that. I think where we are at
on this, it is a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, and it doesn't affect the map. The
recommendation is for us to move ahead with those two changes that I mentioned.
There could be some incorporation of the North Meridian Area Plan policies and this
document that's on the screen that would, actually, put the text format for you together,
so you could specifically see how is it in the adopted 2002 Comp Plan, exactly how it
would be worded. Since we just met Friday, I hadn't had a chance to do that for you,
but I think, essentially, the policy decision is yours at this point. Largely, are you in
support of allowing some instances where services are extended? I think the question of
whether private services would be allowed is -- has been taken care of, at least between
staff and the private parties that we met with. There has been no opposition to us not
allowing private wastewater treatment systems and at this point neither one of these
proposals really would allow that to happen. I think it still remains a direction that we
need from you as to whether or not you want to leave that door open.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Brad.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: This has kind of been the issue that I have been so adamant about. I do
agree -- I do appreciate all of the work that has gone into it to find that common ground
and I think that as far as having a policy per se in this kind of a guiding document as
whether we extend services or not, I don't know if this is the appropriate place to do it
and it might be just on a case-by-case basis. I don't know if there is any kind of
ordinance that you could wrap your arms around that could really explain all the
different circumstances that such a development application would be considered, so --
and I don't know if, really, the Comprehensive Plan is the place to put it. As far as Item
Number 3, I would like to see the exact wording come back next week, where we can
vote on it and, you know, put it to bed. In Item Number 4, I do agree with you that it
does provide the framework and there may be something that you just add stating that
per agreement with the county to collect such fees -- or something so that one set policy
is in place. I do know now that the parks department has their Capital Improvement
Plan completed. I know they are still trying to wrap up the final touches on the park
impact fee adjustment. Once those are in place, that letter is already sitting over at the
county waiting for those -- that documentation. It's just a matter of getting all of that
information to them. If there is some wording that we can add to the end of that stating
as long as there is a written agreement between the city and the county, I think that
could suffice. That kind of framework should really be in there. I do have a question as
far as has Ada County even adopted this plan yet?
Corrie: No.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 7 of 45
De Weerd: When are they going to do that?
Corrie: As soon as they are all together. We have got a couple three weeks yet, talking
to Mr. Kingsford, so --
De Weerd: I think we approved this six months ago.
Corrie: All but the wording.
De Weerd: Well, I don't know what the rest of the Council feels, but with those few
minor changes I think --
Corrie: You're ready to go.
De Weerd: -- next week with Council Member Nary here, we could pass it and probably
have it changed before they even adopt the plan. If everyone's in agreement --
Corrie: Is there anybody from the public that would like to issue testimony at this point?
Okay. I think that you're absolutely right, we need to have the language in number three
added, took a look at it, and, then, have the agreement with Ada county, which shouldn't
take that -- any problem with them now. If you want to continue the Public Hearing we
can, bring it back. I doubt if there will be anybody who will want to testify, but if we want
to keep that open we can.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Then, I would move that we continue the Public Hearing to March 25, 2003,
on the Comprehensive Plan text amendments regarding the Urban Service Policies in
the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and ask for the changes to be incorporated, so that we
see what we are passing on.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Is that
all right with you, Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: You bet.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say aye. All
th
ayes. Motion carried. March the 25.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2003: Dust Abatement
Ordinance:
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 8 of 45
Corrie: Item Number 8 is a Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2003, Dust
Abatement Ordinance. If I read that letter right, Brad, I would continue the Public
Hearing at this time. Brad, is that -- is that the request that it be continued again,
because of the one letter yet?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, that's correct. Compass has yet to formally respond to that
air quality ordinance and as the MPO, Metropolitan Planning Organization, I think their
input is important on that.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony at this
time? Is the testimony you are about to give this Council the truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Yorgason: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Yorgason: Dave Yorgason with Capital Development. Address is 6200 North Meeker
Place in Boise. The only testimony I wish to add is I appreciate your listening to
Compass. I do know that Boise City and other jurisdictions have considered dust
abatement ordinances. I think I'm not here on behalf of probably just myself and Capital
Development, but last year I was the chairman of the developers council with the
Building Contractor's Association and I know that the BCA worked closely with many
organizations and I know that BCA would appreciate a consistent dust control
ordinance. In fact, does support a dust control ordinance that's consistent across not
only Ada County, but also Canyon County, which is why we do support that regional
wide. That's -- unless you have any questions, that's my testimony.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. With that, Council, any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion for a continuance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue the Public Hearing for the Dust Abatement
th
Ordinance and I'm going to continue it until April 8. That will give us plenty of time.
De Weerd: Is that a month?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 9 of 45
Bird: Well, it's not quite a month. It's three weeks. Two weeks, actually. Let's give it a
couple of weeks, so --
th
Corrie: April 8 is good.
Bird: April 8, 2003.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Public Hearing: MI 03-002
Request to allow a temporary sales office on
Baldwin Park Subdivision No. 1
Lot 2 Block 5 of by Capital
Development – 4196 N. Zion Park Way:
Corrie: Item Number 9 is a Public Hearing. It's a request to allow a temporary sales
office on Lot 2, Block 5 of Baldwin Park Subdivision No. 1 by Capital Development,
4196 North Zion Park Way. At this time, I will open the Public Hearing on the request
and invite staff's comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This miscellaneous
application is to allow a temporary sales office in Baldwin Park Subdivision No. 1. They
are proposing to convert one bay of an existing three-car garage to a temporary sales
office for their subdivision. On the screen is the location of the Phase 1. This is North
Linder Road. The future middle school abuts the south side here. At this point they
have one ingress-egress road and, then, the lot that they are proposing to use for their
sales office is right here on the south side of that entry road. Here is a look at the Final
Plat that City Council approved several months ago and, again, this -- the lot that's
proposed here is Lot Number 2, Block 5 that backs up to their -- to their open space
common lot area. Here is an elevation of the house. The two-car garage has the
standard overhead doors, as you can see, and, then, here on the right-hand side they
have a door in the middle with two grid windowpanes that they would have as their
temporary sales office. Title 11 of Chapter 8 of City Code does prohibit sales offices in
the R-8 district, but temporary buildings and temporary uses are allowed with a
conditional use and so that's the reason for this application. The plan -- there was not a
planned development. As you may recall, we have seen some developers come
through proposing sales trailers with their plat to allow -- to allow those to be used by
the real estate marketers during the time of selling the lots or houses in the subdivision.
Capital Development did not request that as part of their plat. They didn't do a planned
development on this project either, but we have -- in like Ashford Greens and Heritage
Commons and Touchmark, we have allowed these temporary sales offices. This is a
little different in that they are proposing to convert a garage to the use. Staff has
recommended should the Council approve the request we have some recommended
conditions there that are proposed. Probably, the only one to point out is we have
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 10 of 45
asked for the -- certainly some adequate off-street parking for the employees that's
going to need to be provided and that the landscaping be improved before they start to
use the facility for that use. We have proposed a time frame for the use of 24 months,
but they may be able to extend that at staff level. City Council would have to approve
any time extension beyond 30 months, is what we have proposed, so -- they have
included in their application that they have -- are looking at two to four staff members on
the site for seven days a week, 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. They haven't proposed a time
period for how long this house would be used as the sales office, so that's why we had
that recommendation. Unless you have any questions, that's all I have to point out on
this one.
Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Any questions of Brad? Any other staff comments? Okay.
Is the representative of Baldwin Park -- you have already been sworn in, so just give
your name and address again.
Yorgason: Okay. Again, my name is Dave Yorgason with Capital Development.
Address is 6200 North Meeker Place. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you this
evening. We recognize when our application was first submitted for the subdivision
there wasn't a planned development ordinance in effect and, in hindsight, we probably
should have waited a little longer, but, otherwise, we feel like this temporary sales office
is an important feature for our subdivision for marketing. A couple of comments raised
by staff. Certainly, all their conditions that I have read we are fine with them. We agree
-- in fact, there are probably a couple of questions in our mind. Condition Number A,
reads: Subdivisions are permitted to have no more than one temporary use. I guess
one question in my mind is one at a time. I thought we mentioned in our cover, if not, I
do apologize to staff, but our intent is to have this sales office used for approximately
one year and maybe even less than that period of time, such that when we -- in fact, we
have already submitted our application for phase three of Baldwin Park. In that
application is a request for a second temporary office, but not used at the same time.
We will have this one only until that more permanent -- less than two year's use, but that
more permanent sales office is in place. It's, actually, next to our swimming pool and
the other amenities more internal to the subdivision. Our hope is that you would
approve us. It would be used one at a time, not two at a time, certainly, and we
understand that from the -- from our perspective and certainly from the city's perspective
as well. There was one other question about adequate street parking. I don't know if
the Council or staff has a number for us, but we agree -- in fact, that's one reason why
we are only using a single bay for the garage, is that the double bay could be used for
parking for the real estate agents. They can be parking in there or out in the driveway
there is certainly adequate parking for two to four. We see two as mostly used, but as --
during the peak time, the springtime, we may have three -- three to four sales
associates inside. Then, as far as landscaping, all other items, we are moving ahead.
In fact, sprinklers are already in and that landscaping will be finished here within the
next week or two. This also happens to be the -- well, it's just our main marketing
location for the rest of this year and we request for approval this evening. I'll stand here
for any questions you may have.
Corrie: Do you have any problem with the fire department's requirements?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 11 of 45
Yorgason: I read them. I didn't see anything there that's of any concern, no. No. No,
we will comply with them.
Corrie: Any questions of staff? Okay. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none,
Council, discussion on the Public Hearing? Okay. If there is none, I will entertain a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 9. All in favor
say aye. Opposed no? Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Discussion? Any discussion? Okay. I will entertain a motion on the request for
a temporary sales office.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve that MI 03-002, the request to allow a temporary sales
office on Lot 2, Block 5, of Baldwin Park Subdivision No. 1 by Capital Development,
4196 North Zion Park Way and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and incorporate staff comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded for the approval.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: I am assuming that that includes a clarification on the temporary use meaning
one temporary use at a time.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Okay. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, absent; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 12 of 45
Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-033
Request for annexation and zoning of
Parkstone
104.77 acres from RUT to R-8 PD zones for proposed
Subdivision
by Hillview Development, Corp. – west of North Eagle Road
and north of East Ustick Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-033
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
334 building lots and 34 other lots on 104.77 acres in a proposed R-8 PD
Parkstone Subdivision
zone for proposed by Hillview Development,
Corp. – west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-049
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Unit Development for 275 single-family dwellings, 52
townhomes, 4 office lots, 2 commercial lots, 1 mini-storage lot, 1 pocket
park, 1 city neighborhood park and 32 common lots on 104.77 acres for
Parkstone Subdivision
proposed by Hillview Development, Corp. – west
of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item Number 10, Number 11, and Number 12 are all Public Hearings on the
Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. First is a request for
annexation and zoning of 104.77 acres from an RUT to an R-8 PD zone for the
proposed. Item Number 11 is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 334 building
lots and 34 other lots on the 104.77 acres. The request for Number 12 is for a
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 275 single-family dwellings,
52 townhomes, 4 office lots, 2 commercial lots, 1 mini storage lot, 1 pocket lot, 1 city
neighborhood park, and 32 common lots on 104.77 acres for the Parkstone Subdivision
by Hillview Development Corporation, west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Ustick Road. Without any objections, I will open all three requests under one Public
Hearing and as you testify you can testify on any three or one at a time, whichever you
want to do. First, I will have the staff's comments. I will open the Public Hearing on all
three.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this application has been reviewed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
You have received excuse me, the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission in your packets. On Item Number 9 -- or, I'm sorry, Number 10, the
annexation and zoning request, the subject property is outlined here on the screen. It is
on the north side of Ustick Road. The W.H. Moore, Incorporated, property that you
have received several requests on is here to the east. That's at the northeast -- or
northwest corner of Ustick and Eagle Roads. The property has a couple of subdivisions
-- existing subdivisions abutting it. To the north is Heritage Subdivision, which has one-
acre lots, zoned R-1, as well as Jasmine, which is a five-acre lot subdivision. The
Education Campus Subdivision is here on the western boundary. The school district
has received approval to move ahead on a new elementary school here in the corner in
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 13 of 45
the western -- eastern corner of their lot. There is a subdivision that is under
application right now that the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed, the
Sutter Cove Subdivision, also known as the Hollister property, which is abutting here to
the -- to the west as well. Then, you have Summerfield Subdivision to the south of that.
Rural residential is around the property on the south side of Ustick Road. The
properties are a mix of RUT zoning and R-1 zoning, all in Ada County. None of that
property on the south side of Ustick has been annexed at this point. Here is a
photograph of the existing conditions. The land today is largely agricultural uses. The
request is to be approved to an R-8 zone. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the
property as medium density residential, which has target densities of three dwelling
units per acre, up to eight dwelling units per acre. The Planning and Zoning
Commission did recommend approval of the annexation and zoning application to the
R-8. The subdivision has a little over four dwelling units per acre, so the range is three
to eight, so it's at the lower end of the range for medium density residential. We have
also recommended that a Development Agreement be entered into with the city as a
part of the annexation and that's in the recommendation that you have received. Item
Number 11 on the Preliminary Plat, the proposed plat is here on the screen. There are
two main entrance points to the subdivision proposed off of Ustick Road. This one
further to the east is intended to serve more office and commercial uses. These are, as
you can see, larger lots down here in this corner and they are proposing to have some
commercial uses here on the east side of the road and, then, office type uses on the
left-hand side. They do have a couple of different housing product types that they are
proposing, some attached dwelling units, as well as some detached. The higher density
is here in the south next to Ustick Road. They are providing -- or proposing to provide a
landscape buffer along Ustick Road. They have a storage unit lot that abuts the
Winston Moore property that's about 10 acres in size. The entry road is a proposed
residential collector that would have no front-on housing, no parking, and they would
provide a detached 10-foot wide asphalt pathway. The Comprehensive Plan does
require a multi-use pathway that would be a part of the larger system maintained. The
pathway is shown on the -- I'm going to go to this -- this planned development seen
here, you can see how the pathway would work through and would extend from the
south boundary to the north boundary, so that upon any future redevelopment to the
north that it would continue -- continue on to the north up to McMillan and beyond. The
Parks and Rec Commission did review the proposed neighborhood park. There is
about a six acre neighborhood park that would be public located here in the -- just
above the townhouse area of the project. They also provide a private one-acre park
that would be a little further here to the north. There was some discussion at the
Planning and Zoning Commission -- as you may have read, there was several letters
submitted, as well as verbal testimony given in opposition to the development. Several
of them had to do with the density of the project. Those concerns were there, as well as
numerous others. The Commission -- the Planning and Zoning Commission did also
recommend a landscape buffer be provided here between these detached residential
houses and the storage unit use. One potential change to the recommendation is on
item number seven on page three and that deals with the location of micropaths. They
have provided several micropaths within the development. If I could go to Item Number
12 here, the Planned Development? This is a little bit easier to see. This parcel here is
the Hollister or Sutter Cove Subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission
originally recommended a pathway be -- a micropath be provided between these two
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 14 of 45
developments, Parkstone and the Hollister parcel, but as it says in Item Number 7 there,
if the Council determines that it's not needed, the Commission has discussed the
elimination of the micropath and doesn't consider it a significant change, so they would
not need to see that again. That's mainly because the Hollister property did not provide
a micropath there, so that would make that useless within Parkstone. The Planning and
Zoning Commission did recommend that phasing for the project be allowed to be
modified at the staff level, so should they come in with some changes as to how they
phase the project, that would not come -- be back before the Council. Generally, they
are proposing Phase 1 here in the southwest corner of the parcel and move up in a
northerly direction and, then, come around. The commercial and storage unit uses are
proposed to be later phases in the project. I think those are the main highlights that the
staff needs to make at this point.
Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Any questions? Okay. Is the representative or developer
here? Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
McKay: Becky McKay. Business address 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm
representing the applicant in this matter. And if I could use the A-frame, since we do
have some residents here? I think that this will be a little easier if they can see what we
are talking about. To kind of give you an overview of the project, what we have here --
this parcel is approximately 104 acres. As Brad indicated, we are asking for an R-8
zoning designation. We are contiguous with the city limits along our western boundary
and this has a Planned Unit Development application, a Conditional Use, and a
Preliminary Plat. In designing this particular project, it is designated medium density
residential on your Comprehensive Plan. We took into consideration, obviously, a lot of
the comments that we heard in the past concerning this kind of north Meridian area,
even though this is east of Locust Grove, but it is still kind of in that north area. It has
been stressed to us that the Council liked to see some types of mixed densities, mixed
housing types, and mixed uses. That's what we have done in our goal here. We have a
collector roadway. This is in alignment here with Wingate Lane. We have another short
non-continuous collector here on our eastern boundary that is in alignment with Wesley
Drive. This collector comes up and terminates here into a local street. We have
another collector roadway coming from the west through the school site. Up here we
will a have ten inch sewer and a 12-inch water main being constructed to our western
perimeter. That will allow us to service the property. We will also have -- there is 12-
inch water here at Summerfield at their eastern boundary and there is some sewer there
also. In this project we have single family -- detached single-family dwellings
throughout the majority of the project. Here we have a pod of townhomes. They would
be pods of two. We have committed on the record in writing to your staff and, then, to
the residents that live across the street that these would be single story and I
designated these lots from here to here and I have listed them by lot and block. Those
would be townhomes, attached in pods of two, single level. We also have some office
lots here. There are four office lots, two commercial lots and, then, this mini storage.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 15 of 45
Along our eastern boundary is W.H. Moore's property. They showed us -- we met with
them before we did any design work at all and they showed us two concepts that they
were considering. One is a large office complex, the other was a retail center, very
similar, but on a smaller scale to what you guys have at the corner of Fairview and
Eagle Road, one continuous building backed up to the subject property. We did not
want to create the situation that you had out at Fairview and Eagle with the Crossroads
Subdivision and those residents, obviously, coming out and very upset about the large
structures. We decided it was best if we take it upon ourselves to buffer the residential
from Mr. Moore, so we don't put the burden on that property and create a situation that
we know in the future is going to be a situation -- a hot situation. We came up with the
concept of a mini storage. It's a very good neighbor, very good hours, seems to be very
compatible. I have placed it adjoining to other developments and within some of my
own subdivisions that I designed and it benefits this neighborhood, it benefits the
community. They typically serve about a two to three mile radius we find and so it will
be an excellent buffer for this development. As Brad indicated, we will have a six-foot
landscape buffer here, some type of fencing, and, then, what we talked about with the
landscape architect is some type of a cylinder type juniper that grows very rapidly, they
get very bushy, and they grow together. They seem to do a little bit better of a job than
the arbor vita and that's what the landscape architect recommended. That's what we
have planned there and that six feet would accommodate that, so we would create
some type of a -- not only a fence, but a vegetative wall also. Along here we have a
pond area that will be -- provide storage for our pressurized irrigation. This property is
within the Settler's Irrigation District. Also, you may be aware that that multi-use
pathway is on the Park's Plan and the Comprehensive Plan shown going in a north-
south direction on this parcel. There was also an asterisk for a city park on this
particular piece of property. As you're well aware, you can't designate a park on a
particular piece of property, it normally insinuates within that general vicinity, but we did
take it upon ourselves to try to incorporate that. We have a six-acre park. It's located
between this local street and this collector roadway. We have taken these lot lines and
brought them down, so the focal point, when anyone enters this development, is upon
the park, giving it excellent visibility from two public right of ways, two pedestrian paths
that flare out and open into the park from the north and from the south and, then, the
multi-use pathway would be detached. Your Parks Department has indicated they'd like
to see a ten foot separation from the back of the curb to the pathway in order to plant
trees and so we don't have any problems as those trees mature. That pathway would
come up, run along the park. We have also planned a parking lot here for the park and
it would come up running in separate lots, cross this roadway, a separate lot here, wrap
around the pocket park we have proposed and we have a little basketball court -- a full
basketball court in there. Then, the pathway would go on up through these micropaths
and, then, at the Planning and Zoning Commission we added a separate lot here and
took a piece out of this lot, so that pathway would continue up to that northern
boundary. We have got two micropaths. The intent of these is to create a shortcut for
these kids out of Summerfield and within our own development to come in, come right
up through those pods, and easily enter into the new elementary site that's currently
starting construction here at the Charter School site that fronts on Locust Grove. We
have a good project here, with good -- what we consider good circulation as far as
pedestrian and vehicular. We have got another pathway running through this block and
another one here. We have added a pathway here going out to the east. Your
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 16 of 45
Planning and Zoning Commission indicated if Mr. Moore developed as a retail center
and that came to the rear of the building as a loading dock that may not be an
appropriate place for a micropath to enter that site. They kind of left it up to the Council
at such time as when a Final Plat comes in with this particular project, then, the Council
at that time could make a decision if that was appropriate or not. If it was -- their design
was conducive to that pedestrian pathway, obviously it would remain. It's always nice
that, you know, people can take some shortcuts, either on bicycle or pedestrian, into
either a retail or an office center. It cuts down on our vehicle trips per day. Brad
indicated that the -- Brad indicated that the subdivision density was 4.68. Well, that's
the net density. That's if we are excluding the office, the mini storage, and the
commercial and the public right of ways. Our gross density is typically what we look at
that's 3.58. We have approximately 275 single-family dwellings, 52 attached single
family, four office, two commercial, and the mini storage. In our Planned Development
application we have agreed, too, that on the more intensive uses, the mini storage,
office, and commercial, they would all require a detailed conditional use application,
come before the city, so that staff could review the building, landscaping, parking,
circulation, and to assure residential compatibility. It was important to the Planning and
Zoning Commission that whatever is proposed there be residentially compatible and
they put that, I think, as an added recommended condition. We are in agreement with all
of the conditions placed upon us by the staff and by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The only change I think Brad indicated was they asked for a pedestrian
pathway to the east to the Hollister property and, then, when Mr. Hollister came through
with his Preliminary Plat, then, the Planning and Zoning Commission eliminated it. We
did not show it on our -- on our revised Preliminary Plat which we submitted, which
should be in your packet. When we went to the Planning and Zoning Commission we
did not have a neighborhood meeting prior to that. We could not find a location.
Everything appeared to be booked clear through the end of March. We had quite a few
residents that testified and so we took it upon ourselves after that meeting to have a
neighborhood meeting here at the Council chambers. I was not aware that this was
available. We had a meeting here a week or so ago and met with the neighbors and I
think we worked out some issues. There is a users ditch running along our northern
boundary. It serves the Heritage Subdivision to our north -- on our northwest corner.
We have agreed that we will coordinate with them and pipe that facility, because it does
-- kind of zigzags back and forth. It does abut us for a little ways and, then, it kind of
zigs to the north, but we have agreed to pipe it. Then, also we want to go on the record
that the townhomes adjacent to Ustick Road, as indicated in the letter submitted to your
staff and Mr. Blakeslee, will be single level. ACHD did review this application. Capacity
does exist on the roadway. Ustick Road is on their CIP. It is not within their five-year
plan, but it is on the CIP. We talked to them about reducing the right of way and placing
our sidewalk in our landscape lot, therefore, reducing the amount of right of way
necessary for a future five lane roadway and would save money from public funds from
ACHD if we reduced that from a 48 to say a 39, I believe is what they have indicated.
They have also asked for a right-hand turn lane on westbound and a left-hand turn bay
at each entrance on eastbound. You will have a right decel lane and, then, a center
turn lane, based on ACHD's recommendations. We have a really great project here.
Our lots range from about -- we have some that are 5,888, a couple of them, ranging
63, 65 hundred, all the way up to 10, 11, 12,000 square feet. As you go northward the
lots get larger and large. We did go to -- before the Parks Commission last week. We
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 17 of 45
did ask for some park impact fee credits on our project. I'd just like to review that with
you. The developer will donate three acres of the park site. The developer will pay for
50 percent of the park improvements, including hydro seeding, irrigation, trees, and a
parking lot. The parking lot we showed I think about six spaces and meeting with Elroy,
he asked for some additional spaces. We will also be allowed to have parallel parking
on the east side of that park. There is about 360 feet of parking when we consider --
your code asks for 23 feet for parallel parking. Typically, we see around 23 to 30. It
would accommodate 12 to 15 cars parked along that eastern roadway adjoining the
park and since we have no parking allowed on the collector to the west side of the park,
that's why we would provide the parking lot there. The developer will construct the 10-
foot multi-use pathway through the site, including the portion through the park. He will
not be asking for any participation from the city or any reimbursement for that. The
developer will construct the micropath links into the park and install fencing along the
north and south side of the park. For the micropath links and the fencing, we will,
obviously, coordinate with your staff and we are not asking for any participation or
reimbursement or credits on that. The developer will provide the pressure irrigation
pond and we did make a commitment at the Parks Commission that we would provide a
pressure irrigation pump station, in addition to ours. They would like to have a separate
pump station. We will provide sewer and water service to the park, coordinate with the
utility companies for future service to the park, and, then, we did agree, as the last item,
to coordinate with the parks department for improvements for shelter, restroom, and
playground equipment and what the parks department asked of us was to try to
incorporate -- work with them on their plans, and incorporate that into our bidding
process, kind of like what has happened at Bear Creek, where, say, like the concrete
work, for example, for the shelter, the restroom, we would incorporate that in our
concrete contract with the contractor, in order to get a better price, so that you're not
paying the premium price through the public bidding process. That's what they asked of
us. Based on our analysis cost wise, the cost for the acreage and the park
improvements, the pathway, micro lengths, fencing, pressure irrigation, we are at
probably about 530,000 dollars, approximately, because we had to add the pump
station. The developer's contributions to that are 287,705. That's what we kind of gave
the Parks Commission. We only ask for credit on three acres of the six-acre site and on
what we considered Item 2 being the hydro seeding, irrigation, trees, and parking lot.
Based on the new impact fees that will be instituted here in the future and we anticipate
that and we support those increases from the development community, we anticipate
about 212,550 dollars being collected in park impact fees on this particular project and
we have asked for credit of that amount to help us in constructing and improving this
park. We'd like to see this be a turnkey type park. It's scheduled on our phasing plan
and based on the agreement with the property owner to take place in 2005. We could
not construct it any earlier than that. That would meet the criteria based on your
Meridian Parks Plan, which states that neighborhood parks should be developed when
about 50 percent of the adjoining development reaches maturity and so that would be --
that would be the case here. On the Parks Comprehensive Plan, that has not been
approved by this body, but when you look through the site selection criteria for a
neighborhood park, we meet that criteria of being centrally located, visible, and two
adjoining streets and public street frontage in excess of 200 feet, bicycling and walking
distances it says should not exceed one half mile for the area it serves and try to
minimize any physical barriers and we have with our micropaths, the multi-use path,
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 18 of 45
and the exposure we have provided for the park. We feel that this is going to benefit not
only this neighborhood, but the adjoining neighbors with the interconnection that we
have through the public street stubs and our micropaths and the excellent visibility. We
haven't tucked this back into the site and have it just serving only our project, we made
it very user friendly to the public and very visible and by providing a parking lot on that
western side of the park and getting this thing green and available for use by the
residents of the City of Meridian, I think it will benefit the city. I think we have done -- we
have done our part to contribute to the community and try to provide the best planned
development that we can. That concludes my presentation. Do you have any
questions?
Bird: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Not at this time.
McKay: Thank you.
Corrie: This is a Public Hearing. We have got some people that have signed here.
Four. I guess, Vic Clapp. Is the testimony you are about to give this Council the truth
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Clapp: It is.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Clapp: My name is Vic Clapp. I reside at 2255 Paradise Lane in Heritage Subdivision,
immediately north to this proposed subdivision. I am really unfamiliar with some of the
terminology and so forth, so I have more questions than anything else. What's the
difference between tiling and piping a ditch?
Corrie: Same thing.
Clapp: Okay. What is a users ditch, as opposed to an irrigation ditch?
Corrie: I think it's the same, too, isn't it, Brad?
Watson: Mayor, Members of the Council, a users ditch is one that we consider under
the jurisdiction of the downstream users, whereas most of them are under the
jurisdiction of an Irrigation District.
Clapp: Well, I have questions on the property lines, where they are and so forth,
mainly, and I guess we will figure that out by pins, I'm not sure, about the only way to
determine that. If you look at the drawing from the elementary school that's being under
-- that is under construction now, there is a 30-foot easement along there and is that 30-
foot easement -- is that in between the Heritage Subdivision and the Parkstone
Subdivision? Is there a 30-foot easement between those two? Because I have a
drawing from the engineer here and I don't understand the property lines, they are just --
it looks like they go back and forth and the ditch crosses into our subdivision and out
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 19 of 45
and it's -- if you go to where the ditch is now, the entire ditch is outside of our
subdivision and I just have some questions as far as boundaries, I suppose, and
whether there is a 30 foot easement along there. Is there an easement there? Because
according to this drawing from the elementary school, there is a 30 foot Settler's
Irrigation District Easement with the elementary school and does that continue along --
whereas the drawing for the subdivision here does not show that easement.
Corrie: We will get your answer here in a minute.
Clapp: Thank you.
Watson: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, the plat that we have doesn't show any
easement. I would think it would be up to the applicant or their engineer or surveyor to
show that easement. We can't verify it from what they have submitted, so --
Clapp: It's from the elementary school, which is the adjoining property. It's right next to
it. I was just curious. It wouldn't just stop there, would it?
Corrie: I don't know. You will have to have that --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if we can get the rest of Mr. Clapp's questions, perhaps he can
show that document to the engineer sitting in the back of the room and, then, we can
get his answer to that for him at that time.
Clapp: Okay. Thank you. Also, I'd like to make a request, if we could construct -- when
we do put that fence on top of the -- where ever the fence is going to be, if we can put a
two or three-foot berm underneath that fence, if possible, maybe from the scrapings
from the road that is immediate south to those northern plots and, if it's possible, to
request single level dwellings, as Mr. Blakeslee did.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond. I didn't address that in my staff report,
but the Planning and Zoning Commission did -- did make a recommendation in the
conditional use that single level dwellings be 1,500 square feet along the west --
adjacent to any existing subdivision, is the way that it's worded, and I can read that for
this gentleman here. The recommendation states that the minimum square footage --
or, I'm sorry. Yes. The minimum square footage for the residential lots adjacent to the
western and north property lines shall be a minimum of 1,500 square feet for single
story and 1,800 square feet for a two-story building. The recommendation as it comes
to this body just puts a square footage on it, it doesn't state they shall be single story so,
that would be a decision that needs to be made here.
Corrie: We will give you an answer to that, but we talk about it --
Clapp: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 20 of 45
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Clapp: Oh, sorry. What about the berm, the two to three foot berm? I understand you
can take the scrapings from the road and put it right there right next to the lots and just
put it across the back there and you have your two to three foot berm, then, build your
fence on top of that. I did speak to one of the developers and he was going to have that
under consideration.
Corrie: Okay. We will ask them when they get a chance to answer questions.
Clapp: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Tom and Sue Davis?
Davis: I have no comment at this time.
Corrie: Okay. Tye Ketlinski. I hope I don't butcher that up too bad.
(Councilman Nary present.)
Ketlinski: Most everybody does and it's Ketlinski.
Corrie: Oh. Okay. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ketlinski: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Ketlinski: Tye Ketlinski, 662 South Torino, Meridian. I'm, actually, here today -- and I
will be really brief -- on two fronts. My father owns Jasmine Acres, which is the eight-
acre parcel right above this subdivision. My father owns the property just to the north.
It's -- I think it was denoted as Jasmine Acres. He's down south on vacation, has been
for the last three months, so he sends me to tell his concerns to the Council. Generally
speaking, he doesn't have any objection to the development, but he has one concern --
and I guess I should probably pose it as a question to the developer. He uses -- there is
a ditch bank, as noted earlier by the Heritage Subdivision gentleman -- there is a ditch
bank there. I'm not sure what they are planning on doing with that, but he does use that
as -- on his part of the land, so I'm not sure what you guys are planning on doing with
that. Are you going to leave it open or --
Corrie: We'll let them testify after on whatever questions you might have.
Ketlinski: Okay. Other than that, as long as his rights aren't affected there he doesn't
have a problem. My second hat tonight is my own, since I spent the last year and a half
commuting on Eagle Road to work every morning at 8:00 A.M. and I'm not sure if any of
you do, but it was insane, the traffic on that road. As far as wearing my citizen hat as a
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 21 of 45
citizen of Meridian, I'm just a little concerned about the traffic and I'm not sure how
much more traffic Eagle Road can take. With that, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
and I will have a seat.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Helen Law? You can still testify if you
like. Okay. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, so help you God?
Law: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Law: George Law, 1599 Leslie, Meridian. We live right on the corner of Ustick and
Leslie Way across from where the subdivision will be and on the gentleman that was
just up here concerning the traffic, I don't care what the Ada County Highway
Department says, I work out of my house, I sit in that office every day, and in the
mornings getting out of our road onto Ustick you can't do it. From 7:00 in the morning to
9:00 it's bumper to bumper. You get on Eagle Road and it's worse. That issue has to be
addressed. And if that development goes in as planned, you will be putting another 150
cars on the road in that time frame in the morning, it can't be done. Just a major
concern for my family and myself. That's all.
Corrie: Okay.
Law: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Yes. Is the
testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Blakeslee: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Blakeslee: John Blakeslee, 2545 East Ustick Road. My wife and I reside on the seven
acres immediately south of the townhouse section. Mr. Mayor and Members of the
Council, I appreciate this opportunity to address you and having testified at the Planning
and Zoning Hearing, where I basically -- my general comments indicated that, in my
opinion, this was a high density use, instead of a medium density use, as indicated by
our Comprehensive Plan. I went to some effort to try to demonstrate that and use some
of the following the six bullets that are shown in your Comprehensive Plan indicate that
the goals of the plan were to do the following. Manage growth to achieve high quality
development. Enhance Meridian's quality of life for all residents. New growth should
finance public service expansion. Prevent school overcrowding and enhance education
services. Expand commercial and industrial development. And protect Meridian's self-
identity. It was my observation in that hearing that this application failed on five out of
the six goals. The only one that it succeeded at was the expansion of commercial and
industrial development. The dynamics from RUT to R-8 are substantial and I hope that
you will consider that, unlike what I felt like the Planning and Zoning Commission did,
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 22 of 45
which, as I have analyzed that, I have come to the conclusion that they want to get as
much development as fast as dense as possible, based on what I was able to observed
in that hearing. In the Comprehensive Plan on Page 7, it says increase growth also
means an increasing demand on natural resources. Meridian residents wish their area
to grow without harming its water supply or quality and so forth. Neighborhoods and
special areas will be developed so that they fit in with Meridian's character. Now,
Meridian probably has a broad cross-section of characters, but I would say that any one
of you who know this area would agree that the character has been more of a rural
character than an R-8 character and, yet, I know that as these applications come,
development is going go occur and I would be the last to stand in the way of prudent
development. It also says on the same page of the Comprehensive Plan land uses in
Meridian will be thoughtfully planned, so that neighboring uses are compatible. Now,
Mr. and Mrs. Davis have lived there for many, many years and have done an excellent
job in their agricultural pursuits in that 100 plus acre parcel and those of us who moved
out there 20 or more years ago have always appreciated looking at the efforts that they
have made. Now, in our position we will be looking at what are termed townhouses, 52
of them to be exact, and that has been a big concern to us. Referring to the
Comprehensive Plan again on Page 26, it says objective A after goal one is to
insurance that facilities and services keep up with growth and item -- Sub Item Number
6 it says that an action would be to permit new residential, commercial, or industrial
developments only when urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final
approval and development is contiguous to the city. I think anybody who would study
this application would wonder if that objective and action is being fulfilled. In the
process of having the Planning and Zoning Hearing, we discovered the fact that you
have a new requirement for neighborhood meetings -- developers and neighbors prior
to Planning and Zoning. However, this development -- that the new ordinance was not
in place when this development came forward and despite the Planning and Zoning
Commission, who could see no fruits whatsoever to be gleaned from having such a
meeting after the fact, because they approved it unanimously. The developer was kind
enough to have a meeting with us and in that one and a half hours we accomplished
more than I think we could ever have accomplished in front of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. At that time we received, my wife and I, the concession which was
enumerated to you this evening about having the townhouses that are immediately
adjoining Ustick Road as one level only and we sincerely appreciate that. I would say
that the Planning and Zoning Commission was wrong in stating that nothing could be
accomplished from such a meeting, because that and other items were accomplished
and I salute the developer for that. Finally, I would like to say that you, as elected
officials representing the citizen's of Meridian, have an opportunity to do what your
Comprehensive Plan says on Page 36. Before I read that statement, I would like you to
pay strict attention to the testimony that you have heard here this evening with regard to
traffic safety, because I know that as a public official you are not experts in regards to
traffic. You have the opportunity to assign that capacity to the Ada County Highway
District and as I have observed in the last six years, the Ada County Highway District is
largely playing a catch-up job that I don't know that they will ever succeed at. You have
the chance of jumping over the Ada County District based on the following statement:
The community's economic vitality, it's willingness to insure the safety and well-being of
its citizens and its degree of concern for the natural environment are evident in the
appearance of the city. Therefore, the entire community and, more specifically, its
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 23 of 45
governing bodies, have the right and the responsibility to guide future development.
When we ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to slow down with regard the use of
our streets in order to maintain our public safety, they shrug their shoulders and say,
well, that's a function of Ada County Highway District. I'm going to interested in seeing
if you do the same thing. I would hope that you wouldn't, because when I served in a
capacity as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner for Ada County for six years, we were
able to see -- excuse me -- that ACHD was deficient in many applications and we were
able to stop those applications until the proper traffic concerns were met. You have
before you, just as I do, the -- oh, 16 or 17 page Ada County Highway District report,
which was authored and signed by Andrea Tuney, who is a principal development
analyst. I have had the opportunity of speaking with her about her comments and was
pretty much flabbergasted by what I heard. This subdivision, which is scheduled to
build out by 2007 -- and I know that's economic driven, but that's what they say -- would
create an additional 3,954 trips per day and they go on to state that -- excuse me -- that
the current level of capacity on Ustick Road would be able to handle that. Then, buried
deep in their report, Item Number 12 talks about other development in the area. It's kind
of a casual aside, but it lists 16 bullets of other developments, which, in the last 15
months, have been approved by ACHD and I would hazard a guess by yourselves,
which, with my rudimentary math skills, adds up 5,194 lots, including these. Then,
tucked neatly at the end of listing those 16 or 17 new developments it says this due to
the large number of inquiries and submitted development applications in this area, staff
and the development community realize that the potential for development in this area is
extreme and the traffic impact studies that each individual developer was submitting did
not include the major surrounding developments that are in the works, quote, end quote.
If staff examines each individual development, the roadway system appears adequate,
but when staff begins to add in a second or a third -- not all 16 of them, but just a
second or third large scale development, the traffic capacities of surrounding roadways
reach their 2020 planning thresholds. Now, the testimony this evening indicated that
the CIP for Ustick Road -- it's not in the five-year CIP for ACHD. It is in the CIP for the
year 2011. If this development builds out by the year 2007 and the other 4,700 some
odd lots do as well, you will have created a nightmare. I connote it to building a freeway
on-ramp system before you build a freeway. It doesn't make sense. We are going to
find out this evening if you have the courage to question ACHD and say we don't know if
we can buy into your recommendation for approval without some guidelines. Now, the
developer is going to rebut my testimony by saying that they are going to have these
right turn -- westbound turn lanes into the developments -- or into the two access points
to the development. They are also going to have one left turn lane coming easterly in
front of the development. For anybody who lives on Wingate Lane where they are
bringing their horses and domestic animal trailers in and out of that subdivision or
anybody who is trying to turn south, such as this gentleman who testified earlier, into the
Leslie Way, it's going to be nerve racking at best and life threatening. What I would like
to recommend to you, if you would consider it, respectfully, and that would be -- and I
asked for a drawing, because when I asked ACHD if this could be done, they said I
would have to find out from the developer. Apparently, the developer's engineer hasn't
drawn this yet, but the only way I can see around creating a horrible situation would be
to have a full center turn lane that would be able to go north or south -- north to the
development and south to the existing properties, to maintain the safety of the public.
And so I would propose that you add, if it is in your wisdom to do so, a center lane that
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 24 of 45
would feed approximately 1,200 feet of Ustick Road, commencing one block east of
Leslie Way and terminating one block west of Wingate Lane. Now, the funds to do this
could be earmarked from the impact fees that are going to be charged for these lots. I
wouldn't expect the developer to have to foot this bill, because it's a definite benefit to
the entire public, but I respectfully suggest that you consider making that a condition of
approval. If you do, and if you need help in getting this in front of ACHD, I commit to
assist you in doing that and in getting the neighbors around to try to do so as well,
because the same irony that we are talking about here is a common occurrence in
Boise City, where the act of adding one or two or three more vehicle trips a day will stop
the construction of an entire bridge. Thank you very much for considering my
comments and I will stand for questions.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony? I'm going to ask you
don't take that much time. We don't have it. I appreciate your comments, Mr.
Blakeslee, but I'm going to limit this to no more than five minutes and I will cut you off.
Okay. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Nesmith: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Name and address, please.
Nesmith: John Nesmith, 2820 East Ustick Road. I own the property directly adjacent to
the east of this development. Something that I am also concerned with is the traffic
issue, because I cannot turn east and get onto Eagle Road from -- like the other
gentleman said -- from 7:00 to 9:00. It's not possible. I have to turn west and go
around, because the traffic is backed up clear passed Leslie Lane. The other thing that
I was not made aware of was the neighborhood meeting and that's something that I
would like to know is whether or not they are going to put a berm or some relief as far
as the commercial property that's directly adjacent to my residential property, because
I'm very concerned with property values compared to what it is now. I wouldn't be
opposed to it if they put in a berm that was landscaped with like a nice masonry wall,
like they have done on some commercial developments that I have seen, as well as
continuing on with mini storage, dealing with something that isn't, to my knowledge -- to
my view, not what I consider to be -- what I would rather be looking at, versus a nice,
landscaped, you know, shielded -- you know, basically, as a commercial development
right beside a residential -- my residential property, along with, obviously, Mr. Moore is
going to be developing the rest of the property into commercial. That's my concern is
that the developer wanted -- that he would put in some kind of a buffer and a berm, wall,
something along those lines to shield my property. The other thing that I'm concerned
with -- I know it sounds minor, but along with the property -- I don't know if they are
doing any fresh -- I noticed in a couple of developments when they are putting their
ponds in, they put a pump, so they aerate the ponds so it doesn't build mosquitoes and I
know I have lived down -- I used to live down in Boise and all the ponds they put in
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 25 of 45
there, it created quite a bit of problems with mosquito development and that cost money
to try to abate that, so that's basically all I have.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? There was another hand. Is the testimony you are
about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
M. Berg: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
M. Berg: My name is Mary Berg, 1741 East Summer Ridge Drive. My comments stem
from the fact that I have four small children and the elementary schools, I don't really
believe that in your Comprehensive Plan when say you're considering the overcrowding
of schools, that that's really taken place. We attend River Valley Elementary right now,
which has over 900 students in attendance at that building and I do realize that we have
a new elementary school. I served on the boundary committee for that school's
boundaries, we planned on opening that school with just under 500 children, and we
considered in the next two years with the subdivision across the street from that school,
Sunburst or Sundance or something like that, that within two years we will be barely
over 650. If you're adding another subdivision of this size, we are basically shot in the
foot before we have got it in the door and we will be back up to over 900 again and
there no elementary schools slated for that area. The square mile to the north of us has
no land for an elementary school, so we have to take in all of their children, too,
because there will be no elementary school in that square mile. As far as I know and
was told by the school board, in the next bond issue we will not be getting another
elementary school for that area that we are serving right now, it will go to an outer limit
and we may be on the second bond that comes through, might be getting a -- be able to
put an elementary school that would service what we are taking in right now, but that's --
I just didn't hear any concern with the school and that was my point.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Any other testimony? Okay. Becky,
we have some questions.
McKay: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to address some of the comments
that the adjoining residents have made and some questions that have been derived
from their testimony. Concerning Mr. Clapp and the easement to the north, in the
comments from Settler's Irrigation District -- and one of our conditions is all irrigation
drainage facilities slash easements will need to be protected, so we always, as you well
know, coordinate with Settler's Irrigation District -- even on our user ditches we
coordinate with them as far as capacity and what kind of volume is coming down those
ditches, what properties they serve, and who we need to coordinate with as far as
adjoining property owners when piping these facilities. We will abide your ordinance
and the state law as far as not interrupting any drainage or irrigation and providing any
necessary easements in order to protect these facilities. When we bring in that Final
Plat for that northern portion, at that point in time the -- your staff requires that we
delineate on that Final Plat applicable easements and on the construction plans show
where we are piping ditches or where any adjoining ditches are. The lots to the north,
the issue was brought up of single level. We agreed at the Planning and Zoning
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 26 of 45
Commission to increase the square footage of the lot -- of the homes, excuse me, along
that northern boundary, up to that 1,500 square foot for a single level, 1,800 square foot
for a two story. In our design of that northern boundary, we tried to keep those lots as
large as possible. In looking at this drawing, which gives you a little bit more detail, as
you can see, these lots here are ranging from 10,900, 11,300, 9,500, to 15,200. I made
them deep. These are 122 feet deep and 129 and 133. As we get over to Jasmine
Acres, I was sensitive of the fact that that is a large parcel, in excess of five acres, so
we put this cul-de-sac in here, obviously, to flare out and increase the size of these lots
ranging from 10,800, all the way up to 19,700 square feet. Due to the fact that these
are larger lots up through here, these homes will, obviously, be larger, more expensive
and will be, I think, a better neighbor for Heritage and I don't think there is a need to limit
them to the single story along that north boundary. We, I guess, for the record, are
opposed to that. There is a drainage ditch that runs through here and dumps into this
live ditch that's coming in this direction. If that ditch adjoins or abuts, according to your
ordinance, then, we have to pipe it. It's my understanding that they use it -- the eight
acre parcel uses it for drainage, so when we pipe facilities, we have to, obviously,
coordinate to make sure that we aren't taking any excess water and providing some
outlet for that. We will work with that property owner. Mr. Blakeslee brought up some
points concerning the Comprehensive Plan. Anybody can go through your
Comprehensive Plan and pick and choose fragmented sentences, little bits and pieces,
and say it complies or it fails the test of your Comprehensive Plan. Your plan talks
about developing the City of Meridian in an orderly fashion when public facilities are
available. We have sewer and water facilities that are available to this property. We
have a collector roadway coming into the school site, the new school that is under
construction on our western boundary. We are contiguous with the city limits. We have
jumped through the hoops of Ada County Highway District and you have to take into
consideration that we have mixed use regional on our eastern boundary. To come in
with something rural residential -- rural and residential in nature would, obviously, be a
catastrophe when you're going to have intense use on your eastern boundary. We are
trying to minimize with the mixed uses and the pedestrian connections -- we are trying
to minimizes that traffic out on those arterials and keep as much of that traffic inside and
offering that outlet out to Locust Grove, we got approximately 1,100 trips that would go
westerly out to Locust Grove. We do have an outlet, not only do we outlet two streets to
Ustick, but to Locust Grove. Urban services are reasonably available to this property. I
don't think that statement is correct at all. When the P&Z reviewed this application, their
recommended approval and the discussion was should it tabled to force the developer
to have the neighborhood meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission determined that it
was not necessary for us to be tabled in order to have that meeting, but we did go on --
we made the statement that we would have the meeting prior to Council Meeting taking
place. Ustick -- in the analysis, Ustick has capacity. ACHD, that's what they have to
look at. They have to look at what is the available capacity. You have got level of
service A on your eastbound left turn, level of service C, level of service B, all those
levels of service they take into consideration in determining does capacity exist. A good
example of one jurisdiction determining whether capacity is there without taking into
consideration the jurisdiction, which has the expertise, was this Target store at Eagle
Road and Chinden. The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Boise
determined that capacity did not exist on Eagle Road or Highway 20-26. When ACHD
and ITD had reviewed the application, it had been approved just like this one, gone
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 27 of 45
through the commission and determined the capacity existed. It went to the City
Council of Boise City. They had all the residence there in Hobble Creek opposing it,
saying, you know, we can't get out onto Eagle, we can't get out onto Chinden. The
Boise City Council I think made a very profound statement. Capacity exists and we have
to rely on our brother agencies who have that expertise to determine whether a
development can be handled by our roadway network. Mr. Blakeslee's comment about
having us provide a specific amount of center turn lane, we will have the decel right-
hand turn lane and the center turn lane based on the requirements of Ada County
Highway District. If this Council dictates a certain length of that lane, that may not meet
their criteria. It may create a safety hazard. I have argued with Mr. Larry Sell before in
instances where we wanted to expand a particular arterial and he says when it -- when
it's two lane and it opens up and, then, it narrows back again, in certain circumstances
that is more dangerous than adding that extra lane. We have to be very careful that we
-- that you don't impose something that ACHD is going to say I'm not going to let you do
that. That is going to be problematic. They are the experts. They are the ones that we
have to rely upon. If that center turn lane is there, obviously, we would coordinate with
ACHD to make sure that we have some type of painting, you know, because they
typically have the little arrows that you can turn here, that it could be used going either
left or right, going to the south that is to Wingate Lane. Also, Wingate Lane, what are
there, seven people on it? It's not like you have got 3,000 cars coming out of Wingate
Lane. It's a private lane serving some rural -- rural lots down there. The other thing Mr.
Blakeslee brought up is if you impose that condition on us, there is no guarantee that
there will be any public funds available to participate. I have no guarantee. In fact,
ACHD at this point in time is a little pinched, so we are trying everything we can to,
obviously, minimize their expenses and try to incorporate in our projects as much as we
can as far as infrastructure and reducing those trips on the arterials and the
intersections. Mr. Nesmith asked about the buffering on his property. He is there on
our eastern boundary. He will have W.H. Moore's property right around him. The only
way that we can really address that is when that conditional use application comes in.
At that time he would be notified and he would have opportunity to comment publicly on
buffering and compatibility. Typically, your landscape ordinance requires that we have
at least 20, 25 feet of the some type of landscape buffer between a more intensive use
and a lesser use. That would, obviously, be addressed. All we are showing you here is
a concept. You have seen them before. They are just rough in nature. We are asking
for approval of the uses, but not site specific. They will have to come back for that. As
far as the ponds, your staff did include a condition of approval asking that we provide
information and plans as far as how we will circulate those ponds to make sure they are
not a mosquito breeding ground. Typically, we do that with fountains or waterfalls. We
have the little floating fountains. They work very well. They are very cost effective. The
issue of school capacity, we did go to the school district before we started laying this
out, got some input from them. They indicated to us the elementary is going to start
construction soon. It's on an eight-month fast track schedule. We understand that there
is an elementary crunch out in this north Meridian area. I met with Wendell Bigham on
Monday and their architect on the Bridgetower elementary site. Wendell indicates that
the school board is considering building the Bridgetower elementary prior to building a
new elementary in Eagle. I guess in the last bond issue one of the elementaries that
was funded with that bond issue was scheduled for the Eagle area. However, the
development in the Eagle area has not met Meridian School District's projections,
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 28 of 45
according to Wendell. Therefore, within the next 60 days the school board will
determine if that is going to be the next elementary that is built. His bet is that the
Bridgetower elementary will be built next and he said if I was a betting man -- that was
his very words -- I would bet that that would be the next school. We have accelerated
our plan to provide services to that school. He wants them there by May 2004. And
they would start construction with that school on line fall 2005. There are things in the
works to provide those elementaries for this north Meridian area. We have a really
good project here. You have seen a lot of projects in this area. You have to take into
consideration most of those projects are on ten and 12-year build-out plans. You guys
are only issuing around, what, 700 building permits -- single-family Building Permits per
year? That's kind of what you're averaging. Those are, obviously, going to have to be
shared through all these developments. You're not going to see this build out in five
years. It's just probably not going to happen. There are just too many lots and too
many projects to choose from. The market will be -- will be fierce, I expect, in the future
and I think that the public is going to expect more from these projects and this is a
project that I think will meet those desires, providing pathways and a park site and the
differing uses and also catering to the different economic socio -- or socio-economic
groups as far as the lot prices and home prices. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I have a question for Becky. In your conversations with the school district --
and I can't find their letter in here -- did they submit a letter and comments on this
subdivision?
McKay: Your staff always transmits to them. Typically, we see their standardized letter,
which indicates how many kids will be generated by the development, unless it's in a
particular area that they are needing a school site.
De Weerd: You haven't seen it?
McKay: I haven't seen it, unless Brad has one. It wasn't in my packet. Oh, Jim's got
one. I stand corrected. It just talks about the school district has experienced
phenomenal student growth in the last ten years. High schools, middle schools,
elementary schools through the district are operating over capacity. Approval of
Parkstone will have a significant impact on school enrollments at River Valley
Elementary, Lowell Scott Middle, Eagle High, and, then, they predict how many kids will
be generated. Eighty-eight elementary, 69 middle, and 47 senior high at build out. It's
basically their standard letter to inform the Council of what impact this will have and also
voicing that, you know, what their current condition is, based on the schools that are
operating today.
De Weerd: So, no recommendation of denial?
McKay: No, sir. Or, no, ma'am. Sorry.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 29 of 45
De Weerd: That's all right. I have been called worse.
Corrie: I haven't seen one yet from the school that --
De Weerd: I don't think you mentioned the request about putting a fence up on a berm
on the north boundary.
McKay: We did discuss that and one of the problems that I see -- potential problems is
we are going to have the piping -- we will be piping that ditch and, typically, we don't like
to berm over the top of them, we like to offset our fence a little bit in order so that that --
those fence posts aren't too close to that pipe. The amount -- the availability of dirt is
typically contingent on the design of the streets and the design of the sewer. In some
instances, some projects that I have in north Meridian were not generating as much dirt
as we typically do in order to build our berms, so we are seeing a real shortage of dirt.
That's because we are having to keep our sewer up high and our streets up high due to
groundwater and sewer depths. Sometimes it does place an undue burden on a
development to try to provide dirt for a berm. You do it for a certain portion and
everybody wants a berm and we don't have that much dirt, so I guess I would have to
answer the question that we are opposed to that.
De Weerd: And in your townhouses -- now, would they not be qualified as multi-family,
because of their shared walls? They are not?
McKay: They are detached -- or attached single family, I believe, is what --
De Weerd: And how are the rooflines on it?
McKay: Well, you would review that when it comes through as a site specific CU.
De Weerd: You have two or three in a row?
McKay: You would only have pods of two.
De Weerd: Two.
McKay: Two.
De Weerd: So, the roof lines from the across the street --
McKay: Would be very similar to a single family.
De Weerd: Yes.
McKay: Yes.
De Weerd: How many parking spaces do you have for the park?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 30 of 45
McKay: I believe we showed six and the parks plan recommends one -- or, excuse me,
three per acre. I think when I totaled that up, the park -- based on their proposed plan, it
required like 16 total and we can accommodate some out on the public street where we
have the single loaded local street along the east boundary and it states in the parks
plan that -- that parallel on-street parking can be included when calculating the parking
needs of the neighborhood park. It's stipulated in there. I can read the section for you,
if you'd like me to.
De Weerd: Well, just knowing the climate of finding open green space for PAL Soccer,
Optimists, Meridian Youth Baseball, they see an open space and parents come in their
cars and you don't have any parking on that one entrance in, your neighborhoods are
going to be full of parents' cars.
McKay: Mr. Mayor and Councilwoman de Weerd, Elroy brought that up at the Parks
Commission meeting, that they use these types of green spaces for their practices, so
we do need to provide more space than what we showed on our plan. Six would need
to be increased and at that time I think Elroy talked about possibly doubling it. I don't
know if they can go on --
De Weerd: If it's three per acre, you need to do more than double it, if you only had
three.
McKay: If you didn't count the parallel parking spaces. If you didn't include any parallel
spaces on the east.
De Weerd: Okay. And how many does that total?
McKay: Based on 360 feet, I think, depending on if you calculated 23 or 30 feet for the
parallel parking -- your ordinance says 23 feet, it could accommodate 12 to 15 and that
would be -- that would be starting at the buildable lot. That would be at this -- at this
location. From this point to this point is 360 feet of frontage on a local street, so that
parking, if you started here, would accommodate 12 to 15 cars, depending on whether
you stripped it for 23-foot length or 30 foot length. Your ordinance calls out 23.
De Weerd: I don't have anything further.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. McKay, just so I'm clear, in your example of using the Target store, is that
simply to say that -- I guess what your position is that we need to accept what ITD or
ACHD says in relation to how wide the streets are and what the capacity is?
McKay: Well, I think, Mr. Mayor and Councilman Nary, my point is that the Planning
and Zoning Commission -- in that instance the Boise City Planning and Zoning
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 31 of 45
Commission completely ignored any of the information from the traffic engineers,
ACHD, or ITD, which are the experts in, obviously, analyzing these turning movements
and intersection capacity and roadway network capacity. They totally considered it and
in their finding for denial, their finding stated capacity did not exist on Eagle or 20-26.
Therefore, they recommended denial. That's where the Council, on appeal, reviewed
that Conditional Use, I believe it was, and determined that the capacity did exist based
on the input -- written input from those experts and those expert agencies.
Nary: I guess what I -- one, I mean I have tried to turn left out there and it, really, isn't
that easy to turn left out of that Target parking lot, either on 20-26 or Eagle. I don't know
that they were necessarily right, but with Mr. Blakeslee, what I thought I heard him say
was that they weren't looking -- in making that determination about capacity, they
weren't necessarily looking at all the development, they were looking at this
development. Today there is capacity for this development on those roadways.
Because -- I guess what his point he was trying to make -- and I guess I just wanted to
hear your comment, is what I thought his point was -- is when you look at the big picture
of the -- all of the development in that area is going to be and I guess what I have seen
in Boise that compartmentalized perspective of capacity is why the mall is a very
congested area to drive in and Milwaukee and Fairview is a very congested intersection,
because every time ACHD was asked, they said this development will bring this much
and the roadway will meet it. When once it all gets developed, there isn't capacity any
longer, now, it's tapped or it's tapped for everything. Yes, maybe on the front of the
curve if this gets built it's going to have capacity, but as soon as all the rest of this stuff
connects and becomes all built out, there isn't any room and the hope is that we are
going to meet the roadways in time to make those capacities, but I guess that's what I
thought his point was and I guess I didn't hear what your thoughts were.
McKay: Well, Mr. -- or Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, I think -- I think your point, as far
as the mall area, is well taken. However, if you talk to ACHD, they will state the
problem originated with the way the projects were approved through Boise City as far as
the land use decisions, because they -- originally, there was a mix of multi-family office
and commercial, but it kept leaning more towards the strip type commercial and some of
those areas had very poor interconnectivity, which accentuated the problem and, you're
right, they did look at it on piecemeal. With this particular project, one, we use WGI.
WGI has done most of the traffic studies in this north Meridian area. They were also --
the company that ACHD contracted with to do their 12-mile north Meridian traffic study
and modeling. In Mr. Blakeslee's point, he is looking at everything ten years from now
at build out. I guess if you asked me if the roadway -- if all intersections remained the
same, there is no additional turn lanes, no signalization on the four-way stops that are
present now, none of these arterials are ever expanded beyond those two lanes. In ten
years are we going to have congestion? The answer is probably yes. We will have
congestion. You're also looking 10 years down the road. They also look at the build out
of these projects. This project has a shorter build out time than, obviously, the larger
ones, but this area isn't any different than what you see out at Cloverdale. I have lived
in -- I lived in that Cloverdale-Ustick-McMillan area for 15 years. That area was
completely built out at densities ranging from three to four dwelling units per acre in
Boise city. Most of those roadways in the 15 years I lived there were two lanes,
substandard arterials. They handled all the traffic. They came in, they added some turn
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 32 of 45
lanes, they added signalization, some of the roadways they came in and added some
center turn lanes, but they add that capacity to those arterials incrementally. We are not
going to see ACHD have the funding to go out and build five lanes on -- and three lanes
on all these arterials. That's not going to happen. I think, you know, we have been
trying to come up with different ideas on increasing the capacity. We do it project by
project and work -- like our work on the north Meridian plan, coming up with some ideas
on to lessen the impact on ACHD's budget. I mean I don't have all the answers, but
capacity does exist. This development is also on your eastern boundary and you have
to realize most of the traffic is going to be going in an eastern direction. People still --
the majority of the people when analyze the percentage of traffic and which direction it's
going, everything appears to be going -- or not everything, excuse me, a large
percentage appears to be going in a northeasterly direction from the Meridian area and
going to employment in Boise. As far as our impact on the network as you go west
further into the interior of the north Meridian, that impact is not going to be as much as
the interior of north Meridian would have coming through us. That's a long way to
answer your question. I'm sorry.
Corrie: Any other questions?
McKay: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Council, any other questions? Yes. Question? Did you get yours
answered? Is that what you want to say? I'm not going to have rebuts back and forth.
Clapp: Well, basically, there is enough excess dirt --
Corrie: Come up here.
Clapp: But there is excess dirt existing along that ditch that is higher than the level of
the subdivision, so there is enough dirt to make a berm. Also, to build a fence on top of
the pipe is not necessary if there is a 30-foot easement, so the fence would not be on
top of the ditch anyway with a 30-foot easement.
Corrie: Council, any other questions that you have in the Public Hearing? Okay. I hear
none, then, I will entertain a motion, then, if you so desire to close the Public Hearing on
all the -- on all at one time or take the prerogative to close them all at once.
Bird: All at once?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we close the Public Hearings on AZ 02-033, PP 02-033, and CUP
02-048, all on Parkstone Subdivision.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 33 of 45
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. We will take the request for annexation and zoning AZ 02-033 first.
Discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: If no discussion, I will entertain a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, you're going to get one. I would move that we approve the request for
annexation and zoning of 104.77 acres from RUT to R-8 PD zones for the proposed
Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development Corp., west of North Eagle Road and
north of East Ustick Road and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and decision and order and incorporate all staff comments.
Corrie: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been also made and seconded for the approval of the annexation
and zoning with all staff comments. Any further discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Again, I apologize for being late tonight. I had an engagement I could not get
away from, but this is real tough, because I guess I feel a little in the dark. There are
certainly some positive things. I have been reading the staff report on the annexation
and there are a lot of things that I think are very positive, but I guess -- I guess that's my
long-winded way of saying I think I'm going to abstain. I didn't hear enough of this to
feel comfortable in moving forward. I think there is some positive things here that I see,
but I also see significant concern in the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as
the views that I did hear that I guess I don't feel comfortable just approving it, but I'm
just -- like I said, a long way form saying that I abstain. I don't feel I have enough before
me.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think there are a number of issues here and, you know, I don't know if we
penalize this developer because of the flaws in the analysis that ACHD has in
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 34 of 45
determining the level of service based on current day activities and not always including
the whole picture and I know we had conversations with our own staff in trying to
provide a larger picture and -- because they all have basis on each other. I do say there
is hope in the north Meridian area, probably more so than any of our other areas,
because we have been undergoing some more in depth type of planning and analysis.
We are working with ACHD on trying to figure out how to get the roads along with the
development and all of these developments have the condition that whatever solution is
come up with they participate in. Unfortunately, we don't know what that solution is.
However, they have been told that until a solution is found, those conditions will be
hanging over their heads and we need to come to the table. This application, in my
opinion, should have the same condition in it, although it wasn't designated in the ten
square miles, it certainly is going to feed into it, have impact on it, and maybe our
attorney needs to tell me if that can apply or not. I don't know if you want to do it now or
after I'm done. I do believe that moving forward, having had a subdivision built in my
backyard, property lines and easements do need to be determined before the plat
comes in. Somehow, those pins have this moving factor to them and it's always good to
know where you're going before the house gets built back there and so I don't like to
hear that that's going to come in as that phase comes in, it needs to come in as the
development first turns the first shovel of dirt and that's not only for the development, it's
for every neighbor that's affected and since that easement is not shown, it really needs
to be determined on the front side of it, not the back side. I know our staff gets to be
mediator to a lot of these and I think they got my phone call at the time, too. I would like
to see that as an additional condition if this application is moved forward today. In terms
of how we can affect roads and school planning, we, not being the authority and the
final say on it, we are caught between a rock and a hard spot. Without those decision-
making entities saying, no, we cannot accommodate these, it's hard to deny an
application based on we don't think they can, because they are not telling us they can't.
I know that the school district has more extensive planning in the north Meridian area,
because of the planning that we are doing has been kind of forced upon us. The next
question would be how they are funding it and, unfortunately, the forum has not been
presented to us and without them saying on those form letters that they cannot educate
those kids and they cannot recommend it, it's hard for us to put those words in their
mouth. I'm not trying to pass the buck. This has been a sticking point of mine for a long
time. This is the type of planning and urban density the city looks for. It will capture
some trips, because it has a commercial aspect and based on what's going to be built to
the east of it, it definitely will compliment having residential next to employment areas.
At this point I don't feel comfortable doing -- I know we have a motion on the floor and I
seconded it, so we could have some discussion, but I don't know if I feel comfortable
making a decision tonight. I will say that I don't think we can give Councilman Nary
such an easy out. He certainly can read the minutes and be a participant in this
process as well. I guess I will stop there, since I really don't know what I'd like to do.
It's a good development. I think the neighborhood meetings always should be
beforehand and not in the middle of the process and that's one thing our ordinance
change is meant to allow. This one did come somewhere in the process.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. I will ask the -- Mr. Nichols to answer that one question that
she had.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 35 of 45
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, the standard condition that's usually inserted into what's commonly
referred to the North Meridian Area, which is just west of this, could be adapted and
included as a condition in the annexation approval to say that the developer would,
essentially, accept or work with ACHD on the same basis as the north Meridian
planning area developments for the same sorts of transportation infrastructure
improvements. I think we could -- in other words, it wouldn't be exactly the same, since
it doesn't fall inside those 12 square miles, but it would be adapted to make it very
similar, so that they would go along with it and it, really, benefits the developers, as well
as the citizens to try to find a way to get the roads sooner, rather than later. That's what
that does.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any other discussion?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I have a lot of mixed feelings about this, but I have a great deal of
empathy for those people who have children going to school out there and who are
trying to drive on those roads. It's -- Eagle is horrendous at its best during rush hour
and even when it's not rush hour. Ustick is -- I don't know how you ever get out on it,
like you say, in the morning. I had occasion to be over at River Valley School a couple
of weeks ago to talk to some of the teachers and they are very concerned about the
overcrowding in there and the kids are being short-changed by us approving so many
subdivisions around the schools and expecting the schools to make them up. I also
have a problem with the park in the subdivision with the parallel parking on a public
street. That's pretty dangerous for the kids that are going to be dashing back and forth
across that street to get into the park. I think if they are going to have parking, it should
be a parking lot and not parallel parking on the street. I think the density is probably too
great for the area. I probably will be voting against it for those reasons.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd like to make one thing clear that I have said a hundred times before. In
Meridian School District, as I recall, and I don't know the exact figures right now, but I
believe five or six years ago the City of Meridian had 26 percent of the students, but we
are causing all of the overcrowding. I think people need to talk to Boise, Eagle, Star,
Kuna, because some of Kuna comes there and their impact area comes down into us.
Ada County themselves are causing the school overcrowding as much as Meridian. We
have 26 percent of the students within our city limits, but we are causing the
overcrowding. That's what I want to say on it. I agree I don't like overcrowding schools.
This isn't the intent. The roads -- if you ever figure out how to get the infrastructure in
before the development and you guys -- somebody's got a good job. Could make lots of
money. We sure don't. That's all I have.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 36 of 45
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I know there is a motion on the floor and probably we either need to vote on
it or withdraw it and continue this. I think there are a number of considerations that --
you know, I, too, have -- I have kids in the Meridian School District. I have worked with
several different PTA presidents at River Valley to address a couple of different growth-
related issues, so I'm well aware of some of their concerns and have been reassured
that a lot of those will be addressed with the opening of the new school. That doesn't
solve some of the issues, but in terms of Eagle Road, having been sitting on it as well in
rush hour, this development -- you're almost going to have to stop every single
development in Meridian, Eagle, west Boise, Star and everyone else to have any impact
on Eagle Road. We have the five, four, three-city crossing going -- starting the planning
process. We have the Locust Grove overpass and we have the Ten Mile interchange
that is all under probably a 10-year plan. We are hoping it's under the 10-year plan.
Those will help relieve Eagle, but I don't know what the solution is and, unfortunately,
the agencies we look to -- I don't think they know what the solution is yet either. ITD
plays a very large role in terms of Eagle Road and, legally, I don't know if you can call a
moratorium on growth until those roads are built. I know you can't. I'm just as
interested in knowing what the solutions to some of these issues are that you are. I feel
that the City of Meridian has taken a real positive step forward by making all of these
planning entities step up to the plate and say where are schools going to be, how are
you paying for them, where -- how are our roads going to be improved and trying to fit
those all within conditions that we are setting in these findings and looking to everyone
sitting at the table to find solutions for them, because we are not the only ones dealing
with these problems, they are valley wide, and I see growth slowing. We have been
saying that for three years, it has slowed some, but they continue to build subdivisions,
so -- and they continue to grow the houses. I don't know, I -- as far as the school
district, I would like to hear a little bit more from them and I cannot vote on this today.
It's too big.
Bird: Are you going to withdraw your second?
Corrie: You can either do that or we can have a substitute motion to continue the
discussion without the Public Hearing, but you can't do that, really, because -- unless
you want to have more testimony.
Bird: We shouldn't have closed the Public Hearings if we wanted to continue the thing
on. Let's either vote on it or yank it off. Let's table it. That's our favorite thing.
De Weerd: Well, Keith, I don't think you want to rush a motion either so, you can be
frustrated and you push it if you want.
Bird: Let's just have a vote on it. While we have got a motion on the deal, let's have a
vote on that. That's the way the rules go. We got a motion, we have got a second, now
let's have the question and if we vote it down, that's --
De Weerd: I withdraw my second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 37 of 45
Corrie: Sorry. I will call the question.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, naye; Nary, abstain; de Weerd, naye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. There is one aye and two nayes and an abstention, so the request for
annexation and zoning has been denied. Do I hear a --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the fact that that particular motion failed
does not mean that you cannot continue the discussion to a later meeting, if the Council
so chooses to do. If it is your intent to deny the application on its merits, then, I'd ask for
another motion to deny with specific reasons to be included in the Findings.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we reopen the Public Hearings to get further information from
the school district as Councilwoman de Weerd requested about schools and capacity in
this area and I don't -- the only other thing that I don't know whether that was done at
the beginning of this hearing, but we did have some discussion a few weeks ago about
other developments that have already been approved in this area. Was that presented
as part of this tonight?
Corrie: I don't think so.
Nary: On the other developments that were done, that have already been approved
that are in the planning stages or the approval stages in this particular area. Then I
guess I would move to reopen the Public Hearings, so that we can get further
information on the other developments in the area, as well as further information from
the school district about schools and capacity and this particular area that is going to be
impacted by Parkstone Subdivision.
Bird: Is this all three of them?
Nary: For all three – yes. That we reopen the Public Hearings on all three matters to
get that information.
De Weerd: Second. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion. Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 38 of 45
De Weerd: Can we also add in response to Councilwoman McCandless's concern,
which is very valid, on the park and the diagonal parking, if the Parks Department can
take a look at that parking situation and report back on that as well.
Nary: I would concur to include that for further information.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, just one more thing. If the applicant can do this in the
meantime, come back and let us know about any easement on the north boundary that
would be helpful as well.
Bird: When are we continuing it to? Next week?
Corrie: A week or two weeks?
Nary: A couple weeks?
Bird: What day?
Nary: Well, all we are doing is opening the Public Hearings.
Bird: Okay. Yes. That's -- sorry.
Corrie: Okay. All those in favor of the motion to open the Public Hearings on the three -
- 10, 11, and 12 items, signify by saying aye. Opposed no? Okay. We have opened the
Public Hearing again on the 10, 11, and 12 items.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I'd move that we continue this matter to our -- I don't know how busy
our -- whether one week or two weeks is necessary. I don't know what the schedule is
stst
like next week or two weeks. Would two weeks be better? To April 1? Is April 1 pretty
ststth
full? Would April 1 -- April 1 or April 8. I guess I don't know what the -- I don't know
what's on the agenda now to know whether or not --
th
Corrie: I think the 8 is full.
st
Nary: Okay. April 1 should be fine. Okay. Then, I would move that we continue Items
-- was it 9, 10, and 11 or 10, 11 and 12?
Corrie: Ten, 11, and 12.
Nary: Ten, 11 and 12 on Parkstone Subdivision, the annexation request, the
Preliminary Plat, and the Condition Use Permit, I would move to continue the hearings
to our April 1, 2003, meeting.
De Weerd: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 39 of 45
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye. Opposed no? Okay. Item Number 10, the request for annexation of
Parkstone Subdivision, and Number 11, the Preliminary Plat for Parkstone. Also the
Conditional Use Permit for Parkstone Subdivision will be continued until April 1, 2003,
and with the request that the developer and the staff get the requested information.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 02-034
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7
Devon
building lots on 14.31 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for proposed
Park Subdivision
by Tamura and Associates – 824 East Fairview
Avenue:
Corrie: Okay. With that, Item Number 13 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for
Preliminary Plat approval of seven building lots on 14.31 acres in a C-G and R-40 zones
for proposed Devon Park Subdivision by Tamura and Associates, 824 East Fairview
Avenue.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We have a letter asking deferral of this preliminary subdivision plat to March 28,
2003. We have a letter that formally requests deferral of Devon Park Preliminary
Subdivision Plat to March 28, 2003.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I believe that there is -- it has something to do with the bollards
th
issue and maybe with ACHD and so -- because the 28 is a Friday.
thst
Corrie: It should be the 25 or the 1 of April.
Bird: Yes. You're right.
stth
Corrie: So, I will entertain a motion to -- whether it be the 1 of April or the 25 of March
thstth
-- they said the 28, I would assume it would be the 1 of April, maybe the 8. Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Mr. Mayor. The goal here was to combine Devon Park with
Fairview Lakes on the same night. There is a Miscellaneous Application for the bollards
and there is a Preliminary Plat application for the commercial portion. The Fairview
th
Lakes, I believe, Mr. Berg, is the 25.
th
Corrie: 25?
Bird: Is that what you want to take this one to, Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 40 of 45
Corrie: That's fine. Yes. We can stay all night.
Bird: Have you opened the Public Hearing?
Corrie: Yes, I have. I don't think there is anybody out there, but is there anybody from
the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Bird,
you can --
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I'd move that we continue the Public Hearing on PP 02-034 for Devon
Park Subdivision to March 25, 2003.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Devon
Park Subdivision, Item Number 13 on the agenda until March 25, 2003. Any other
discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: At this time we have the water, sewer, and trash delinquencies. This is to
inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a predetermined
hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, March 18, 2003, before the Mayor and City Council to
appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city
that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This
service will be discontinued on March 19, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Is
there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash
delinquency? Hearing none, you are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the
decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho
State Code. Even though you do appeal, your water will be shut off. The amount of the
turn off list is $25,576.61. Council, I will entertain a motion on the turn off schedule for
th
March 19.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we approve the turn off schedule on delinquent water and sewer, the
service to be discontinued on March 19, 2003, if not paid in full, for the amount of
$25,576.61.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the emergency turn-off
schedule for March 19, 2003. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor
say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 41 of 45
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. El Tenampa Beer and Wine License.
Corrie: I believe the next item is the city clerk has a question on the licensing -- beer
and liquor license on the El Tenampa Restaurant so, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Thank you for letting me
address you on this issue. There has been some confusion with the applicant about
getting a transferred license for moving their restaurant. After a little resistance, but
some follow up with the state and the county, that they also issue a license when you
transfer to a different location. This restaurant is moving in -- moving in I guess this
week and trying to open up business and they did not get their application into us until
th
this last Friday, which we told them at that time they had to be on the 25 City Council
agenda. With probably a little bit of dismay, somebody went back and somebody else
came and visited us and thought they could get their license today, but, unfortunately,
we don't exactly operate like maybe the state or the county does and just be able to turn
around those licenses. The Mayor was kind enough to put this on the agenda just for a
discussion if you'd like to approve a -- the license with the conditions as far as the Police
and the Planning and Zoning reviewing the application. That's our primary concern is
making sure it fits the zoning requirements and the police do not have any problems
th
with the license. We could do that or we could listen to it on the 25. If you have any
other questions, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. I wasn't directly
involved with the whole ordeal, but it falls on our laps. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Any discussion? Doesn't sound like there is going to be
too much discussion on this one, so if you want the Mayor to go ahead and sign --
follow the procedure for signing so they can retain their licenses. We could direct the
Mayor to sign the two licenses, along with continuing the investigation at this point. I
don't think there is going to be any problem but --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Paisanos did have a license for beer and wine and liquor with a Variance
because of the church, so -- Mr. Nary. I'm sorry.
Nary: If there is -- if there is a problem, I guess Mr. Berg there is a revocation
procedure if necessary for granting of a temporary license? Is this a temporary license?
Maybe let me back up. Are you asking that we approve the granting of a temporary
license until we can verify they are qualified or whether or not a Variance is necessary
or are you asking us to approve a license and, then, we have to revoke it if it doesn't
meet the criteria?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, I think you could do both. You can approve a
license transfer with the conditions that P&Z and Police approve that, which would cut,
you know, a day, maybe issuing the license tomorrow sometime after we get their
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 42 of 45
verbal okay. I don't know if our ordinance has an issuance of a temporary license, but
we have put some approvals on conditions such as those.
Nary: I guess my only concern would be is that because of the proximity to the church.
We had this very issue come up on the other bar that wanted to be put in near -- Next to
Harry's, my concern would be -- is simply assuming that all the conditions that were
necessary to show a Variance that allowed it when Paisanos is there still exits. I don't
know that that's the case. I assume it probably is, but I don't know that. I guess I would
hesitate in simply just making that assumption and finding in granting a transfer that
didn't have any means for us to revoke it and not follow the rest of the process to verify
that all those conditions exist to allow it. There is no objection from the church and no
objection from the neighbors or something, something to that effect. I don't care
whether it's a temporary license or it's a license that's subject to revocation upon our
further investigation doesn't make a difference to me, but if you're saying there is no
temporary license in the City Code, I guess we would have to be authorizing the
transfer. We would continue the investigation and still have to have a finding later that a
Variance was appropriate would that be right?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that sounds like a legal question. I do want
to make one point, though. They do right now have a license within the distance to the
church that you're referring to with the other application, since they are in the basement
of the Heritage Building. Yes, they are moving a little bit closer to the church property,
but probably not that much of a distance closer if you look at across the street, across in
front of Sunrise versus kitty-corner across the street to the old Paisanos Restaurant.
Nary: Correct but the current position doesn't have a house next to it and the other one
does. There may be -- I don't know that there is, but just in my opinion --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Are they transferring theirs or when they bought the building did they buy the
Paisanos license, so that the Paisanos license is still effective for that location?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as I understand that what they are
applying for is a change in the place of use of their existing license. Paisanos owner
still has the license, which is a salable commodity, which I presume they will try to pedal
to somebody that wants one and so I think there is a couple issues. One is it's not really
a transfer of a license to a new applicant that has no record with the dispensary or
anybody else and, secondly, it's just a change in the place of use to a place that already
has that existing use. I think, at least from my perspective, it would be okay to authorize
the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest, subject to receiving, you know,
recommendations from the police and Planning and Zoning Department and it would, of
course, be subject to whatever revocation procedures that we have available to us if
there was something wrong with this particular one.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 43 of 45
Corrie: It would be only a beer and wine license. They also have a liquor license, but
somebody else owns it. Paisanos.
Bird: Paisanos has a liquor license. They have a liquor license and a beer and wine.
Corrie: I know they have one, but they don't own the liquor license.
Bird: Probably somebody else owns it, but --
Corrie: Yes. It is.
Bird: -- that's the commodity is the liquor license. A beer and wine license are a dime a
dozen. If you need a motion for that, like Mr. Nichols said, I will make a motion that we
allow the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest regarding the transfer of the El
Tenampa's beer and wine. Do they have liquor, too? Just beer and wine license until
the police and Planning and Zoning can do the proper workup.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Okay.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just one last thing you had brought up last week about the Meridian Ford
and the other dealers that would like to have a car show. I think it was Council's opinion
that we should look at changing our ordinance to simplify the process. Can we instruct
the attorney to move forward with that? You know, I don't know what the process is, but
I don't think we stated any next step last week, so I don't think it was real clear on who
is going to do it and how it's going to move forward.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, of course, we will do whatever you direct
us to do. I think the issue is not so much amending the conditional use ordinance, as
perhaps providing an ordinance for temporary sales events. The issue is allowing, for
example, car dealers to pool their resources and to rent a space like Intermountain
Outdoor Sports and have a used car sale. Nampa allows them. I know I have seen
them do that at the K-Mart parking lot. I have seen them -- of course, they do them
down at the fair grounds. I think they have even done them maybe at Boise State's
parking lot. It's seems like they have done that there. They do it at different places. I
think we look to find an ordinance which would fit Meridian for the temporary event
where a license could be obtained for like a three-day weekend event, something like
that, without having to have a Conditional Use Permit go through the whole process for
a three-day deal. I mean we can certainly look at it and work with staff to see if, you
know, what issues that presents in terms of police and fire and those sorts of things.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 44 of 45
Corrie: What are we looking at as a time frame? Does that go to Planning and Zoning
and --
Nichols: If it is an amendment to the zoning it would have to go in front of the P&Z
Commission.
Corrie: Okay. So it's -- we can do it now and it may take us a month and a half to two
months, so they will just have to bear with us. Who is going to take the lead here? The
park -- I mean the P&Z, attorney help them write it, so you get that ordinance for that?
Brad, guess what?
Hawkins-Clark: Guess what, more work? This was news to me. I'm sorry I didn't
realize this was floating out there. We will just bump something off the list. I mean
that's what's going to happen.
Corrie: I apologize, but, Brad, I will see that you get a copy of that in the morning.
De Weerd: He can have mine.
Bird: He can have mine.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Two little things. I just -- I got a note it looks like in my box and this is from
accounting to approve some business cards that actually were mine, so I don't want to
approve them. I'm going to give them to Mr. Bird, because he's the accounting liaison
and he can take a look at that. And part of the reason I don't want to approve it is I have
a copy of the disk of the audit from the City of Boise. I'm going to give this to Mr. Berg,
so that he can copy the disk for everybody to have. It has 16 different
recommendations on it -- 18 different recommendations on here that are things that in
the future we are probably going to want to talk about, some other information, but
approving your own stuff is one of them, so that's why I'm not going to sign this one.
Anyway, you can copy that for everybody. That's a free document, it's available to the
public, so it's not something that anybody else couldn't have, but I had an extra disk, so
we can copy that, so --
Bird: Thank you, Bill.
De Weerd: I'd move we adjourn.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 18, 2003
Pg 45 of 45
Corrie: Okay.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK