HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 12-16
Meridian City Council Meeting December 16, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on
Tuesday, December 16, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Kenny
Bowers, Bill Musser, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary
__X__ Cherie McCandless X__ Keith Bird
__O__ Robert Corrie
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the City Council Regular Meeting to order.
th
It's December 16, at five after 7:00. Welcome, everyone, to the meeting tonight. We
will start with roll call.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item Number 2 adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the published agenda.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published.
All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. December 2, 2003
Approve minutes ofCity Council Regular
Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-051
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop with
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 2 of 66
Starbucks
auxiliary drive-thru in a C-G zone for by Wenco, Inc. –
northeast corner of South Meridian Road and East Corporate Drive:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-052
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct three
Wendy’sStarbucks / Kinkos
buildings for / with auxiliary drive
thrus and a 6,500 square foot retail pad in a I-L zone by Wenco,
Inc. – northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Florence
Street:
D. Memorandum of Understanding with Ada County Highway
District for Routine Maintenance Activities in the Public Right
of Way:
E. Conceptual Development / Design for Expansion of Well 20-B
Contract with CH2MHILL for $4,700.00:
F. DAFT Change Order #4 with The Ewing Company for
$2,756.99:
G. Design of the Eagle Road Waterline Contract with JUB for
$37,300.00:
H. WWTP Headworks Modifications and Trunk Sewer Design and
Construction Services Contract with JUB for $39,763.00:
De Weerd: Item Number 3, the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda and for the president to sign
and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers and contracts.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and ask the
President of the Council to sign and Clerk attest to all appropriate papers. Any further
discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 3 of 66
A. Fire Department – Kenny Bowers
1. Award Bid for New Fire Engine:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 4, Department Reports. We will start out with Item
A the Fire Department award the bid for the new fire engine. Kenny. Or Chief. I'm
sorry.
Bowers: Thank you. Madam President, City Council Members this year we put the bid
out for a new fire engine to go out in Station 3 at Locust Grove. Four companies came
and picked up specs. We only received two back at this time. This truck will be a little
different. It's supposed to be a little shorter than our others. We are getting so long on
our other trucks that we are going to try a little shorter truck to get around. The
subdivisions that are going with smaller lots -- or smaller roads and cul-de-sacs. Also,
this truck will -- went up three to five percent, of course, each year it does, and also we
got in the middle of -- the diesel engines now have to have emissions on them, to pass
an emission test, so we got involved with this. The engine -- the diesel engine will be
about 8,000 dollars more this time than what it has been in the past. I will turn this over
to Deputy Chief Johnson. He's got all the facts and figures for you and you can ask him
any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Chief.
Johnson: Madam President, Members of the Council, thank you for this opportunity.
The two bids we received were from Northwest Fire Equipment that was building a
Seagrave fire apparatus and, then, Hughes Fire Equipment, building a Pierce fire
apparatus. The bids came in -- the Seagrave bid came in at 345,862 and the Pierce
came in at 339,800. As we went through the bid spec -- I have looked at some
alternatives to changing the price a little bit. The first thing we decided to do is we had
put in a bid for two tone paint, a white top on the fire apparatus. By deleting that, that
will give us a 500-dollar credit. Then, on the worksheet that I gave you, I believe, the
first page's bid shows paying for the chassis after completion would give us a credit of
5,472 dollars reduction in the price. And, then, the last thing we had was an option in
there for inspection trips for the personnel, we would like to add that back in, so we get
back there with sufficient number of people to evaluate the rig. Then, the final cost of
the apparatus will be 338,808 dollars, if you folks accept this as we have modified it.
De Weerd: Okay and, Chief, that's within the budget?
Johnson: Yes, it is. We had 380,000 dollars budgeted for the fire apparatus and
equipment to go with it.
De Weerd: Okay. That gives you enough room for the equipment to go on it.
Johnson: Yes, it does.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 4 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Thank you very much.
Johnson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we enter into the contract with Hughes for the Pierce fire truck
for a total of 338,808 dollars and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to go into the contract with Hughes
Fire for the Pierce and I'll ask Mr. Clerk to call roll.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
B. Public Works Department – Gary Smith
1. United Water Idaho IMAP Protest Settlement:
De Weerd: Okay. 4B, Public Works Department. Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Madam President. You have in your packet a settlement agreement
that has been drafted between the City of Meridian, the city of Caldwell, and United
Water, concerning a protest that we submitted to IDWR in June -- or in April of 2002 on
their submittal of an IMAP application to Department of Water Resources. My memo to
you outlines the process that took place, what it was about, and it did take a significant
amount of work and effort on both parties to come to this settlement agreement. It's
been submitted to City Attorney Nichols, he's reviewed it, and he has approved of it.
Unless you have some questions, I would request the approval of the Council of this
settlement agreement.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Gary. Are there any questions from Council? Okay. I
would entertain a motion.
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 5 of 66
McCandless: I move that we agree to this settlement as presented, for the Council
President to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Mutual Cooperation
th
Agreement, dated November 24 between the City of Meridian, the city of Caldwell, and
United Water and authorize the Council President to sign and Clerk to attest. Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Item 6. Ordinance No. : RZ 03-010
Request for
Woodside
a Rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed
Creek
by Woodside Properties, LLC – 1115 North Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. Okay. Item 6 is Ordinance Number 03-1061, RZ 03-010,
request for a rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Woodside Creek by
Woodside Properties, LLC, and we will ask the city clerk to read this by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
1061, an ordinance finding that the owner Jeffrey A. Wood and Christina M. Wood for
certain real property have made a written request for a rezone of the zoning
classification for real property located at 1115 North Ten Mil Road, Meridian, Idaho, and
lies -- and that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from R-4, Low Density
Residential District Zoning District to R-8, Medium Density Residential District, as
defined under Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2D, and repealing all ordinances,
resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer
to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard Ordinance Number 03-1061 by title only. Is there
anyone in the audience who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I
would entertain a motion.
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move we approve Ordinance Number 03-1061, request for a rezone of
4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside
Properties, LLC, with suspension of rules.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 6 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1061 with
suspension of rules. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. FP 03-065
Request forFinal Plat approval for 66 single-family residential
building lots and 11 common lots on 18.71 acres in a R-8 zone for
Tuscany Village Subdivision No. 1
by Tuscany Development, Inc. –
south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 7 is FP 03-065, request for final plat for 66 single family
residential building lots and 11 common lots on 18.71 acres in an R-8 zone for Tuscany
Village Subdivision No. 1 and, staff, do you have comments?
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this was recently before you. It is
just east of Tuscany Lakes. This is the approved Preliminary Plat. This is the proposed
first phase of the Final Plat and it is in substantial compliance with the approved
Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit for a planned development was
processed concurrently that approved reduced front setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced
lot frontage, and block lengths that exceed 1,000 feet. With all those things, it is in
compliance with the code and we are recommending approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Is the applicant here? Anna, did you hear
from the applicant? Did he have any concern with staff comments?
Powell: No. He was here a moment ago. I had not heard that he had any concerns.
De Weerd: Was it Matt Schultz?
Powell: It's Kent Brown. Wendy is going to go get him.
Bird: He's outside.
De Weerd: Do you have any comments? The applicant has no comments. He must
agree with all staff conditions. Okay. Is there anything further, Council? Okay. Would
you like to take action?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Final Plat on FP 03-065, approval for 66 single family
residential building lots and 11 common lots on 18.71 acres in an R-8 zone for Tuscany
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 7 of 66
Village Subdivision No. 1 by Tuscany Development, Incorporated, south of East Victory
Road and west of South Locust Grove Road and for the attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to incorporate
staff comments.
Nary: Second.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded twice to approve PF 03-065, request
for final plat approval for Tuscany Village Subdivision No. 1. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Tabled from December 9, 2003: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: AZ 03-015
Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8
Sageland Planned
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Development
by Quasar Development, LLC – northeast corner of South
Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
Item 9. Tabled from December 9, 2003: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: PP 03-020
Request for revised Preliminary Plat
approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed
Sageland Planned Development
R-8 zone for proposed by Quasar
Development, LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and
East Victory Road:
Item 10. Tabled from December 9, 2003: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: CUP 03-036
Request for Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone
Sageland Planned Development
for proposed by Quasar Development –
northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
th
De Weerd: Thanks. Okay. Items 8, 9 and 10 have been tabled from December 9 and
it's regarding the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval for AZ 03-015,
PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036 and, Anna, I see that we did get a drawing for the
changes.
Powell: Yes, Madam President, we have -- we probably do still need discuss it. I don't
think the applicant's happy with the design and staff has some suggested modifications,
too. I will proceed.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 8 of 66
Powell: Okay. Sorry. Just to refresh your memory, this was the location that we were
talking about. The motion by Council Member Bird was for a 10-foot landscape island to
serve as a traffic calming device, so we were able to meet with them yesterday. They
did provide us this design and this was -- quite truthfully, I had given them some ideas
and this was based on that, although I think it's not quite how I envisioned it. They are -
- were constrained by -- they don't want to move this line at all, because of the impact it
has on these two lots and because they are corner lots, they feel they can't reduce them
at all. They took all of the area out of this one this. This knob right here is to kind of stop
the parking aisle. I guess my initial thoughts were that if we did go with this, that this
should be removed, because all it's doing is forcing people out here and it makes this
confusing. If we are going to keep this, to extend this landscape island out here, so that
you don't just have 50 feet of asphalt from here to here. Now, I think a problem that the
applicant has is that they need a shared driveway for these two lots right here, which,
obviously, won't work. I think if we took this out, this one might work here. I think they
need to talk to you about their proposal. That's the end of staff comments.
De Weerd: Okay. Thanks, Anna. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is the
applicant here? Please, state your name and address.
Forrey: Thank you. My name is Wayne Forrey. 1952 South Wild Creek Way in Boise.
83709.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Forrey: Thank you, Madam President, and Members of the Council. I have a handout
that I'd like to give to the Council, which will give you just a little concise background of
this and also show you some -- I think a solution to this issue. May I hand it out?
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Forrey: Thank you.
De Weerd: Did you get a copy for the clerk?
th
Forrey: Okay. Let me walk through this quickly. On October 28 of this year, the City
Council approved the preliminary plat of Sageland, with the condition of traffic calming.
th
On November 6 we submitted an initial engineering drawing to the city which had,
actually, two landscape islands in it and we received some feedback that we needed to
th
rethink that design. We met on November 12 with city staff to get some feedback and
the direction was make sure that you coordinate with the fire department and ACHD, as
well as the planning staff, in coming up with some additional alternatives. On November
th
14 two additional design alternatives were presented to the city, the fire department,
and ACHD and some feedback came that, boy, we needed to widen the street, it was
th
just getting too narrow. On November 24 an additional design number four was
th
prepared and submitted to the agencies and, then, on December 5 we met with ACHD,
specifically about traffic calming designs, the radiuses, the theory, and the function of
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 9 of 66
th
something that they could approve. On December 8 a fifth alternative was prepared
and submitted to all of the -- the city, the fire department, and ACHD. Then, on
th
December 9 a letter was prepared and submitted by ACHD to the developer and the
city and that letter is the second page of this handout and in that letter ACHD -- they
liked this design Number 5, Option 5, and they indicated that it would function
th
adequately. Then, on December 15 we met with city planning staff again, also with the
fire department and ACHD, and we developed a sixth alternative and that's the
alternative that Anna Powell put on the screen. Now, Option 5 and 6 are the two -- the
last two sheets in the handout. Both of those alternatives -- they are totally different in
the approach to traffic calming, but both of them meet your Fire Department standards
and they both meet ACHD standards. Option 6, if you look at that one and if it's
possible to put that on the screen that's the initial -- that's the drawing that was
submitted to the city --
McCandless: We only have option five.
Forrey: There should be two options.
McCandless: There is not in this one.
Forrey: An Option 5 and an Option 6.
McCandless: Oh. I have it. I'm sorry.
Forrey: Okay. If you look at option six -- here it is right here. This traffic calming device
meets all standards and it places an island in the center, a 10-foot island, and that was
the direction that came about in the motion back in October. And ACHD and the fire
department both have criteria that on each side of the island there has to be at least 20
feet of asphalt and you have got a 10-foot island. You end up with 50 feet of asphalt
right in the center of a neighborhood and the theory behind traffic calming, the planning
theory behind it, is that you provide a constriction and that gets people to feel like the
road narrows and slows down. In this case, even though this meets all the criteria, we
now have this -- almost the size of a parking lot in the very center of a neighborhood. In
my opinion, we don't have a neighborhood scale traffic calming here, we just have a
mass of asphalt, but we do have an island. Option five, if you will look at that. Put that
back on the screen again. This is the one -- the design that ACHD said met their criteria,
it meets Fire Department criteria, and it takes the traffic calming from a different
perspective. That is that you provide a narrowing, you have side islands or chokers that
provide that constriction point and they are landscaped and so you have the feeling that
the road narrows and it -- the theory is that it causes the driver to slow down. We have
two options, both meet the requirements, but on has an island in the center and the
other has bulb outs on the sides. The option that has the island in the center, as Anna
Powell mentioned, really makes access in and out of those residential lots problematic.
This alternative right here Number 6. Option 5 is much easier access and so both
achieve traffic calming. Here we are tonight asking the Council to rethink what type of
traffic calming you would like to see in this neighborhood. The one is, I think,
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 10 of 66
neighborhood scale and the one is just so much asphalt, I think neighbors living there
would say, gee, why was this done. Everyone would kind of question that and the
thinking behind that. Although, both will calm traffic, both will do it, I think one provides a
more neighborhood friendly feel and better access to the lots. As a planner I always
think about the community at large and I really think Option 5 is better in neighborhood
scale traffic calming. Both work. Option 6 has the island, which is what the Council
asked us to look at, and we have struggled with this with all these meetings and six
different design options to try and make this work. Here we are tonight maybe, you
know, having to get a judgment from the City Council, but we hope you would take a
look at this and decide, hopefully, on Option 5. Be happy to answer any questions.
De Weerd: Did you propose this in our earlier discussions?
Forrey: Yes, we did.
De Weerd: And what was the comments at that time?
Forrey: The Council didn't look at it. It was in your -- it's been in your packets for two
weeks.
De Weerd: I must be thinking of a different application.
Forrey: No.
De Weerd: Because I remember comments on this particular style.
th
Forrey: Since December 9.
Powell: Yes. I did comment on it, that it didn't meet the motion that was made by
Council Member Bird, that it was not a ten foot island, and I also commented at that
time. I have checked with ACHD, too, and, really, we feel, as staff, that it serves
absolutely no traffic calming purpose. It is a small narrowing of it, but it really does not
force the driver out of the direction of travel in such a manner that it would have any
traffic calming affect.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: What's the difference between this roadway configuration and the other
application we had on Meridian Road that was that long skinny one. We made them go
back and we made them put an island in it and it -- and I don't think that's a 50 foot
roadway, so is it the ten foot island that's the problem here? The ten foot wide island?
Because they put two islands in that very narrow subdivision with one street and they
could fit an island there for traffic calming and this seems so complicated -- I would
agree, I don't think this is going to calm anything. I, actually, think the traffic is all going
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 11 of 66
to stay on one side of the island and you're going to end up with people driving two
ways on this side of the street so, I don't think it --
Forrey: It's wide enough to allow that.
Nary: Right. I don't think that's safe. I guess I'm not sure if it's the 10-foot wide island
that's the problem, but Mr. Cook was able to redraw that one and put islands in it, so I'm
not sure why this is so complicated.
Powell: And, Madam President, Council Member Nary, I don't remember exactly on that
one, but I believe that they were able to expand the right of way in both directions such
that the island was placed in the center of the roadway, thereby, providing some sort of
visual separation there. Then -- and that one was a little bit different, because we
weren't quite as concerned about cut-through traffic. I think the anticipated was more
slowing down speeds a little bit, not so much discouraging cut-through traffic. I think on
this one we were also looking for a little bit higher standard of traffic calming to
accommodate that. If I might add a few other words, we did talk about this at the initial
hearing, how that it -- that putting in the traffic island would mean adding 20 feet travel
lanes for the Fire Department. As I recall we did talk about that and raised that as an
issue, that you will have to widen that and I just feel that as -- as they have struggled to
do these options, this is the first option that met the criteria of the motion for approval.
The other options didn't have an island in them. Also, they have thought this right of
way issue and, you know, this might mean redesigning this subdivision a little bit to
meet the criteria of the approval and it hasn't happened. I mean this is the first time that
we have seen any change in the right of way at all and if -- you know, it could be -- and I
think it was anticipated by Council that it could mean a shifting of lot lines and some
adjustment for the subdivision and we just haven't seen it. I mean I think there is a good
solution out there, I just think that the applicant is struggling with -- with doing the -- with
adjusting the right of way at this point.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any other questions, Council?
Forrey: If I could clarify. Our first design did have two islands in it, but they were four
feet wide, not 10 feet.
De Weerd: So, they didn't --
Forrey: That's because that's the ACHD minimum is four feet. It's not uncommon to
see projects with four foot islands, but we did go back through the minutes and Anna
Powell is correct and there was some discussion of a five foot island, but the motion
was 10 foot island. Putting a 10 foot island and, then, 20 feet of asphalt on each side, it
just -- it just doesn't seem neighborhood scale when you plot it out and look at the size
of the project and have all that asphalt in the center of the project. We were just hoping
for some alternative.
Nary: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 12 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: But, Mr. Forrey, I thought what I heard Mrs. Powell say before is part of the
problem is that the fact that you didn't want to move any of this side of the lot, so you,
basically, took all of the necessary width from the opposite side of the street. If you had
--
Forrey: Yes.
Nary: So, if -- I guess what I'm thinking of, what I recall maybe in the initial discussion --
and I don't have the minutes here, but I think you even offered up that, well, we could
put something in this location. I guess my anticipation was you would, essentially, lose
a portion on this side and a portion on that side and you wouldn't end up with this sort of
wacky configuration like you have got, but you would, basically, be, you know, cutting a
little off of the middle and you would have an island right here. I think part of our
concern was having -- if I recall, the second discussion we had about this was how big
of island can you put here to have landscaping on it, not just to have a cement block in
the middle of the street. To, actually, have a landscaping piece and if it was too small,
it's not adequate to really maintain landscaping on it and I'm not positive that that was
the reason for the 10 foot, but I think that was what's anticipated. It seems to me like
your clients, yourself, part of the problem here is that you have made a business
decision not to change this lot line, but borrow it all from this side and that's just not
going to work.
Forrey: You know, I think we could adjust a little bit, but we are talking here about 67
feet of right of way, with ten foot island it creates that, or 67.5 I guess it is, 67 and a half
feet. We started with 50 and so there is a seventeen and a half foot give and some
could come on the south side, as you suggested, but they are corner lots and there
were side entry garages and so it's a little more problematic to do that. You know, if we
have to do that, we will have to. I just -- this is just getting so large, there is so much
asphalt, that's why I'm bringing it up to see if there is more of a neighborhood scale
solution here.
De Weerd: Well, I guess you could take some of it off that five foot landscaping, but you
were the one who told us you could make this work and, you know, I'm not a designer, I
-- we anticipated you coming back with this.
Forrey: We did. Option 5. It does --
De Weerd: But Option 5 doesn't meet the conditions of the motion of approval and
that's what our staff is pointing out, that, you know, if we want to reopen this and discard
the findings and rehear this thing all over again, I guess that's the next option.
Forrey: Yes. We really don't want to do that.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 13 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. We, then, you need to fit within the motion that was made to approve
your application and the choker is not an option.
Forrey: Okay. In the minutes there was discussion of a five foot island and, then, there
was discussion of a 10 foot island and the motion was made for a 10 foot island. Is
there any flexibility in that dimension of that island, the width of the island?
De Weerd: Mr. Attorney, I guess if we change a condition we would have to open up
the hearings is that correct?
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think you want to look at the
minutes and see the exact motion, because I think there was also some discussion of a
targeted 10 feet.
Forrey: It was a target 10 --
Nichols: And there was some potential flexibility for something less, at least that's my
recollection.
Forrey: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. That doesn't answer the question. I guess the question is, okay, at
what point -- I think staff would like some direction if it was vague, what are they dealing
with. You know, what is the expectations and can we change those right here or do we
have to open up this process again.
Nichols: And, Madam President, Members of the Council, I don't think it's a significant
enough change that you have to open up the process again. If you want to give staff
direction that says -- I mean if staff says to have landscape appropriate to a traffic
calming island it needs a minimum width, they can tell you that and that's the minimum
amount. If they don't have that information, then, you have to get it. t appears to me
I
that what we were looking for was the traffic island. Mr. Forrey, I believe the reason we
said target was he wasn't sure at the time whether there as adequate space for a full ten
feet, so it might have to be narrower than that, but at the same time Councilman Nary I
believe was quite succinct that he didn't want the concrete block in the road either. It
had to be wide enough for landscape, but it didn't have to be ten foot or more.
Forrey: Let me add that Quasar doesn't want concrete either. It needs to be landscaped
and pretty.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 14 of 66
Nary: I guess I would agree with what Mr. Nichols' recollection was and that's mine as
well. I think what we have seen was -- as I said, the second discussion we had of this
was a concrete barrier and not, really, a landscaped island. I think -- I think all of
recollections are the same, that you did say that we -- you weren't sure about the width
and whether or not it could be eight feet, right, or ten feet and we said that's fine, it
needed to be up to ten feet, but we are willing to be flexible about those things and
maybe that -- I don't know if that helps the staff in saying, you know, there to be a
minimum, there has to be landscaping, and it has to be an island for the purposes of
traffic calming. Now, if it's five feet, six feet, six and a half, eight, I don't know, I just want
to see it, but this doesn't work and the choker doesn't work, so, I don't know of that
helps Mrs. Powell or her staff.
Forrey: Could I ask, then, to be tabled a week and let us redo this design here?
Powell: Madam President, before you move on that, I have very strong feelings about
the width of this traffic island. If it is significantly less than ten feet, it is not going to
serve any traffic calming function. If you're not moving people out of the travel lane and
forcing them to think about what's ahead, then, it's not going to serve much of a
function. If they took a five foot one and straddled the center line of the road, it's a two
and a half foot jog. That's not going to serve any traffic calming function. They will still
be able to go down there full speed and that's been my advice to you all along. I just
want to make sure you're fully aware that I really don't think it's going to solve any traffic
calming. Now, if you have decided it's not as important, then, that's okay.
De Weerd: Can you be more specific? No. I'm sorry. I would agree. The goal in mind
here, Mr. Forrey, is that you need to take away the straight line and if you can do that
with a smaller area, it sounds like Council would open to that idea, but you need to work
with our staff. We only have one more meeting, that’s January 6th, and so it has to be
taken care of by, then. Otherwise, do we need to reopen it? Okay. So --
Forrey: Thank you.
De Weerd: -- if you would work with staff. I think in our landscape ordinance we do
have minimums of how much those landscape islands can be to sustain the health of
the plantings. I don't know that right of the top of my head, but if you will keep that into
consideration, take away the straight lines, and that's as much as we can give you at
this point.
Forrey: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
th
Forrey: And we would anticipate being on your agenda for January 6?
De Weerd: If you keep it really short.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 15 of 66
Forrey: We will. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I would entertain a motion to continue Items 8, 9, and 10
to January 6, 2004.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we table those Items 8, 9, and 10 on Sageland Planned
Development, the annexation, the Preliminary Plat, and the Conditional Use Permit, to
our January 6, 2004, meeting.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Items 8, 9, and 10, AZ 03-
015, PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036, to January 6, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from November 25, 2003: CUP 02-004
Request for Revocation of a Conditional Use Permit granted by the City of
Meridian Automotive
Meridian for John Nesmith for – 505 North Main
Street:
th
De Weerd: Okay. Item Number 11 is a continued Public Hearing from November 25
on CUP 02-004, request for revocation of a Conditional Use Permit granted by the City
of Meridian for John Nesmith of Meridian Automotive and we will open with staff
comments.
Kirkpatrick: Madam President, Members of the Council, let me make sure -- oh, we are
up on Meridian Automotive. We have met with John Nesmith, the applicant, about a
week ago, Anna and I sat down with him for about an hour, and we carefully went
through all of the conditions of approval from CUP 02-004 and explained what needed
to be completed.
De Weerd: Wendy, excuse me for a moment. Mr. Attorney -- Mr. Nichols, do we need
to swear staff in before hearing the rest of this?
Nichols: Yes. Madam President, that's correct. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry, Wendy.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 16 of 66
De Weerd: If you and Anna will, please, raise your right. Do you swear the testimony
you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Powell: Yes.
Kirkpatrick: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. I'm sorry. Continue, please.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. We met Mr. Nesmith about a week ago and we went through the
conditions of approval still needing to be completed and I followed it up with a memo
explaining which conditions had been completed, which ones still need to be completed.
We followed this up with a phone call -- I think it was last Friday I spoke with Mr.
Nesmith and we went through again what he needed to do to prepare for this evening,
so I believe he's here and wishes to be in compliance and should have a plan of action
on how to complete the CUP permit. The applicant has -- since we were here last time,
he has come in and applied for a sign permit and Anna will speak about the sign permit
application we have received.
De Weerd: Okay. You want to go ahead, Anna?
Powell: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. We did get the sign
permit in and, then, staff had a hard time evaluating it, because there are no standards
for signs in the Old Town district. You have a memo before you tonight from Sonya. We,
basically, looked at the options of how to evaluate the sign. What staff has traditionally
done is similar to setbacks. They have looked at a similar use. If it were a commercial
use, they looked at the commercial zone. If it were an industrial use, they have looked
at the industrial zones and looked at the sign allowances in that district. Well, the zoning
ordinance specifically says we are supposed to do that for setbacks. It does not
specifically say we are supposed to do that for signs. Struggled a little bit with what to
do. Generally, a new use will coming in for a conditional use approval, so I think in the
future we are going to make sure that all those Old Town uses come in with a sign
program as they go through. That will solve some of this problem. I guess it boils down
to tonight it would be best if you could also address some of the issues related to the
sign that was put up without a permit. The memo does show you how it relates to some
of the other zones. For commercial zone it appears to be about 16 square feet over. For
an industrial zone it would appear to be six square feet over the maximum allowed. The
sign that he has currently is much less -- much more conforming -- well, it can't be
conforming, because there is no standards, but the sign that he replaced was taller and
had more background area. The sign that he has installed would presumably be less of
an impact on the community than the one that was originally replaced. Those are just
some options for you to consider. The other three areas would be that he does have
kind of a five foot protrusion. Normally, the sign code would only allow for a three foot --
let me go down there for -- just a second. You can see it kind of up at the top here. This
goes up five feet. Normally, any sign it would only be allowed to be three feet. At the
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 17 of 66
base of the sign he does not have a landscaped area. Normally, one would be required.
And perhaps the applicant can speak, but it looks like the sign overhangs the right of
way, but we are not sure on that. Normally they would have to be a foot off the right of
way.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Anna, at the last hearing Mr. Nesmith testified that the sign for which he didn't
have a permit was the sign on the building, not the one in the -- not this one that's on
the screen. Did you resolve that issue as to which sign needed the permit?
Powell: I had always understood it to be the free-standing sign. I believe Sonya
reviewed the building signs and she didn't discuss them with me, so I assumed that
there was not an issue with the building signs.
De Weerd: And that was my impression, it was the sign on the building, not the free-
standing sign.
Powell: Perhaps the applicant can provide some insight. I'm sorry. We can do some
research here.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any further staff comments?
Powell: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Glad to hear that he came in and took care of the sign permit. Thank you.
Any further questions, Council? Okay. The applicant or his representative want to come
forward? Okay. Please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Weigt: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please, state your name and address.
Weigt: Dennis Weigt, 4278 Riva Ridge, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Weigt: Thank you, Madam President and Council Members. I see your sign over here,
so -- Mr. Nary probably knows that I don't do too well in three minutes or less, but I will
do the best I can and do this as quickly as I can. If we follow kind of the format that -- in
this first letter in this notebook, this letter was the letter that I think they were talking
about from Wendy Kirkpatrick that basically lays out all of their -- the positions of the city
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 18 of 66
regarding Mr. Nesmith and what he has to do to be in compliance and so I tried to put
together a package here that follows that directly. I must tell you that I have been in --
I'm not new to this case. I haven't ever been before you, but I have represented Mr.
Nesmith from pretty much day one and it's been a long long battle and we are really
pretty thrilled about being here today having an opportunity I think to finally get this thing
all resolved. If you -- if you just start going through the pages of this notebook, page one
after the number one, it has some color coding and just a reduced version of the new --
the newest site plan that we have prepared and submitted. It did not have two of the
storage buildings put on it and we weren't able to get Mr. Gibson to do a new one today,
so that we could, actually, submit the original to you. We will do that either tomorrow or
no later than the end of the week, but, nonetheless, there is only a couple of minor
changes in this particular site plan, as opposed to the previous one that was approved
and those are regarding landscaping and we will get to that small point here real
quickly. I did include some pictures, just some photographs of the building from when
Mr. Nesmith first obtained it to its current condition. Certainly, quite a bit has been done.
I have to take some responsibility for Mr. Nesmith not asking for a sign permit on the
sign out on the street. Quite frankly, I believed he was refacing an already existing sign
and there wasn't a requirement of a permit and so -- I so informed him. I may have been
wrong, I may -- that may prove to have been good advice. I don't know. Nonetheless, I -
- Mr. Nesmith did go down and I believe he attempted to make application for both
signs, so that you folks could make that decision on what needs to be done. I will just
briefly comment on the sign. We did get a permit, it is to file the application, it certainly is
substantially less innocuous than the original sign by a number of feet. It is much more
conforming and the issue regarding the landscaping is very soon to be -- very soon to
be resolved, as you will see when we go through this. I don't believe that it is in the right
of way. However, I do, I think, understand and recognize what Anna was talking about,
about the three foot to the five foot height. Under number two, we -- these were just
some of the information that we provided for the sign application and on the back of that
is the only receipt we were able to receive that actually showed that we had filed that
application, which we intended to prove to the -- to you. If you go into the next section,
this is the landscaping plan. The only minor difference -- and you're going to find that it's
-- it's on the southwest side of the building in the southwest corner. There is a fence and
some storage facilities, storage buildings, that are on that side, and the difficulty that we
are having over here is that --
Nichols: Mr. Weigt, take this microphone and --
Powell: Or, sir, there is a laser pointer at the other podium, if you want to use that.
Weigt: This is fine. The difficulty we are having is that there is a fence already right
here. We do have a licensing agreement with the Ada County Highway District. We just
got an amended agreement -- actually, the amended agreement came today, that
allows for the fence on the backside of the sidewalk that's going to eventually be put in
here, this will be, as you all probably recall, a sidewalk is one of our biggest issues.
There will be a sidewalk, curb, and gutter that attaches to the existing sidewalk here and
will travel the length of the property back to here. We have been somewhat hampered
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 19 of 66
and I will get to that letter. You had ask for a letter and we brought you the letter from
ACHD that basically has kept us from putting that sidewalk in. However, that's soon to
be changed also. The difficulty is that by the time you get the sidewalk in, with the
existing for the fence and the Surge buildings that are on the other side of the fence, is
you lose about a foot and a half to two feet of the -- of the area to landscape. ACHD,
when they looked at it, they still believed -- and you will find that in one of their -- I think
it's number ten, either number ten or number eleven, in their letters that they discuss it,
they feel that it's appropriate, and, quite frankly, it, actually, would provide about six to
eight inches more landscaping than what's currently there. If you follow this landscape
plan in these pictures will see what I'm talk about in terms of -- what I had Mr. Nesmith
do is the second pages of pictures after the signs, you will see a dotted red line, which
is the amount of space that is called for in the landscape plan. You will see a solid red
line in the next picture and that's the amount of landscape that will be available on the
back side of the sidewalk. We still think it's sufficient. We -- it is a deviation somewhat
from the Conditional Use Permit as it was originally authorized, but, on the same token,
it -- I think it still meets the spirit and the intent of what we were doing. The sidewalk is
going in place and there is still plenty of room there to put the required landscaping that
we were going to put in and provide the water to it. That is an issue that the Council
needs to make a determination on and we certainly urge you to allow us to make that
minor modification in the landscaping portion of the Conditional Use Permit. It would
also equal the same room for landscaping that we have across the front of the building
and there is a photograph of that. It's the one underneath this orange car here that's got
the railroad ties, you will see that that's all going to be consistent, it will be consistent all
the way around the building from the front to that side. Moving on to Number 5. Number
5 just is a stamped and signed approval by the sanitary commission -- Sanitary Service
Company of -- I think that the Commission was concerned that possibly the trash
enclosure wasn't where they wanted it. They are perfectly satisfied with it and we have
put it there. Number 6. I don't know that it's actually an issue any longer. The
Commission had some question with regards to why there was a gate in the center of
the fencing on the railroad property and I think that that was resolved the last time. If
there are any questions, I will certainly take them, but I don't believe that that's an issue
now, given the uses that were intended to be placed there. The next one just simply
shows where the -- number seven simply shows where the site irrigation drainage plan
is going to be. Again, Mr. Gibson will do a new site irrigation drainage plan without the
other things in it and we will provide that, but that's where the main line is. It comes out
of the water meter there on the southwest corner and we will run a line all the way up
and all the way down and underneath the sidewalk and the existing landscape for
purposes of landscaping. One of the issues that we have to come before you on is --
and we are asking for modification or amendment to the Conditional Use Permit is that
of the facade. You know, the facade was a wonderful idea and it still is a very viable
idea, but it is an idea that, quite frankly, initially, was thought to be about a 30 to 40,000
dollar project. After obtaining the Conditional Use Permit and having the appropriate
bids and estimates and things looked at, it became a drastically higher costed project. I
think part of that is in addition to just the cost of -- the normal cost of lumber and things
like that, its attachment to the Quonset hut -- Quonset huts aren't real conducive to lots
of things and they are real difficult to work with, so what we are asking is not necessarily
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 20 of 66
to remove that issue, what we'd like to do is see if we can go forward with all of the
other issues on the Conditional Use Permit, leaving that available to us until the time for
the permit to pull that would be I think 2009. It's certainly still a possibility and it's
certainly still a viable possibility that Mr. Nesmith do that, but right now it's just not cost
effective. We certainly want to get all of the other things done and don't want that to be
a hamper, but we also are not requiring that it be removed, just maybe a reprieve for a
number of years until such time as we go forward with that. The next page is -- you will
see -- I should have probably pulled the first one out. That was the bond that was in
place for the sidewalks. That's been removed. Today an additional bond was placed of -
- in the amount of 45,000 dollars, which was calculated pursuant to the equation in the
guidelines and in the code. That is bond that will cover everything, the sidewalks, the
landscaping, all of the improvements and everything to be in compliance with the
Conditional Use Permit. I can tell you that that bond was pulled today for the express
purpose of coming to you today and saying let us do this, we are ready to go, we have
got people in line and we'd, actually, like to see some action on that. The landscaping
and the paved area, the -- actually, the recycled asphalt area starting this week. The
bond was pulled today and Mr. Nesmith has signed and there is a copy of it for you. The
remaining three items -- the next three items are the Ada County Highway District
information. The letter -- the first letter is a letter that, really, kind of details what Mr.
Nesmith was trying to explain to you the last time he was before you. They were having
some extreme difficulty with their own engineering and establishing drainage and some
things on Bower Street, which, really, precluded us -- I guess we could have put in the
sidewalk, but, nonetheless, they strongly encouraged us not to until they got their deal
done. They have got everything in place there. It's scheduled to start their project March
th
4 and end in June. Our proposal to you is that as soon as they give us the green light,
we will put in our sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, and we will be done by June also,
baring any delay from the Ada County Highway District. We are working in conjunction
with them. They have also accepted our plans. I contacted them and didn't get a call
back today. As soon as I was going through this I realized that he put the original
Conditional Use Permit number on there, instead of the new one, but, nonetheless, if
you, actually, read the text of the letter, it certainly is -- what it's doing is accepting the
new information and not the old information. Although it's not much difference in the
sidewalks and the curbs and the gutters. For your review, the next item is the temporary
license agreement that allows -- allows us to access and use the rate of way. It also --
following that is the letter and the amendment to the license agreement that we received
today that allows the fence on their right of way -- we will have to, once again, apply for
an additional amendment and receive that amendment based upon the landscaping
should you so approve. They have already indicated that they would have no problem
approving that and would issue us another amendment and a temporary license. What
you will see -- the remaining portions of this are estimates and bids until you get to
Number 19, but all -- from 13 forward are the estimates and bids that we have received
for purposes of the recycled asphalt for the railroad area, for the curbs and gutters, and
for all of the landscaping. Again, I want you to understand that all we are really looking
for from you at this point is the green light and we are ready to move forward and get
this project completed and we have all the people in place to do so. There is just -- we
had to relocate a pole, a power pole. There was information there that I thought was at
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 21 of 66
least relevant for the Council to see some of the things he has been doing. We do have
th
an appointment scheduled for Thursday, the 18, at 10:00 a.m. for final inspection on
the back building with the Fire Department. There is an issue with regards to the
western most building. There is a couple of issues, obviously, that need to be decided.
First and foremost, we still don't have an occupancy permit. That's been a point of
contention for a very long period of time. I, myself, have been involved in probably no
less than ten meeting in an attempt to mediate a probation violation that was
subsequently dismissed and just a lot of stuff to try and get this thing done. It seems like
one thing that's hampering this is this issue of the welder. What I can tell you is that at
one time -- one day when several of the authorities were present at the building they did
notice that there was a heli-arc welder that was in that room. That welder was only there
for a very brief period of time. It was there for storage, it's not used there, it's used in
the area where they resurface heads. That's what a heli-arc is for, that's what it's used
for, that's it's specific purpose. That welder is not used in that facility. Now, we also got
to admit to you that the use in that building has changed. It's probably more of a 50-50
storage, working on cars, building and exchange of parts building, than it was initially.
Initially, it was more -- way more storage and much less of the -- working on the motor
vehicles. It is just an exchange of parts place and it is still not used full time. It is
certainly still used as a storage facility. There has been a real question -- and I don't
think there is any question with regards to the minutes and the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions, but, then, again, when you look at the commercial building permit
application, Mr. Nesmith has always said he was going to work on cars in there if he
could. We are here telling you that the building is in compliance. There are no -- there
isn't any welders, there isn't anything that the Fire Department is going to find, there isn't
any problems with that particular zoning of it. We do want you to be aware of the use
since it's been built and being used without an occupancy permit for quite sometime,
has changed, we want to get that straight, we want to get it right, and we want to be in
compliance. This has been a monkey on not only the Council's back, but on Planning
and Zoning's back, on Mr. Nesmith's back for a very long time. I think that covers the
issue regarding the welder and the building. I think it really, quite frankly, covers most of
the issues, if not all of the issues. I can assert to you that I provided you go forward and
approve the Conditional Use Permit with the changes that we have requested, you
know, by mid summer you're going to see a drastic improvement down there. You're
going to see all of the landscaping in place and the sidewalks and curbs and gutters in
place and I think that's what we are all aiming for.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Weigt, if we issue this CUP, this stuff is going to go forward, we are not going
to be back here three or four years from now arguing the same thing, because nothing's
been done? Because this originally started -- everybody is throwing this back to 2000.
This originally started in '97 1997. At that point I don't believe -- all the letters we have
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 22 of 66
got from ACHD and that -- in your pamphlet says the date of 2003 and they said he had
been working for two years. Well, the Conditional Use Permit, if I recall -- not being on
the Council at that time, but I was in the audience when that was approved, I believe
had the same conditions for the sidewalk and stuff. That's been done.
Weigt: In fact, you're right, this has been going for -- since -- I think I was involved in it
from about 1997 until this date. All I can tell you is that there was some real -- real
points of contention and some real problems with communication and we even had a
number of face-to-face meetings where the parties didn't walk away with the same idea
and why and how I really can't tell you. All I know is that -- you know, the bonding is in
place, the people are in place, the minor changes -- you know, Mr. Nesmith had to
reevaluate what his position was and he's done that. He's made the concessions that I
think that are required and under the Conditional User Permit, he realizes he has some
things that he has to do. I can assure -- I can assure you that as best as I'm standing
here it's going to get done, because I'm not going to come back before you in three
years and make the representation again.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Well, Yes. Mr. Bird. We did ask specifically tonight to not rehash this, but to
see the positive steps forward and he has come back with everything we have asked
him to come back with, with an action plan, with the sureties and those kind of things
and do appreciate that and, yes, you can have a follow-up, as long as we don't rehash --
Bird: Well, he's saying he's got a surety, but he don't have a surety for the whole CUP.
He's got a surety for 45,000. The whole estimated cost is 247,000.
Weigt: He's got a surety for everything but the facade. I mean that's --
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I think in our last meeting he did ask about the facade and it didn't
appear that any of the Council had any problem about not doing anything with that. I
guess, Mr. Nichols, I would have a question on -- we -- Council also indicated there was
no problem using the recycled asphalt that would be a change of condition. It looks like
the modification and the landscaping plan is very minor and that wouldn't be a true
change to the CUP, but the facade, can that be delayed to a date certain? Would that
require changes in the Conditional Use Permit?
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, the way the code reads, you have
the ability to modify the Conditional Use Permit. When a motion to revoke is before you,
that code section does provide that you can modify the permit. I think that gives you the
ability to say this condition makes sense, modified from paving to crushed recycled
asphalt. With regard to the landscape type issues, though, I think those need to be
specific. If it's -- the land -- he has said we want to do reduced landscape width, as I
understand your testimony, Mr. Weigt, but I haven't -- but you need to be able to say
why and why that's appropriate under the circumstances. With regard to the issue of the
facade, I would just caution you this: He's not going to it now and if it's not really
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 23 of 66
essential to what -- I mean it was something that he proposed when he asked for it. If
it's not essential, you would be better off saying no facade, period. Then, if he wants to
put a facade on the building, he comes back -- I don't know that it would require another
Conditional Use Permit, perhaps it wouldn't, but it would just simply require a building
permit and he could do that. I don't think the facade -- at least my recollection of the
history of this, that wasn't a critical part of this, that the landscape of improvements, the
sidewalk improvements, those sorts of issues, that was more centering around the
Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary
Nary: Yes. I guess from what I see from what you have said, Mr. Weigt, there is still a
couple of things that we -- it doesn't not appear we can resolve tonight. One of them is
his use of this other building. The allegation was it was being used outside what was
being requested. What you're telling us is that it is, but it's not quite as severe as what
the staff was saying it was being used for. It's not being used as a welding facility, but
it's not being used exclusively as a storage facility. I think you have to -- I'm not totally
convinced from the evidence that we have before us that it's being used as a welding
facility, but you are telling us that you are using it outside what was being requested. I
don't know if it's in compliance and that's -- and that's the only concern I would have.
The other issue that it doesn't appear we can resolve tonight is the sign on whether it's
the building sign or the freestanding sign, because I would agree that part of the reason
why there is no standard is because if you are just replacing the sign you have,
generally, that's going to be fine, but not always. Here I think we got some
discrepancies here, because we really don't have a standard from which to work from
and we don't necessarily have a means to request a variance, because we don't have a
standard to vary from. I'm not sure that we can -- we can solve all the issues. You
know, I appreciate -- I think as Council President De Weerd intimated as well, that you
have brought forward a lot more of what we have asked to have done. I guess what I
would be more inclined to do, though, is -- is continue this matter for a couple of things.
One, to clarify this issue on the signage of what needs to be there and give staff some
time to work with you and your client to get the sign issue done. This seems -- I think we
thought it was simpler than maybe it is, but I don't know that. Same thing on the use of
that building. I think you need to figure out what it is Mr. Nesmith wants to use it for. If
it's different than what he asked for, he's going to have to ask to modify what he's
requested and you need to be in compliance with the building code and the fire code for
that, whatever it is you're going to be using it for. It just seems to me -- and I don't mean
to make it sound like you or your client aren't trustworthy, but it doesn't seem like
anything's happened without us going through this process. I would more inclined to
want to continue this to make sure it's continuing on the process that it is. I think it's
going to, it looks like it is, but we thought that last year, too. I would be more inclined to
want to set this over at least once or twice to make sure we are on track and not have to
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 24 of 66
start over, if we come to next July of '04 and we are still here and it still looks the same.
I guess those are the issues that to me seem to be standing out, besides just some of
the things Mr. Nichols just raised and I wanted to give you an opportunity to see what
you think, as well as Mrs. Powell.
Weigt: Well, if I may, I -- one of the points of contention has always been what did he
ask to use the building for and if you look at his request for -- and his conditional
building permit application, it says right there in bold print that work will be performed on
vehicles when not in use for storage. He's maintained that from day one and why that's
been ignored, I can't tell you. From the day that he asked for the building permit, he
said I want to use this building some, but I'm going to use it for storage, too. What I'm
telling you now is that I think that the way he stated it, that work will be performed on
vehicles when not in use for storage on an occasional basis. I think it's probably a little
more than occasional, depending upon your definition of the word occasional, but I think
from day one he's asked to be able to use the building for more than just storage and so
with regard to the rest of it, set it over once, you know, I -- a little good faith never hurt
anybody. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I'd like to see this all get done
and, quite frankly, if it takes setting it over to do so, that's fine. Obviously, we have to
have your authority to move forward. We have to move forward. We don't want to wait
any longer on our part. We want -- that's why we have the bond in place. We'd like to
get the landscaping and some of that done, so that when we do come back, if it's in a
month or in two months, that you will see some substantial change there, so -- I mean
I'll leave that up to the Council. I think that him taking the steps that he's taken and
doing the things that he's done, he subjects himself to no different liability whether you
approve it now or whether you approve it in a month or two months. He is still subject to
criminal prosecution and all of the other things that go along with it that we have
experienced in the past, so --
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Weigt, the bond is 45,000, but I'm looking at Mr. Gibson's letter of June
25th, 2002, and I realize these were preliminary construction cost estimates, but the
paving and drainage and landscaping on Bower Street and the utilities were over -- well,
approximately 65,000 dollars. Can you explain the difference?
Weigt: Well, the biggest difference is 25,000 dollars for pavement and 6,000 dollars for
reclaimed asphalt. I mean that's the largest difference. Then, the -- actually, some of
the landscaping, some of them -- bids are higher and some are lower, but the main
difference in all of those numbers is -- if you look in here you will also see Standard
Construction's bid for the asphalt and I believe, as I recall, it's 25 -- I got it. Yes. It's
25,825 dollars. We now have a bid for the recycled asphalt for 4,980.
Nichols: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 25 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. We have two remaining issues and I did notice that this facility is
scheduled for some initial inspections by both the building department and the fire
department. Staff, I guess if you can get with the sign permit and -- we thought it was
an easy thing, as much as just getting the permit. It looks a little bit more onerous than
that, but if you can take a look at that and see what you can do without any standards, I
know what you can do, but work with him on that.
Weigt: Madam President, Mr. Nesmith informs me that if you look back in the minutes,
that the sign -- that freestanding sign was, actually, already determined to be in
compliance. I don't know. I guess I haven't seen that, but he believes that it had been
and that we were only talking about the other sign that's on the building, so --
De Weerd: And we have that impression, too, but if that can be clarified with staff, so
that we know what are dealing with and Mr. Nesmith knows as well.
Weigt: And I got to tell you that there is -- I guess there is still a little -- one more little
issue that's part of the use of that building. It's not, because the welder issue has been
-- is a problem, because they saw the welder there and thought that that changed its
use and that it needed to have a sprinkling system when we have had a fire inspection
before they said that it didn't. The problem that I see is -- and I have gone back -- and I
have gone through the minutes and I have talked to Mr. Nesmith. I think -- you know,
we all make mistakes and I honestly think that an honest mistake was made in the
writing of the Conditional Use Permit, but the idea and the thought process was always
that there wouldn't be any welding in the western most building. Mr. Nesmith has always
had the heliarc welding in the current building, but if you look at the use permit, it
actually says no welding on the premises. It does. I don't want to get this approved and
go out and spend 40 or 50,000 dollars and do everything that we need to do, to turn
around and not be in compliance any longer and so that is an issue that needs
determined.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will trust that that is worked out between now and when this
is continued to and, then, your client should also tell us what he would like to do with the
facade. As Mr. Nichols had appointed out, we can take that condition off and, staff, if
you can look into -- if it's just a building permit, if he would have to come back for a
Conditional Use Permit. I don't know why he would --
Powell: We will look into that. I don't think for just a facade improvement it would affect
Planning and Zoning, because it wouldn't be affecting the use or increasing the use at
all, so I do believe it would be building, but we will do some more research on that.
De Weerd: Okay and that's something we can do within the findings on this.
Weigt: That would be my understanding, too, is that he -- at least my look at it to him
was that all he had to do was pull a permit if he wanted to do it. And if he didn't, then,
we haven't to, so --
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 26 of 66
De Weerd: Okay.
Weigt: And we would be willing to do that either way, so --
De Weerd: So, that's something that could be removed from the Conditional Use
Permit.
Weigt: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay so, those are the remaining issues. Is there anything further, Council?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess from a process standpoint, Mr. Weigt has said a couple times about our
approval. It seems like all we have in front of us is an application to revoke his CU. I'm
not sure that we are approving anything. I think what we -- what I was anticipating is
th
setting over this revocation hearing and we could do -- and we could -- January 6 is
getting kind of busy, but I mean we certainly could, at least to get these questions
th
answered, to see where we are, put that on January 6. You know, obviously, it's not
going to be completed by, then. My only concern is simply removing this -- removing
this particular process might slow things down and I just want that to happen. I think we
have a couple questions that we need to answer -- that we can have answered by the
6th. Obviously, we are going to have to revisit this at some point in the future to see that
either compliance is being done or not. I don't think from a process standpoint we have
anything to approve, I think it's whether or not we decide to concur with the request to
revoke or we deny the request to revoke. I think that's what we have.
Weigt: Don't you also have in front of you, though, as a result of a revocation
proceeding, the modification issue? I think by our own presentation we have orally
requested a modification.
Nary: Yes and I guess you're right -- I'm sorry, you're right. There is some -- there is
some modification you are asking and I think there is probably some of that that staff
hasn't had an adequate opportunity to comment on some of those things that you're
wanting to do, narrowing some of the landscaping and the like. You're right, I guess we
can take that issue as to whether or not we would allow some of these modifications to
occur.
De Weerd: Now, Anna had looked at the asphalt issue and I think staff was in
agreement with that. You also have reviewed the landscape plans is that -- no? Okay.
Okay. If -- then, add that to the list. We have the landscape, the sign issue, the use of
the building, and removing the facade condition. Am I missing anything?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 27 of 66
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, were you comfortable with the
bond amount? Because I was unclear how the 45 related to the other numbers. I just
wanted to -- we can meet with the applicant to clarify that, but I -- that was a little
unclear to me, but -- if that's -- if you're making a list, I would ask that you include that
on the list.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: The -- I guess the -- I agree, I think you probably need to -- we need to match up
how those numbers are going to work in relation to what they are proposing to do and
whether it is adequate and I think, ultimately, too, Mr. Weigt, it does say work
occasionally on cars. Obviously, that's not very definitive as to what that building was
used for and, obviously, you have a disagreement as to the way the permit was -- was
issued. Again, if you're asking for a modification, I think we need to clarify, so Mr.
Nesmith has to be a little more definitive on what he's going to use it for. Staff has to
have a better idea from a safety standpoint as to what it's being used for and what
requirement -- what code requirements are needed to be met. If it's -- you know, half the
time it's being used for auto parts repair, that may impact what fire code provisions to
apply to it, versus occasional or none. I think that's part of the list we are making. I
think that's kind of what we are looking for.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I will restate the issues, just to make sure we are on the same
page. Number 1 would be the sign, if it was a freestanding or the wall sign, and
regardless of what sign, if it is acceptable. The second one is use of the building. We
would like you to further define it and make sure that it complies through the inspection
processes. I see Daunt's back there. We are in agreement? Okay removing the facade
requirement out of the Conditional Use Permit conditions. Then, evaluate the bond
amount to see if it was the appropriate amount.
Powell: And the site landscaping.
De Weerd: And, yes, the landscaping.
Weigt: Landscape and the welder.
Bird: Right.
De Weerd: Well, the welder would be part of the use of the building.
Weigt: That's fine. Well, it would be, yes, use of one of the buildings, but not the
western most building, which is the one that we are, really, focused on for the
occupancy permit, because it's not being used in that building.
De Weerd: Right. I don't think the welding on site is an issue, is it, in the older part?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 28 of 66
Powell: There was a poorly worded condition and it does need to be clarified, but staff
is in agreement with the applicant regarding that issue, so it won't be a problem.
De Weerd: Okay so, that's not an outstanding issue. You will take care of that. Okay. If
we can have this -- if we are putting it on the 6th, which forgive us to never say don't put
thth
anything on the 6, because it seems like everything is landing on the 6. If you will
have that all written out, staff, nice and concise with the responses, so it's all Reader's
Digest version and three minutes testimony -- don't let attorneys do it.
Nary: Hey. Hey.
Weigt: I thought I got through quite a bit here.
De Weerd: In three minutes. I know.
Weigt: Three and a half minutes.
Bird: How many times three?
Nary: I resemble that remark.
De Weerd: I know so, staff, anything else?
Powell: No, ma'am. Thank you.
De Weerd: Did the applicant need to say anything else? Can we go ahead and move
on here? No. Only if you need to. Thank you, Mr. Weigt. Okay. If there is nothing further
on that item, we will go ahead and move onto Items 12, 13, 14 and 15 --
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Should we make a motion to table the --
De Weerd: Oh, yes.
Nary: -- continue Item 11, the request for revocation of Conditional Use Permit CUP 02-
004, for Meridian Automotive, to our January 6, 2004, meeting.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item Number 11, CUP 02-
004, request for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Automotive to
January 6, 2004. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 29 of 66
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12.
Continued Public Hearing from December 9, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request
for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential
uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items -- I will just open Item 12, which is the item we continued to
discuss on CPA 03-003, request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan
to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for
Stapleton Subdivision and I will open with staff comments.
Powell: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. I did meet with Mr.
Centers shortly after our last hearing. I think that we agreed to disagree on some issues
and we just agreed that we needed some objective criteria by which to evaluate this
proposal and that we really didn't have anything. Looking at the market studies was
perhaps not objective enough or -- certainly at this time versus the 20 year time frame of
the Comprehensive Plan that staff had been looking at. I did talk to Mr. Centers about
just seeing how much a noise study would cost. In particular, I think I mentioned the
noise contour study, because I had no idea of the range -- the price range for that and
that at least some sort of contour study out there that accounted for the future
equipment that was planned on site would give us some idea of at least the noise
impact, but acknowledging that it still didn't address the odor impact that might be on
those. I did get a phone call from a noise consultant and I think that Mr. Centers
probably has a good update on that and you have also got a memo from the city
engineer and I think he'd like to provide some comments as well.
Watson: Madam President, Council Members, evidently -- hopefully, you got my memo
and I, evidently, am the only one that doesn't have it now. It was basically just a list of
excerpts from the material that Mr. Centers provided to you last week. I gleaned a few
more from the documents he was referencing. The one thing that I was provided
recently by our consultant at the wastewater plant, Carrallo Engineers, was a copy of a
odor control technical memo that they did for the wastewater plant in Salem, Oregon.
And the only reason I bring that up is that if we do look at something different for this
mixed use zone around the wastewater facility, something like this document is
probably what we need to look at in terms of odor. If the Council wishes, I can talk to
Carrallo Engineers about putting together a scope of services that would cover
something similar for our facility, just so that you would have that information. That's
really all I have. Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess what I'm interested in here -- and I think it was said several
meetings ago -- is, you know, it's my personal belief that we need to do a master plan
for this area and look at not what's feasible marketwise today. What is -- what would be
market sustainable in looking at future build out scenarios as well and that we have
some kind of master plan for this area. If residential is something we want to consider,
what kind of densities we'd like to consider it at, what kind of standards we would want
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 30 of 66
applied, or if we continue the same designation, if that's something that the market can
bear. In consideration, I think what was raised at the last meeting by Mr. Bottles, is, you
know, maybe the market won't bear it today, but -- and I know these weren't his words.
In light of the major arterials and the Ten Mile interchange, the Black Cat being
considered as an extension of Highway 16 and the transportation corridor that that will
be located in, is it reasonable to think that it can sustain commercial and industrial in
that area. I would like to see that further studied and what I'm looking for is -- I
understand we will have to hire a consultant to do that. Is it in this year's budget, can our
budget sustain that, and if it's not, can it be in next year's budget, but we just let the
property owners know in that area when we plan on specifically addressing it and that's
what I'm looking for. I don't know about the other Council members, but when we had
this discussion with the Comprehensive Plan, that was kind of the direction we were
going for there and I think it's very fair that the property owners know when we are going
to have some kind of further definition of what that use can be.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, we did talk about this and I did --
part of the reason that Mr. Centers was talking to a noise consultant was to get the
range of those services. They can do an evaluation of the existing site conditions that
would give us a number -- or it would be a study that I could probably fund out of this
year's budget. I haven't seen the methodology for that or exactly what I would get from
that. I'm torn about 50-50 as to whether it would be enough just on the noise issue. I
think that any planning for this area, we do need some -- some more study and I think a
noise study, I think an odor study, as the city engineer has said, and probably a market
study as well. You're looking at three different studies, probably, before that could be
done. I don't have the money in my budget this year for both the market study and any
type of noise study, probably. I could work with Council to get that funding for the next
budget year. That does put off planning for this area a ways, but I do think that what we
are struggling with all along -- what you have struggled with all along is that you don't
know enough about this area to plan for it well and that we have done a reasonable --
and I do believe it is a reasonable -- offered a reasonable round of development
potential with the area, with the only thing it excludes is residential. There is the
residential allowed throughout -- there is not a lack residential properties available within
the area of city impact, so I think he did make a reasonable decision. If you want to
study it further, I think we do need these additional studies that give us a better, clearer
idea of what exactly is going on in this area. We have got the added opportunity to look
at it with the north Meridian area plan. If you want to tie the studies to that particular
Comprehensive Plan amendment, it may slow that one down and I know that there is a -
- kind of a sense of urgency on that one into reviving it and getting it going. Given the
funding constraints, it may slow that down. We may want to exclude this area from that
one and, then, just revisit it separately from that. Does that help the president
understand some of our timing issues or --
De Weerd: Well -- and that's just all I have been asking for is -- you know, if we are -- I
don't think we need to rush into this, because whatever we decide here, we are going to
live with in that whole area. I personally don't feel that we have enough information to
consider that and so I guess I would like to see something further. I don't want to see it
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 31 of 66
tied to North Meridian Plan, because the North Meridian Plan is much further along than
this appears to be. Right now this has a lot of allowed uses, as you have raised. The
only one thing it doesn't allow is what's being proposed and why we have this text
amendment in front of us anyway and I haven't seen anything compelling to move
forward. I do think it's compelling enough to move forward to warrant a more detailed
plan and I do think that the property owners do deserve to know at least a time frame on
when that information would be available.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I wholeheartedly agree, but I also -- I think, Anna, that we could look at it real
hard, at the area that why -- why would not the wastewater plant do some of the studies
themselves out of their budget, not all out of your budget. Because they are the ones
that are out there and I think that that is -- that would be the proper way to go. You
shouldn't have to do all -- your department shouldn't have to do all that, but I agree that
we have got to make a decision and what decision we make we got to live with. I'm not
ready to make that decision until I get more facts and figures and, basically, on the
wastewater treat plant. Like Brad brought on the study they can do and that's something
we need to get in place, maybe. We need to have these deals and I don't know why we
can't get it done, see if the wastewater treatment plant has some money in there for
some of the studies.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I guess I would concur with Mr. Bird. I think -- it sounds like a joint effort to
me. I mean there is -- there is some planning issues here, there is some public works
issues here, and we drew a big orange circle around the map when we made this
Comprehensive Plan and now I think it is incumbent on the city to scale down and
decide what, you know, was that -- is the boundaries appropriate? Is the uses
appropriate? I don't think it's just a planning effort, I think there is a joint effort because
of the wastewater treatment plant being there. Obviously, there is needs and concerns
that consultants and the like, with that engineering background, have a different concern
and a different way to approach it than planning consultants are going to have. It
sounds like a joint effort to me. I do think it is incumbent on the city to probably take the
lead here. I think Mr. Centers and Mr. Wardle were here before and they have provided
some -- some market analysis. I don't necessarily think we are going to just accept it
wholeheartedly, but I think they have at least provided some information that is some
value. I think there is a lot more work to be done in trying to have some discussion with
the neighbors and the like to see what their input is as well. I think we have -- you
know, I don't know -- I don't know a time table, but I certainly think we need to be visiting
this in this budget year as best we can and see what we have available to be able to do
that and try to move this along. I agree with Council President De Weerd, I mean there
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 32 of 66
are other uses here. I mean it wasn't a secret that there was no residential allowed here,
so I'm not really bothered by the fact that there is some -- there is some heartburn here,
but I think we are going to have to get on the ball now and see what else is there.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments?
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Just to let everyone know, I believe that everything that's been said is true
and I would definitely go with a further study before we change the Comprehensive
Plan.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is the testimony you provide
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Centers: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove. I don't think anybody really has an issue
with this being a mixed use area. I think the issue is just with allowing residential and
that, I think, has to do with the city's concern of protecting the treatment plant. I mean
that's the whole reason that they don't want to allow that. I don't know that necessarily a
market study needs to be done for this area. I think the study, really, should focus on
the plant's impact of the surrounding uses, particularly residential uses, because you
have already kind of said -- you know, I mean there are a lot of uses allowed in this
area. I don't know that you want to get into any further detail with that, it's just if you do
come up with some kind of parameters that are more focused in on the plant, because I
mean that's -- you know, it was named the Wastewater Treatment Plant Mixed Use
Area. I think the intent of that was to try and protect the use of the plant. Maybe those
studies need to be more focused towards, you know, the level of noise that the plant
outputs. You know, the odor thing is kind of tough to quantify, but, you know, and that's
kind of how staff and I came up with the noise study is because that's quantifiable, you
know, that's something that does go on on a regular basis with that plant and that would
be something that would be more of a concern to a residential user, you know, if the
noise was being emitted at, you know, late hours at night, early in the morning, such as
that plant, because it needs to run, you know, all the time. It would be a bad deal it if
didn't run all the time. Anyway, that's -- you know, just to try and clarify a little bit more
on, you know, what I think the studies need to involve and that's just kind of what my
opinion was.
De Weerd: Well, thank you.
Centers: Any other questions?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 33 of 66
De Weerd: Any questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Centers. Is there any further
testimony. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Crane: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Crane: My name is Charles Crane at 3600 West Ustick Road in Meridian, Idaho. A few
weeks ago the original developers of the 34 acres on the corner approached the
neighbors, sent us letters that they had intend on bringing an application to the city
again. A few of the neighbors met with Falcon Group's representative --
De Weerd: Mr. Crane, I do have to caution you not to talk about any specific
application. This is just testimony on the text amendment.
Crane: Right.
De Weerd: And maybe what you would like to add into the possible study in that area.
Crane: Right. I understand.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Crane: And the point is the developers are proposing uses that fit with the
Comprehensive Plan, light office, some commercial, some light industrial, all of the uses
that you guys said would be a good use and that the community, during the meetings of
the Comprehensive Plan, agreed would be buffer use between the treatment plant and
the neighborhood. Just to let you know, there are people that think light office
development is a viable alternative in that area. There is something that -- residential
isn't the only use available for that area, there are some other transitional uses that are
being proposed by other landowners. I don't know if they have officially made any
applications, but that was the meeting that we had here.
De Weerd: Okay.
Crane: There was something else. I guess I'll just let that there. One other thing. This is
not related to this application exactly, but do those stripes on the podium up here -- I
have been attending these meetings for years and it seems like every time I come here
I get a headache looking at these. If it would be possible to tone those down, maybe the
black stripes, paint them a lighter color, so it's not so optical illusion kind of thing. Just a
little side point.
De Weerd: Well, thank you, Charles. Appreciate those comments. Okay. Is there any
further testimony? Okay. Council?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 34 of 66
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess maybe I'm going to ask Mr. Nichols what do we do now? We have got a
Comprehensive Plan amendment that we are not totally sold on, but I'm not sure
whether the Council's view was to get this study and consider this further. I mean do we
want to continue that? Is that something -- is that kind of what we are left with, Mr.
Nichols?
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think that is what you're left with,
is continuing this, as well as the other pending applications that are partially dependent
upon this proposed amendment. I would say that you need to ask staff to have a
specific proposal for what studies are going to be done, you know, how long they need
to get the information to be able to come to you and say, well, here is what we think
needs to be done. Here is what it's going to cost and here is where in the budget it
would come from, so that you can make that decision to authorize those studies,
because included in that estimate of the cost, the consultant would be able to say when
the study would be done and available to you. Interested parties like Mr. Centers for
review and comment, because I don't think -- if you don't tell the staff to go forward and
get some sort of indication what they obtain and when they can obtain it and what it's
going to cost and where the money comes from. We will just be taking up that
discussion the next time we visit this.
De Weerd: I guess the direction I'm coming from is at this point there is no compelling
reason to consider a text plan amendment and that's, again, my personal opinion, but I
don't think at this point I feel comfortable making any changes to the Comprehensive
Plan and I don't see the advantage of holding this over. At some point it will be a staff
initiated action if there were going to be any changes to the text and I guess that's what
we would decide at that point.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess what -- I think I would agree with you, I think -- I think it probably doesn't
make a lot of sense to continue these particular matters. Because what I would envision
is what we would be doing instead is making, I guess, among other things, is whether or
not we would be making a motion for direction to the staff to come back in three weeks
with some plan as to what we are going to do and when we are going to do it, so that
we have some idea of what these studies are going to be, what type of consultants are
we looking for, whether or not that can be in the next three weeks. I don't mean to hire
them in the next three weeks, but to at least be able to tell us in the next three weeks
exactly where we are going and a fairly short time table to at least get some consultants
hired, get some evaluations and some studies started, but I have a feeling that the -- it
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 35 of 66
would be somewhat fruitless to continue these on, because with the Council change we
are going to end up hearing a whole lot more information based on whatever a study
gets, and there is certainly no -- it doesn't to be reasonable to just assume that whatever
study it gets is going to fit in exactly what's already been proposed here, so it seems
kind of pointless to set this over.
De Weerd: Now, are you telling me you want it on January 6th?
Nary: Oh, it could be on the pre-Council on January 6th. I think all we are really wanting
is some idea -- I mean I think we have talked about some idea of what it is we want. I
think Mrs. Powell has some idea of what type of person she's looking for. I think Mr.
Watson probably has an idea of what type of person we are looking for, but I think we
want something concrete. I think Mr. Centers, if we are going to deny this, deserves
something concrete from us saying here is the people we are going hire, we will bring
the contract back in two weeks and we are going to set a time table of 90 days or 120
days is to do a study to figure out what type of -- how this treatment plant would relate, if
residential is viable, if it is how can it be buffered, all of those types of things. So, no, I
mean think on January 6th is all we are doing -- so, again, we are -- all this Council is
going to be reviewing is that time table meets our expectations of what we think can be
accomplished and these are the people that are going to do it.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think that -- I think that over the holidays and stuff it's going to be unreal to even
get anybody to give out proposals and do the deal. We spent three years getting this
Comprehensive Plan in place, we are going to change it in two months. I, for one, am
not for that. I personally feel sorry for the applicant, but, in the same token, he bought
the property knowing what it was zoned for and we spent three years -- I think we need
to have a study and the applicant's right, we are out there to protect our wastewater
treatment plant, it's a very important part of the City of Meridian, and so I don't how -- I
just don't -- I say we go on with the study, but I don't think we can set time tables right
now, because there is no way that they can come back with any information by January
6th, I believe.
De Weerd: Would it be reasonable, staff, to come back next -- within the month -- and I
don't have a calendar for January.
Bird: It would be the 13th or the 20th or the 27th.
De Weerd: If we could come back -- yes, on the 15th with a proposed -- if don't have
anything concrete, at least just a time frame when we could get proposals by and so the
13th, is that reasonable?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 36 of 66
Watson: Madam President, Council Members, on my side of things, on the odor side, it
would only make sense to have Kruello Engineers, who is working on our facility plan,
look at this. You may have noticed the notice that went out today that's wrapping up our
overall facility plan over the next three or four weeks and they are cramming to get this
done, so it's going to be really difficult and I don't want to divert them from the task at
hand. Late January would be more appropriate.
De Weerd: January 27th?
Bird: That would be probably pretty good.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, does work for you?
Powell: Well, I believe Public Works has volunteered to take on both the noise and the
odor studies and I could probably find a market consultant within that time, yes. Would
-- I guess I had a question. Would it need to be renoticed and reheard, because of the
new Council or is it just a continued item? Is that going to affect things?
De Weerd: I don't know. As far as I'm concerned I'm talking about denying this now.
This would just be a new process to --
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: -- say to the landowners when we can give them more concrete feedback on
if residential would ever be considered. We need more information as far as what
impact we have.
Powell: Okay. And, then, January should be fine, just -- I do want to just make it clear
that if the market study exceeds my budget for this year, it would up to you all as to
whether it got funded for next year. So, that would be just kind of a loose string as far as
my estimates go.
De Weerd: And I guess, Anna, once we get information back on the noise and the odor
and if it would be appropriate to consider any other use -- any residential use, I guess
that would be -- we need to know more about what the impact this planted has on the
proposed uses and how it would apply on -- considering any additional use and so at
that point we can open it up for discussion on the uses themselves for a more detailed
plan for that area.
Powell: Yes. Personally, I think, depending on the results of those two other studies, it
may solve the question of the market study. If it turns out that it's not going to impact
anybody to the north or to the west -- and I don't know whether or not that would be the
case, but just a what-if scenario, if it's not going to affect anybody to the north or the
west, then, you decrease the size of that area and maybe, really, a market study isn't
necessary at that point. So, the market study may not be warranted until we do have the
noise and the odor study.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 37 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. And that sounds reasonable. Council, would you like to hear any
further testimony from the applicant?
Bird: I don't care. The Public Hearing is still open.
Centers: Jake Centers. I just -- as a property owner and applicant, you know, if the
results of those studies, then, you could take that information and say, okay, we did
these studies and this is what we found and this is why we have determined to disallow
residential in this area, I could rationalize with that, more so than I can with just, well, we
didn't want to split up property lines and we just kind of did this thing around the plant.
De Weerd: And that's what Anna just said.
Centers: Right. So, I just wanted to make it clear that, you know, if you came back and
the information from, you know, consultants said, you know, yeah, I mean it's really loud
and smells really bad and this is the graph and what shows us that, you know, I mean I
would be satisfied with that and I think everybody, then, has some quantifiable
information that they can look at and say, yeah, I mean you guys made a good decision
and we can see the reasons why, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: But, yeah, some kind of timeline as far as completion on it would be great.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. So, we will get that information on the 27th of January. If
you don't have proposals in hand, don't worry, we just want to time frame.
Powell: So, Madam President, Members of the Council, just to clarify. Do you want me
to get estimates for a market study or should we wait?
De Weerd: Not at this point.
Powell: Thank you.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no more Public Hearing applicants or anybody that wants to testify, I will
move that we close the Public Hearing on CPA 03-003, request for amendment to the
text of the Comprehensive Plan to show new residential uses within the mixed use
WWTP zoning designation for the proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 38 of 66
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to rush you. To close the Public Hearing on Item 12,
CPA 03-003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we deny the approval of CPA 03-003, request for amendment to
the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use
WWTP zoning designation by proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates, 3680 West Ustick Road, for the reason of -- to give us time to do new
studies on our wastewater treatment plant for odor, noise, and et cetera, for the attorney
to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CPA 03-003 and for the
reasons of further study on noise and odor and ask the attorney to draw up Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Mr. Clerk, will you call role?
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Now what?
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from December 9, 2003: RZ 03-009
Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed
Stapleton Subdivision
by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick
Road:
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from December 9, 2003: PP 03-019
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots
Stapleton
on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Subdivision
by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road:
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 39 of 66
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from December 9, 2003: CUP 03-034
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-
lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks
Stapleton Subdivision
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed by Wardle
and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, on Items 13, 14 and 15, because we have denied any
amendment to the text to allow residential, 13, 14, and 15 are -- would not comply with
our Comprehensive Plan.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, the Comp Plan, though, is not the
same as the zoning ordinance and so the mere fact that the text in the Comprehensive
Plan does not allow the proposed use that the applicant is requesting is not controlling
and so you still have to take up these applications to see whether or not they are
acceptable to you. There is -- and so you take those up and we can discuss those one
by one. In fairness to Mr. Centers, though, the problem with taking these up, if you deny
them and he -- and, then, you later change the text and he wanted to come forward, he
would have to resubmit and go through the whole process again with the same
configuration and incur that expense all over again. So, just to note that.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. And I don't want -- I don't want Mr. Centers to have do that, because that
doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree with Mr. Nichols. It would appear to me -- and I
guess I could be wrong next year, but it would appear to me that what we are talking
about is if -- if there is further information and further study and a decision is made by
the next Council that residential uses are viable in this area, I think that's the key that
Mr. Centers is looking for in the Comp Plan amendment. It appears at least from this
Council's perspective that that would be a Comp Plan amendment brought by the city,
by the applicant. Therefore, he wouldn't have to reapply. What I think we can -- I don't
know whether -- I think if he withdraws it, I think it's the same result as Mr. Nichols just
said, so I think the only way for him to not have to resubmit, although there may be
some redesign, depending on what these studies show, I think we have to continue
them. At least to a date certain -- at least to our January 27th meeting, so that we keep
it on the front burner as to what's going on with them. Unless you think Mr. -- unless --
we haven't opened the Public Hearing, but I don't want to certainly burden Mr. Centers
either, but that's the only way I think to make it track with what we are trying to
accomplish and, then, again, if we decide that is viable, he has an application that's
there, so --
De Weerd: Well, we are not going to know at the end of January.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 40 of 66
Nary: Oh, I know. But I mean that's the only way we can do that is to set it to the next
day that we know we are going to do something with this -- that relates to this
application. Mr. Nichols is right, I mean, otherwise, we need to take them up -- we need
to decide on whether or not we are going to deny them and Mr. Centers could start all
over again and resubmit fees and everything else. That may be the case. Ultimately, he
may have to redesign, I don't know. But at this juncture, you know, we are trying to be
fair and I don't know at this juncture we know exactly what we are going to end up with,
so -- and I think to be fair to Mr. Centers, we don't know that these studies aren't going
to say that what he's proposed isn't viable and that's kind of what we have left hanging
is whether or not it is.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, is that viable? Is there any other options?
Nichols: Well, first, Madam President, Members of the Council, I saw that the planning
director would like to speak and so I'll give her her chance and, then, I'll see if I can
answer your question.
Powell: Madam President, it was, actually, advice from the City Council that Mr. Nichols
-- in other states I know that long postponements have gotten cities in quite a bit of
trouble in that they were deemed as kind of almost like a filibuster, I guess. I don't know
how to really describe it. The applicants were -- wrong choice of words, perhaps, but
that it was viewed as the city really trying to avoid making a decision on a piece of
property and it got the cities in trouble and it's not a real specific recollection, so I can't
cite anything. But I'm just wondering if the city is opening themselves up to some
problems if they did do a long tabling, that the applicant might claim that we were just
refusing to make a decision.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I don't think so in this situation
where you're going to -- at least the discussion is to take it up at a date certain and see
whether or not there is going to be new information received, when it's going to be
received, the information that you believe is -- would be necessary, probably, even to
consider these applications without the text amendment. I mean there are some
planners who would bring forward these applications without a text amendment and just
simply say the Comprehensive Plan doesn't have the same force as the zoning
ordinance and, therefore, you need to consider my application. Mr. Centers did it the
right way and there just isn't enough information, is what the Council has determined,
and they want to see more information. So, I would think that it's not a situation of just
stringing it out and continuing something forever, it would only be continuing it for the
purpose of receiving additional information data that the applicant, as well as the city,
could use in evaluating his proposal. The other thing is in terms the liability side, there is
no right to a rezone and so -- at least under Idaho law there is no right to a rezone. So,
if that's the case, continuing this in order to be able to get some more data to take up
the question of whether to rezone this property I don't think is a challengeable action.
And I think those other cases may have been ones where they just continued them
indefinitely and they didn't say specifically when they were going to take them up.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 41 of 66
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, I think the one that's probably the most critical -- well, the two that are
probably the most critical here I think in Mr. Centers' situation are probably Items 14 and
15, because those are the ones that deal with the design and as along as Mr. Centers
understands -- I mean part of -- you know, we don't want to forget, part of what the cost
of those fees are is the city recouping the cost of analyzing the proposal to make sure
it's compliant. We may -- we may have to revisit that, depending on what information we
gather later and whether or not this particular project has to be redesigned to such a
degree that it's problematic for our staff to reevaluate it again based on the information
we have, but we just don't know and I think what we are trying to do is trying to be fair --
I mean Mr. Nichols I believe is absolutely right in that by setting this to a date certain, all
we have done is continue this matter and all the discussion has been is to basically
save Mr. Centers the necessity to resubmitting this project, incur more costs, when we
are still just trying to study whether or not what he's asked for is viable. So, I don't see it
being a problem. I think it's to Mr. Center's benefit for us to do that, unless he wants to
get up and say forget it, I will just withdraw it or start over. I guess we can -- he can
always withdraw it. He doesn't need our -- he doesn't have -- I guess he does need our
permission to do it, but I don't know that we are going to object if that's what he wants to
do, but --
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I will go ahead, then, and open the continued Public Hearing for
13, 14 and 15 on RZ 03-009, PP 03-019, and CUP 03-034. Open it for staff comments,
but I guess I would like to defer to the applicant to see what he would like to do as we
move forward here.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 --
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I have to swear you in.
Centers: That's all right.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Centers: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you, Jake. Please state your name and address.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove. Yeah. I would like to take the route that Mr.
Nichols suggested and -- as long as I think whatever the January 27th date, if on that
date we would have the proposals back to do the studies, if on that date we can say,
okay, by, you know, February 27th those studies will be completed and on that date,
you know, we will rehear the text amendment and make a decision on that date, then,
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 42 of 66
yeah, I mean I don't intend to file suit against the city to hold up my project, because,
you know, just -- if we set a specific date, then, that's -- I'm content with that, so --
De Weerd: Okay.
Centers: Appreciate that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Since all I heard was I'm not going to sue the city, I'm going to go ahead and
move that we continue Items 13, 14 and 15, continue the public hearings on RZ 03-009,
request for rezone for Stapleton Subdivision, PP 03-019, request for preliminary plat for
Stapleton Subdivision, and CUP 03-034, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for
Stapleton Subdivision and all three hearings continued to our January 27th, 2004,
meeting.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for RZ
03-009, PP 03-019, and CUP 03-034 to January 27th, 2004. Is there any further
discussion? Just a comment. It's not like he could sue us anyway. I just wanted that on
the record, that that is not why we are doing this, because he would have no basis. So,
anyway, all those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: VAC 03-006
Request for a Vacation of utility, drainage,
Turtle
and irrigation easement on the south 10 feet of Lot 2, Block 6 of
Creek Subdivision No. 1
by Tully Cove, LLC – west of North Linder Road
and south of West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 Public Hearing VAC 03-006, request for vacation of a utility
drainage and irrigation easement on the south ten feet of Lot 2, Block 6, of Turtle Creek
Subdivision by Tully Cove, LLC. We will open with staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, the proposed vacation is the result
of a replatting of a piece of property. This is the Turtle Creek and Tully Cove
Subdivisions as they are now preliminary platted. Here you see the dark line that
represents the former easement that was on the Turtle Creek Subdivision. When it was
replatted for Tully Cove, that easement was adjusted and no longer necessary, so staff
is recommending approval to come forward with a recommendation for approval from
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 43 of 66
the Planning and Zoning Commission as well. There were no members of the public
testified at the vacation hearing for the Planning and Zoning.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the
testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
McCallister: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
McCallister: Jeff McCallister, 5388 North Coaster Avenue, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do you agree with all staff comments?
McCallister: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Do you have anything you would like to add?
McCallister: Not at this time, no. I think we are in agreement with the staff and I don't
think there is anything else to add.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you.
McCallister: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to testify on this application? Thank
you. Okay. Council, would you like to close the Public Hearing?
Bird: I would love to, Madam President.
De Weerd: Is that a motion?
Bird: I move that we close Public Hearing VAC 03-006, the request for the vacation of a
utility drainage and irrigation assessment -- easements -- geez -- on the south ten feet
of Lot 2, Block 6, of Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 1 by Tulley Cove, LLC, west of North
Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Item 16, VAC 03-006. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion? Okay. How about a motion?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 44 of 66
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve VAC 03-006, the request for the vacation of a utility
drainage and irrigation easements on the south ten feet of Lot 2, Block 6, of Turtle
Creek Subdivision No. 1 by Tulley Creek, LLC, west of North Linder Road and south of
West Ustick Road and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve VAC 03-006 with the
request for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 17 and 18 appear to be together. Can I open the
two at the same time?
Powell: Before you open the hearing, the applicant has requested that you move them
to after Item 20. In talking with one of the people that was here to testify tonight, they felt
it appropriate to get some renderings of the buildings that will be used, so they have
gone off to get them. So, they asked me to request that of you.
Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 03-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an indoor soccer center in an existing business park in an I-L zone for
Meridian Soccer Center
by Meridian Soccer Property – south of East
Franklin Road, west of South Locust Grove Road on East Piper Court:
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any problem with that? Okay. We will go ahead
and skip Item 17 and 18 and consider Item 19, Public Hearing CUP 03-056, request for
a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor soccer center in an existing building for a
business park in an I-L zone for Meridian Soccer Center and I will open with staff
comments.
Powell: Sorry. Madam President, Members of the Council. This is a unique land use. It
is an indoor recreation facility and they have requested to go in an industrial zone. It's
currently vacant. This is the proposed building pad site layout. They do have an
entrance here, several parking bays, and, then, a turnaround area for large trucks or fire
department. Staff did work with them for making sure that it could be used as an
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 45 of 66
industrial building at sometime if needed in the future as well. This is the elevations for
the structure. The landscaping plan. This does come forward to you with a
recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. No one
testified in opposition to the project at the Planning and Zoning Commission. One
member of the public did testify in support of the project. There were no changes to
staff's recommendation done by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The primary
areas of discussion were regarding a shared parking agreement. The summary that you
have received from Wendy Kirkpatrick stated that the applicant was unable to obtain a
cross-access agreement. That was the case at the time she wrote the memo. They
have since been able to obtain a cross-access agreement from several of the adjoining
properties, so they are able to support enough parking and what staff was concerned
about is they have two kind of -- two teams are, obviously, using the facility at any time
and we were just concerned about the overlap of when two other teams might be
arriving. So, they have sufficient parking on site to accommodate the two teams, it
would just be if there was any overlap if someone came a little early. So, the shared
parking has resolved that issue. And that's really the end of staff's comments and just to
say that it did come forward with a recommendation for approval.
De Weerd: Thank you. And I appreciate the clarification. Being a parent of an indoor
soccer player, I was going to ask those questions, because the lack of parking was a
concern for that overlapped reason.
Powell: Well -- and you can talk to the applicant. When they weren't able to get the
cross-parking -- cross-access -- or parking agreement, they did state that they could
add 20 additional spots and they didn't seem too concerned about it, so if that is a
concern of Council, I think that they do have an opportunity to add some spaces on the
existing site plan, but --
De Weerd: If there is a plan in place, that's all I care about.
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: So, any other questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess on the same issue with parking, I mean is the parking adequate for not
just the teams, but for patrons in addition to that? I mean, obviously, there is other
people that come to watch soccer besides the players and you talked about overlap, so
I wondered if there was adequate parking on site -- felt there was at least adequate for
the teams, as well as other --
Powell: We did discuss that and I do want to clarify that this is not for children's soccer,
it is adult soccer. So, they don't have the expectations of a lot of spectators. They do
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 46 of 66
anticipate that most spectators would be arriving with somebody on the team. If not,
they would be fairly limited. So, their calculations did not include a lot spectator parking,
but some.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Powell: And this is -- this use is not accounted for in the zoning ordinance at all, so we
had no standards to go by, so -- the applicant has been forthcoming in what -- what their
needs have been at other facilities and we have relied primarily on their assessment.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you
provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Main: I do.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Main: Jim Main, 414 South Sailor, Kuna, Idaho. Madam President, Members of the City
Council, I have a handout here if I could give that to you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Main: At the Planning and Zoning meeting there was some concern about the parking
and we did agree to try to enter into a shared parking agreement with some of the local
businesses. On the first page is a summary -- the first page of the packet is a staff
summary for the recommendation to the City Council and the bottom line, which I
highlighted, says staff is supportive of this additional parking with the shared parking
agreements. The second page -- what we have done is we have revised the site and we
have actually added 24 parking spaces to the site without impacting the city's
landscaping requirements. When we initially did this site layout, we based it on what the
Spokane Soccer Center, which is a similar -- a similar type of facility , sees in their use.
Additionally, we couldn't get the shared parking agreements or we didn't seem we were
going to much luck to do that, but since, then, on pages three and four, we do have two
companies there which are willing to give us an agreement for 16 spaces each, which
would add 32 spaces to that. The second to the last page is the elevation, which you
saw on the screen. And the last page was the initial site plan which was submitted. Our
feeling is that if we could get the approval with the additional parking spaces, that we
not be required to enter into the shared parking agreements. With that, if you have any
questions regarding the plan or the function of the facility, I would be glad to answer
those.
De Weerd: So, you feel comfortable with the new proposed plan --
Main: Yes.
De Weerd: -- of the additional parking?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 47 of 66
Main: Yes.
De Weerd: Well, that would certainly be my preference, so -- over the shared parking.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'm not sure what's the problem with having both. I mean if you already
have the parking -- I can't imagine the need of the other ones, but you have two
neighbors who are willing to allow you to use it. What does it matter if we -- if we require
it?
Main: I guess it really doesn't.
Nary: Oh. Okay.
Main: We, basically, have the agreements with them.
Nary: Sure. I mean I think you're probably right, but I just -- since you have got an
agreement, why not just leave them in place.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: He's also offered to put in this new on-location parking and, then -- but the original
deal was he could -- he didn't have to put the additional parking on his if he didn't want
to, if he got the these cross-deals. So, I don't know -- I'm sure they are not giving the
cross things to you for free, are they?
Main: I believe they are.
Bird: Oh, they are. Okay.
Main: I believe so.
Bird: Good.
Main: The function of this facility is adult soccer and adult soccer is evenings and
weekends. So, it works well in this type of an area, because you can use adjacent
parking, as long as you have the agreement.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 48 of 66
De Weerd: Well, I was very excited about this not for adults.
Main: Right. It's nothing like you see on Eagle and Fairview.
Nary: And I guess my only -- Madam President, my only concern is this operator
probably is adequate, but the operator could change, the use can change, and if you
don't have the shared parking, there could be a parking problem, and so if you require it
and they are already in place, it's not going to be -- and if you change it, because you
find that the market now wants, you know, high school age soccer on some of these or
maybe a tournament or something, then, all of a sudden we have a problem. So, to me,
if you can have your cake and eat it, too, why not do that.
Main: And I don't see any problem with that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Main: We increased the parking on site when we thought we couldn't get the
agreements and now that we -- we have both, I don't see any problem with it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Main, just to be sure, this new revised site plan is dated December 1st; is
that correct?
Main: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this
application? Council? I said Council, not staff. Anna. Yes.
Powell: Madam President, before you might proceed to any motions, this is the first I
have seen of this revised site plan, so we haven't evaluated it to see if it complies with
all the provisions of the parking and landscape ordinance. Offhand it does look like it
does, so I don't see a need for Council to table it, but I just want to make sure that you
leave a little wiggle room to say that it would be this site plan as modified -- as modified
to meet the parking requirements and the landscape ordinance. Or parking lot
requirements and the landscape ordinance.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: I move to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 49 of 66
Bird: Oh. Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item CUP 03-
056. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no discussion, I would move that we approve CUP 03-056, request for
a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor soccer center in an existing business park in an
I-L zone for the Meridian Soccer Center by Meridian Soccer Property, south of East
Franklin Road, west of South Locust Grove Road, on East Piper Court. Also, the revised
plat is dated December 1st, 2003, and will meet with the approval, as long as the
landscaping, with the addition of more parking, the landscaping meets our ordinance,
and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order and incorporate staff, Planning and Zoning, and applicant testimony.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and --
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Nary: Well, I just wanted to make sure that when Mr. Bird says staff comments, that
includes maintaining the shared parking agreement, since there was that --
Bird: That was all testimony.
Nary: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-056, with the notation of
the plat update of 12/1/2003 and also the -- the new parking would meet the appropriate
codes and the shared parking agreements would still be in force and the appropriate
paperwork from the attorney. I didn't want to repeat the whole thing. Did I hit the
highlights? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 50 of 66
Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 03-053
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
development of a 2,800 square foot bank with drive-thru and future retail
Key Bank
tenant with drive-thru in a C-C zone for by CSHQA – south of
East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 20, Public Hearing CUP 03-053, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a development of a 2,800 square foot bank with drive-thru and future retail
tenant with drive-thru in a C-C zone for Key Bank by Craig and I will open the Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this is, I believe, the first project to
come through in Bonita, aka El Dorado Subdivision. The property is, obviously, currently
vacant. This is the site plan as proposed. And, actually, it's a little tricky, because they
are, actually, asking you to approve a site plan and an alternative site plan. The first site
plan does include a retail component on the west side of the building. There we go. And
a drive-thru that comes -- wraps around like this as well. If they are not able to find a
tenant for that, they have asked just to be allowed to do this site plan, which just has the
facility here and a large landscape buffer around it. This is the Key Bank facility in this
location. They do have four drive-up -- three drive-up windows associated with that
facility and that was true on both -- both layouts. Excuse me. On this layout as well.
That's the only substantial difference between the two site plans. This does come
forward to you with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The key issues of discussion were whether or not to prohibit fast food in
the future tenant space on the west side of the property, if they went with that
alternative, and the discussion kind of went back and forth and in the end it was decided
that that prohibition was not needed and there was -- no one spoke in opposition to the
project and Mr. Slocum did testify in favor of the application. So, there are no
outstanding issues before the City Council and I'll end staff's comments with that.
De Weerd: Okay. So, there is two choices here? This is a new one.
Powell: Well, they are asking that you give them two choices, they are not asking you to
make a choice.
De Weerd: I understand that.
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Slocum: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 51 of 66
Slocum: Craig Slocum, 250 South 5th, Boise, Idaho, here representing Key Bank. We
have reviewed the staff report and the conditions of approval with our client and take no
exception and would stand for questions.
De Weerd: Any questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Since I got the tail end -- so is this the plan you're wanting or was there another
one you --
De Weerd: No. There is two.
Slocum: There are two plans that we have submitted. The request that we have is that
both of them be approved that will allow Key Bank to -- if they can find a tenant for that
1,500 square feet, they would build it, and if at the time they were ready to start
construction didn't have a tenant, they may choose not to construct it. At this point in
time they are in discussions with a few tenants, but don't have a lease signed.
Nary: So, essentially, Mr. Slocum, what you're wanting is us to approve it with the drive-
thru and if you opt not to build a drive-thru, you're not going to be required to build one;
is that right?
De Weerd: Two drive-thrus.
Nary: Well, you're going to have the drive-thru for the bank. I was talking about the other
side.
Slocum: That is correct.
Nary: If we approve it with a drive-thru and if you opt not to do that, it's not going to
significantly change your site plan, is it?
Slocum: It does not. We have provided elevations and a landscape plan for either
option.
Nary: I just hate approving two different options. I guess I was just thinking if you opt not
to build a drive-thru, why would we care? We would approve a site plan that had a
drive-thru in it. If you opted not to do that, then, so what. But we can't really approve two
options, because our findings are going to look goofier than they sometimes do anyway.
It's our fault, not yours. But I mean I think it would be very confusing to any other user. I
think all we need to approve is -- I think what you really probably want us to do is
approve it with the drive-thru for the other side and if you don't get a tenant for it, then,
just don't build it.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 52 of 66
Slocum: But would that not, I guess, be not in compliance with the conditional use?
Nary: If it's your preliminary plat, when you come -- are you going to come -- they are
not going to do anymore platting or anything?
Slocum: There is a lot line adjustment that is a condition of approval, which is staff level.
Nary: And the condition could say that the applicant has the option not to build a drive-
thru. That's probably good enough.
Slocum: And the additional square footage is -- there is a difference between the two
site plans. Reduction in the square footage, as well as the drive-thru.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nary, I respect you on these -- on your opinion on this, but I don't see where
we are hurting anything by approving it one way or the other. Why not -- why can't both
of them -- when they come in to get their building permit, they will either get a building
permit for one building or they will get a building permit for a building with X amount of
square footage for the retail and for the other drive-thru. So, I can't -- I don't know why
we can't give them the leniency of that. I mean it's not going to be as if it's going to carry
on for a year, because once they get the building permit, then, it's over with, as far as
I'm -- as far as I see. In the first place, I don't think it's feasible for them to add on at a
later date, probably. So, I don't see what the problem -- why we can't approve it with
both plans sitting out there.
Nary: Well, because -- Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess the problem is is that the standard we want to set for applications? If they
can bring us in two different options and you will figure it out later and we are going to
approve alternate plans, when we generally don't do that, we generally don't give
people alternate plans. They pick one or the other. So, what I'm saying is is all he's
picking is whether or not to have a drive-thru or not. You know, the size of the building --
Slocum: Is different.
Bird: How much different?
Slocum: 1,500 square feet.
De Weerd: Can you show the other one, Anna?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 53 of 66
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: And does that have enough parking. They both comply on parking, then.
Slocum: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. Bill, I -- that's why I -- we are running a CUP. It's not as if we are doing a
final plat or, you know, or running something else. It is a CUP that we are running this
through on where we do have control over it and stuff. I don't see any problems if they
find a tenant and can add a 1,500 square foot retail -- and it don't necessarily -- they just
want the drive-thru. They might find a retail outlet that don't want a drive-thru.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, just -- an argument for the two site
plans would be that if you -- if you go with the site plan, just the one that has the extra
drive-thru, but tell the applicant he has the ability to come in and request a building
permit of less than that and not build a drive-thru, your site plan isn't going to match up
with what the building permit shows. If you give him -- if he's fixed with the two options,
that has to be resolved, you know, and the one he picks at the time the building permit
is applied for, then, staff, when they go to review for compliance, they have got a site
plan, they have got a landscape plan, all of those things fit, and so I was originally
leaning towards the -- just the one and they can scale it back, but, then, how does staff
look at it to see where everything is placed. And so I think it makes it more difficult.
Slocum: And that was -- it is a specific -- the two alternatives are specific. They will
either build one or the other, so -- and when we discussed it with staff, that's when we
made the determination to go ahead and provide a complete set of building elevations
for both options and a complete landscape plan for both options, so that you could
approve both in their entirety. It's just a scaled down version.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I guess just to give Mr. Slocum a
little support, it was probably me that suggested in this first place, because if they came
to me and asked me if this was in substantial compliance with this, my initial reaction
would be, yes, because it's a lessor use. However, where one provides a retail use,
most likely a food use, and a bank use, if that's what the Council really thought they
were approving and that's what they really wanted on this site and they wouldn't have
allowed the Key Bank to go through unless it had it, I mean these are questions that
usually don't come up during the hearing. So, I felt it better that the applicant be honest
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 54 of 66
with you to say that, you know, perhaps this use could -- might go away. I think that Mr.
Nichols brought up some good reasons as to why we would want to include both site
plans. If the Council is uncomfortable with that, if you could just maybe state for the
record that it would -- the alternative site plan without the retail use and the drive-thru
would still be in compliance with the approved conditional use application and you
should probably mention the parking on the south side of the property as well. But if
there is that statement, then, that will make it easier for me to do that. Just raising the
issue and having it on the public record was a large part of bringing both alternatives
forward to you.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Since I'm the one that's beating this horse, I think I concur with what everyone has
said. I think it's probably no different than all the concept plans we see for Silverstone
across the street. This is, actually, more detailed than what we have received and since
it really is one or the other and not anything in between, although we do hear that a lot,
too, but I think it probably is not inconsistent with how we have approved other types of
concepts in these type of business parks. So, I think we are fine.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Okay. Council?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Public Hearing on CUP 03-
053. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move the approval of CUP 03-053, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for
development of a 2,800 square foot bank with drive-thru and future retail tenant with
drive-thru in a C-C zone for Key Bank by CSHQA, south of East Overland Road and
west of South Eagle Road, to include all staff comments, testimony, with both
alternative site plans that are included as part of the staff comments, to be approved
one with and one without the additional retail use on this site and include all other
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 55 of 66
comments, staff reports, and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law, Decision and Order.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: One question, Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That does -- in your future retail you do allow a drive-thru; right?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: Yes. As presented here on our staff report.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-053, with all staff
comments and as stated by Mr. Nary. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 03-030
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48
residential lots, 21 office lots, and 7 other lots on 14.58 acres in an L-O
Sage Crest fka Maverick Subdivision
zone for proposed by Dirk
Marcum and Michael Riggs – south of East Overland Road on the west
side of Millennium Way:
Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 03-045
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
modify existing Planned Unit Development to allow for office uses along
Sage
Overland Road and Millennium Way in an L-O zone for proposed
Crest fka Maverick Subdivision
by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs –
south of East Overland Road on the west side of Millennium Way:
De Weerd: Okay. We will move back to Items 17 and 18. If there is no opposition, I will
open both 17 and 18. Hearing none, I will open Public Hearing PP 03-030, request for
preliminary plat approval of 48 residential lots, 21 office lots, and seven other lots on
14.58 acres in an L-O zone for Sagecrest, formerly known as Maverick Subdivision, and
the Public Hearing for CUP 03-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify
existing planned unit development to allow for office uses along Overland Road and
Millennium Way in an L-O zone for Sagecrest, fka Maverick Subdivision. I will open with
staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this is in the Millennium Subdivision
and it was a previously platted lot. They are coming back to replat this lot. This is the
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 56 of 66
proposed layout. The original conceptual plan -- well, let me back up. Sorry. It's 14.48
acres in size. The applicant is proposing a number of office lots along Millennium Way
and also along Overland. The remainder of the property would be developed in
apartment buildings. There is one cross -- staff has asked for cross-access agreements
-- or allowances going this way to the east, as well as to the west, across the Hunter
Lateral. When the Millennium Subdivision came through, the conceptual use permit for
that property did identify this lot as being used for an apartment complex. It was -- had
200 apartments on it -- apartment units. They are now requesting 192. So, a very slight
reduction in the number of apartment dwellings, but they have also added 21 office lots.
So, it is a more intense use than was originally anticipated with the conceptual use
approval. They have also changed the nature of that apartment complex. They were
originally proposed as kind of a big house style and now they have gone to kind of a
more typical apartment style that we see in the Meridian area. Those were the previous
elevations and these are the proposed elevations for this project. Staff did want to bring
that up to you, just so you had some basis on your previous decision to allow apartment
uses on this property. The project as proposed does meet the zoning ordinance. They
have asked for a number of waivers regarding the minimum frontage, the minimum
setbacks for the L-O zone, and also the minimum lot size for both multi-family and office
lots. They have provided the required buffers -- or I mean the required amenities. I
believe the landscaping is one of them, as well as a clubhouse at the center of the
project. It comes forward to you with a recommendation from -- of approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant's representative Kent Brown spoke at
the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and he is here tonight. Or was previously.
I think he's back. No members of the public testified in opposition. The key issues of
discussion revolved around the proposed office lots, the cross-access provisions and,
then, just the clarification of the name change from Maverick to Sagecrest. The
Planning and Zoning Commission did not make significant additions or modifications to
staff recommendations or to the site plan as presented to them. And with that, I will end
staff comments.
De Weerd: Counsel, any questions? Okay. Is the applicant -- is the testimony you
provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Brown: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Brown: Kent Brown. 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thanks.
Brown: Some of the aspects -- we have right here the clubhouse. We have a pool here.
And a playground area here. One of the other aspects that we have tried to take
advantage of with the site is to provide pedestrian walkways along the southerly
boundary here and up the side. It allows the office users to continue to use that, if you
will, an on-site green belt, be able to tie back in at locations like this for the residents.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 57 of 66
We go in between the office and the apartments here and, then, tie back into the
sidewalk area there. The landscaping around the perimeter is already installed with the
Resolution Subdivision, but this is Lot 6 in Resolution. The staff said that in the original
CU that there was a connection for access with our neighbors to the west and
suggested that we make that in the office area, so we modified our plan, reduced the
number of offices, and provided that connection. Meeting Craig Groves out in the hall,
Craig would prefer that we not have a cross-connection between the two. I thought that
that was going to be our only issue with them. We did discuss -- I believe it's item seven
on the staff report that speaks to this condition. Item six speaks to this access in the
preliminary plat conditions on page three. We create a buffer from Overland with the
office uses here and, then, along Millennium. Each one of those buildings would, then,
come back with an individual CU for your approval at that time. There is a detailed CU
approval on the apartments. We do have individual units, four-plex units, that are typical
of what's done in Meridian. My applicant clients, they are here and are able to speak to
the quality of the unit that they are proposing to be built. This site was approved with a
large house concept with garages. I think it's been three years and they were unable to
-- I mean the user is the one that sold the lot to us and we are submitting it, because,
obviously, they couldn't build it. Most of those were ten-plexes with garages and I have
even used that same similar plan before, you know, call them executive users. Most of
our units are two bedroom. We find that that's what the need in the market is and we
feel that this is a great location. We have an office -- or an office zone, an L-O zone, and
would ask for you approval. I would stand for any questions you might have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Could you put that site plan back -- I was just curious, Mr. Brown, on the -- on this
pathway here, it seems like that's going to be a fairly secluded path. I'm concerned with
the high school right here and whether or not -- I guess how that's going to be visible
from a safety and security standpoint, because I don't know what these fences are,
these buildings, what it's going to look like, so --
Brown: There really isn't any fences to the back of each one of those units. There would
be, as required by your code, a hundred foot of private patio space, if you will, but, then,
a common lawn area, then, just a pathway between the back of the landscaping,
between the two units. I mean if you have --
Nary: Is there fencing here of some sort?
Brown: There is no fence.
Nary: No fence at all?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 58 of 66
Brown: No fence at all. And on the south there is an existing chain link fence along the
school property with no openings to the school site. The only way that school students
would be able to access is coming around the fence and around that end. As you look
at the school site, there is quite some distance between there and where the school
buildings themselves are. This is adjacent to the parking area. There is a 50 to 75 foot
strip of grass that's in there between that and the parking lot. So, I mean this -- as you
would walk along there with the chain link fence, six foot chain link fence on your south
side, I mean you're looking at a big space. I mean it would seem very open. And, then,
along the Hunter Lateral you would have that same feeling. Looking at Mr. Grove's plan
for the Resolution stuff to the west of us, this connection here, they have a stub road
that's located right here and, then, they come in and they create a triangle of
landscaping that's in there and I can see why he wouldn't want that connection in there.
Does that answer --
Nary: Uh-huh. It does. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else that would
like to testify? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Honeymiller: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Honeymiller: I'm Russ Honeymiller, 3299 Davis Drive, Meridian. I'm part owner and will
be one of the builders in it and as far as the four-plexes, they are typical, but we are
working to try and get them to look real good on the exterior, like stucco and stone or
brick, and that way. And the clubhouse, I do have a few deals here I can let you look at.
We will not be doing any vinyl siding at all and we are willing to work with whoever.
Now, these are individual lots and we will be maybe selling them as -- well, there could
be possibly 48 owners. We will have a homeowners association within a homeowners
association and the reason we are having it for this here, there would only be one outfit
that takes care of all of the exteriors, so if this owner can't keep his property up,
everybody else will and take it up that way. And I do feel that we buffering ourselves,
that we will blend in with the neighborhood as far as -- as far as the office buildings, they
will blend in and -- let's see. Here is a little sketch here that has -- down there in the
office building and clubhouse also. There is 19 office buildings, instead of 21, and there
is adequate parking for the office buildings and the apartments. Now, we do not have
garages, which the one that was previously approved did have garages, but there is just
not that much need for when you get up 12, 13 hundred a month for a unit, it's just
unfeasible for us as a builder and developer. So, that's why we went to this concept and
would like your approval.
De Weerd: Thank you, Russ. Any questions? Thank you. These look nice. Okay. Is
there any further testimony? Is the testimony you provide the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 59 of 66
Groves: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Groves: Craig Groves. 6223 North Discovery Way, Boise. Madam Chair -- Chairwoman,
Council, I'm here representing Resolution Business Park, LLC, one of the original
grantors of this development, the Resolution Business Park property owners
association, and the Overland 16, LLC, who owns ground to the west. Our
representative that we hired to testify this evening, Becky McKay, who was the original
land planner on this project, was not able to come this evening, so I was delegated the
duty. Our concern with what's before you is when we were reviewing the testimony at
P&Z, we realized that there was no real -- nobody in opposition or questioning in this
project and we wanted to bring forward to you some of the history of the preliminary plat
for this Resolution Business Park. In 2000 -- the fall of 2000, this City Council approved
Resolution Business Park, the preliminary plat. You took a look at six applications
during that approval. You looked at an application for annexation, rezone, preliminary
plat, you looked for a CUP for an ice hockey rink, you looked at a CUP for the big house
project from SMC Properties. A month before you approved this project, you also looked
at another apartment project at the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Overland. It
was a project that, I believe, was about 15 units to the acre, it had garages, it was a nice
looking project, but you had a room full of owners from Sportsman Pointe, Meridian
Greens, Salmon Rapids, Los Alametos, opposing the project and you denied that
project. We came forward a month later with the big house concept, a concept that was
designed for renters by choice, versus renters by need. We had the same room full of
questions. Nobody in the room questioned the commercial zoning on the corner of
Locust Grove and Overland, nobody questioned the ice hockey rink, nobody questioned
the school, because that was part of the application. The only thing they looked at was
the apartments. You're looking at this application today, because you were only required
-- the applicant was only required to notify people within a 300 foot radius and those
people happened to be the current lot owners in Resolution Business Park and
Overland 16. It didn't extend out to Sportsman Pointe and the reason it didn't extend out
to Sportsman Pointe is because you have the Overland 16 property next to it. Our
concern is not with the apartment use or the office use, our concern, from Resolution
Business Park, LLC, the original developer, our concern is that we sold many homes --
many office lots in this business park to Idaho Central Credit Union, Treasure Valley
Pediatrics, we have got an oral surgeon, we have got a general dentist, we have got an
orthodontist, we have a pedidontist, we have an application that's going to come forward
here in another 60 days for another medical use of -- in excess of 10,000 square feet on
the old ice hockey rink site and we have sold all those parcels based on a big house
concept. This -- that's our concern as the original developers. As the property owners
association, our concern is that this site is subject to covenants, conditions, and
restrictions. It does allow for the applicant to do a resubdivision and it does allow the
applicant to have an subassociation, but I think that there is some things that need to be
addressed if we move forward with a subassociation, particularly since the applicant
intends on selling off these four-plexes to individual investors. Okay. How does the
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 60 of 66
overall mixed use development interact with each other? How do we maintain the
frontage of the Overland Road. That's the view corridor into the city. How do we
maintain just -- how do we work together. That's not been addressed and we'd like that
addressed before this application is approved. I have with me a packet of what was
approved. One other tenant that we -- or one other owner in the Resolution Business
Park that we haven't addressed is Builder's Interiors and Corey Barton Homes out on
Overland Road there. I think the project -- I think the project could fit within the mixed
use development, but I think there is some unanswered questions that need to be
addressed before its final approval. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any questions? Is there any further testimony? Okay. Kent.
Brown: Some of the things that have changed since the original approval, you have
adopted a Comprehensive Plan that designates this area as apartment use. I think that
that makes it different from when the original approvals with the other properties that Mr.
Groves spoke about that came in and were denied. Yes, obviously, someone -- I mean
residents don't like apartments and you have had numerous applications throughout the
city that everybody thinks that an apartment dweller is substandard to a single detached
one and you have had those over the years. The things that make this work very well
and I think protects the city and addresses the concerns that Mr. Groves spoke about, is
the Overland and Millennium will be reviewed by you on each individual building with a
conditional use. Obviously, that's a lot more work for your staff than us coming in and
saying this is how we are going to build each one of those buildings. The approval is
specifically on the apartments and not -- the conditional use detailed approval was on
the apartments and not on the individual units that are office. The other aspect that
makes this work very well is that any of the office uses and any of the medical facilities
and other offices that Mr. Groves spoke about, I'm sure that there is a few people that
are going to live in here that are going to need a dentist, they are going to need an
orthodontist, and from a traffic standpoint, you're doing all of that vehicle traffic capturing
by having those people close to where you -- where you live and those are the aspects
that the city, the new urbanism, and everything else says, you know, that's why you
want that mixed type of use. And those make these office users and these apartment
dwellers, if you will, good neighbors. Offices, you know, are gone when usually the
residents from the apartments are there. There is other projects and Mr. Groves office is
near an apartment complex that's along Chinden. I mean those -- those uses are very
compatible and they have been used and will continue to be used throughout the valley.
I think I addressed all the issues that have been raised and would stand for any
questions if I missed something.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just so I'm clear, Mr. Brown, if I understood the staff report and the testimony, the
previous approved concept that -- the 200 big house apartments, that did not include
the office? All of that was apartment?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 61 of 66
Brown: All the whole site was apartments, Yes.
Nary: Okay. So, basically, the redesign is the office buildings, as well as the apartments,
just a different style of apartments?
Brown: A different style of apartment and a different way of -- I guess in our opinion is
buffering those corridors and protecting those streets by putting the office users out
along those corridors.
Nary: Okay.
Brown: There is a big project that is near HP that is out by Mr. Grove's office. When we
were doing the north Meridian planning, that was one of the ones that kept coming up
and being discussed is you got all this traffic going by, you know, these users, even
though they are apartment dwellers, you know, they should have, you know, some
protection. I mean we are creating that buffer by having those office uses and protecting
them with a quiet use. You had a number of discussions that went on against my own
neighborhood with Chevron and Texaco and those uses and it was determined that
office uses, once again, were very good next to single family and we feel that these two
uses and the way that we have put them together kind of marries, you know, their
aspects.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kent.
Brown: Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Council? I was on Planning and Zoning when that one apartment
complex was denied. P&Z approved it and it was a nice -- I think the difference between
that project and the one that was later approved was they had some subsidized housing
in there, which was one thing that the neighbors really took issue with and so it's hard to
compare what was being proposed there and what's being proposed here. I do like the
buffering of the office and it really fits within what additionally is being proposed in that
whole area. You know, I was disappointed not to see the ice hockey rink. So, you know,
things change as the market changes. I don't have an issue with this -- with this
application. It's got some nice amenities. It will -- the pathway will be used by the kids,
without a doubt, and whatever office uses are going to be up there north of the
apartments, it's a way to get foot traffic around there as well, so I don't have any issue
with it.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. I guess I would concur. I think the apartment use here is a change, but it's
not a significant change. I like this big house concept, but three years nobody's --
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 62 of 66
nobody leaves their ground empty for three years, unless there really is something that
can get built. So, I think this -- the uses and the buffering are positive. I understand
where Mr. Groves is coming from and his clients and other property owners certainly
aren't in favor of more businesses across the street, but I think overall it's still a good
concept that's being proposed here and I think the uses are going to be compatible and
I think they will be compatible with the uses that are across Millennium Way the other
way, as well as in Resolution to the west. I don't really see this as really being
problematic, so --
De Weerd: Yes. I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close Public Hearing PP 03-030 and CUP 03-045, for Sagecrest,
formerly known as Maverick Subdivision.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Items 17 and 18, PP 03-030
and CUP 03-045. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: No more further discussion, I would move that we approve PP 03-030, the request
for preliminary plat approval of 48 residential lots, 21 office lots, and although the
applicant did say something about 19 office lots, so whichever -- nineteen. And seven
other lots on 14.58 acres in an L-O zone for the proposed Sagecrest, formerly known as
Maverick Subdivision, by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs south of East Overland Road
on the west side of the Millennium Way and to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, do you have something in your motion that would address
the cross-access?
Bird: That was all in public testimony that it would come through, wasn't it?
De Weerd: Well --
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 63 of 66
Bird: It was part of the recommendation out of Planning and Zoning. But, yeah, that
would be fine with me, the cross-access. If staff believes we need it in there, I'm for
leaving it in there. I see nothing wrong with it. We have tied ourselves up on a couple of
the previous ones that didn't have cross-accesses.
De Weerd: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Bird: You bet.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-030, with all staff
and applicant comments, testimony, and I'll ask the clerk to call roll.
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 18.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve CUP 03-045, the request for a Conditional Use
Permit to modify existing planned unit development to allow for office uses along
Overland Road and Millennium Way in an L-O zone for the proposed Sagecrest,
formerly known as Maverick Subdivision by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs, south of
East Overland Road on the west side of Millenniun Way, and to incorporate all staff,
applicant, and public testimony and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-045, with all
applicant and staff comments. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 21 is the water, sewer, and trash delinquencies.
Does anyone have theirs?
Bird: Yeah. I do.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 64 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the
right to pre-termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 15th, 2003, before the
Mayor and City Council to appear in person to judged on the facts and to defend the
claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may
retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on December 17th, unless payment is
received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, trash,
and sewer delinquency? Seeing none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal
or have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant
to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount
of the turn off list is $69,082.77.
Bird: Lots of money.
De Weerd: That's a lot of money. Okay. Now, that you're awed by the amount, do I have
a motion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the delinquency turn off for December 17th, 2003, unless
payment is received in full. The amount of the delinquent is 90 --
De Weerd: Oh, you want to make it --
Bird: $60,082.77. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the delinquency turn off
schedule for December 17, 2003, in the amount of $69,082.77. Do we call roll on this?
Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22. Executive Session – Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b).
De Weerd: I just wonder if we have a moment to go into executive session on our last
item last week.
Bird: (1)(b).
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 65 of 66
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: I would move that we go into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho Code 67-
2345(1)(b).
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Bird: Second.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to move into Executive Session per
Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b). Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: And Shaun should go too.
De Weerd: Shaun you should go too.
(Enter into Executive Session)
(Return from Executive Session)
De Weerd: I will entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Nary: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it’s been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. No
decisions were made. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
McCandless: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 2003
Page 66 of 66
De Weerd: Moved and seconded to adjourn at 11:00. All those in favor say aye. All
ayes motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK