HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 06-03
Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:20 P.M., on
Tuesday, June 3, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, William Nary, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie
McCandless, and Keith Bird.
Others Present: William Nichols, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Anna Powell, Jim
Musser, Dean Willis, and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird
___X__ Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: I will open the City Council Regular Meeting, Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 7:20
P.M. Mr. Clerk, I'd like to have roll call attendance, please.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Item Number 2 is the adoption of the agenda. Council, we
have had a request from the developer on Item 15, if they would be able to move it -- 15
up to Item -- right after Item 11. The subdivision developer has to catch a plane tonight
and so I -- with your permission, I'd like to move that one up. Let's see, I believe that's
the only one that I have at this time. I believe, Anna, you said that they were going to
have a continuation of Item 19 and 20 of Bear Creek, so we will have that continued
later. Okay, any other agenda changes? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion
for the adoption of the change in the agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we adopt the amended agenda at noted.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the amended agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed no? Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 2 of 67
A. May 13, 2003
Approve minutes of City Council Special Emergency
Meeting:
B. May 20, 2003
Approve minutes ofPre-Council Meeting:
C. May 20, 2003
Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-004
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare
Building Bridges Child Development
facility in an R-4 zone for
Center
by April Reynolds – 3289 North Towerbridge Way:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC
03-001
Request for Vacation of existing easements on the
recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with
Presidential
easements recorded by separate instrument for
Subdivision
by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. – northeast corner of
North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 03-
006
Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for
Corey Barton Homes
a model / sales office for by Corey Barton
Homes – 3590 North Ettay Way:
G. Development Agreement: AZ 03-005
Request for annexation
and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone
Verona Subdivision
for proposed by Primeland Development, LLP
– northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile
Road:
H. 2003 Creek-Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project,
Change Order No. 1 – Insituform:
I. Agreement for Services by HDR Engineering, Inc., for
Vulnerability Assessment Study of the City Water System:
J. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement – May 2003:
K. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement – Addendum A
for Mountain View High School:
L. COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application:
M. Contract for Xerox Color Copier:
N. Approve Bills:
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 3 of 67
Corrie: Item Number 3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, any
other discussion? All those in favor of the motion -- oh, no roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
Corrie: Item Number 4, Department Reports, any Department Reports?
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Corrie: All right. Item Number 5, is there any items to be removed from the Consent
Agenda, which we have none.
Item 6. Tabled from May 27, 2003: Resolution No. :
Accepting Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
Report Number 1-2002:
Corrie: Now, we will go into Item Number 6, is tabled from May 27, 2003, resolution --
do we have a number Mr. Berg?
Berg: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if it passes. I think you had a memo from the Planning and
Zoning director. It would be 03-405.
Corrie: Okay. I'll read the resolution number and, then, if -- we will use it for the next
one, Resolution Number 03-405, accepting Community Planning Association of
Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002. If you will read by title only the resolution and,
then, we will have discussion.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 4 of 67
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Member of the Council. Resolution Number 03-405, a
resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian to provide for Findings
and to establish the acceptance of the Community Planning Association of Southwest
Idaho Report Number 1-2002 by Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc., as a planning
document for the City of Meridian and providing for an effective date.
Corrie: All right. Anna -- Anna, excuse me, you had a city memorandum. Would you
like to discuss that with Council?
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I did go through the document and cross-
referenced it with our Comprehensive Plan to give you an idea of how those two
documents were consistent and, by and large, they are very consistent. I think I pointed
out the items in particular that we would like to see moved forward, I think, are the
Locust Grove overpass and the Ten Mile Interchange, which were, really, very key
components of that report. I did point out that there was one issue regarding the
extension of the Emmett Highway, that if you do have -- that issue was left open in this
report, that there was four possible locations to bring that extension, whether it was
Garrity Boulevard, Robinson Road, Ten Mile Road, or Meridian Road. If the Council
had strong feelings about that, where that eventual connection should be of that Emmett
Highway extension, then, you should work at getting that in with the Comprehensive
Plan. We can certainly fold that in with the North Meridian Area Plan update, because
we are going to be looking at those arterials roads as part of that update for the
Comprehensive Plan as well. That would be a good time if you can schedule a work
session to talk about that North Meridian Area Plan, if you'd like, and, then, address this
issue there, unless there is strong feelings now that you want to talk about it and get on
the record immediately to COMPASS.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I believe that that was pretty much brought forward over the last 24 months
with the North Meridian planning efforts, I think it was very well summarized into a nice
document that Mr. Wardle presented and I really like what he presented in that
document as far as the moving of traffic in that north Meridian area. As well as, I
believe that Senator Bunderson has been working at the state level in effecting some
designation of that being designated as a north-south -- north-south route. There has
been some movement in that direction in using Black Cat and, then, having it veer off to
the different interchanges, Ten Mile or McDermott.
Corrie: Yes. I was going to say Black Cat Road was pretty well designated as the
thoroughfare 16 or 44.
Powell: So, it's not an interchange at Black Cat, just to have it come back over to Ten
Mile.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 5 of 67
Corrie: Come back over to Ten Mile and Ten Mile would be the interchange.
Powell: Okay.
Corrie: Okay, any other discussion? Then, I will entertain a motion on the Resolution
Number 03-405, if it meets with your approval.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve Resolution 03-405, accepting Community Planning
Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002 and ask the Mayor to sign and
Clerk attest, with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Resolution Number
03-405, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-007
Request for
annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for
Comfort Suites
by Kanti Patel – west of South Eagle Road, south of East
Magic View Drive on South Wells Street:
Corrie: Let me entertain an injection here. I forgot to welcome everybody here tonight
and also our scout representative back there. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. I'm
sure the Council does, too. Item Number 7 is an Ordinance Number 03-1027. Okay.
This is a request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zone for
Comfort Suites, west of South Eagle Road and south of East Magic View Drive on
South Wells Street. At this time we would like to have, the City Clerk read Ordinance
Number 03-1027 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1027, an
Ordinance finding that James and Diane Fuhrman, the owners of certain real property
generally located on the northeast corner of South Wells Street and Freeway Drive,
Meridian, to be known as Comfort Suites and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the
city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request
for annexation in writing to the Council that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian
and zoning designated General Retail and Service Commercial District (L-O) and
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 6 of 67
declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the
City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions,
orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said
property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the
City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be
annexed with the Ada county recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State
Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and
Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1027 by title
only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have the Ordinance read in its
entirety? Hearing none, Council?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1027, a request for
annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones Comfort Suites, west of
South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street, with
suspension of rules.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03-1027
with suspension of rules.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I notice an error in the ordinance. In the title, as well as the body, it
correctly refers to the General Retail Service Commercial District, but, then, indirectly
designates it as L-O afterward. It should say C-G. The summary is correct, but
somehow we messed up on the title and the body and so I ask that the title be amended
and, then, also at Section 3, that that designation in the parenthesis should be
designated C-G.
Corrie: Okay. With that being said, to have that -- the motion --
McCandless: To include that in the motion, yes, sir.
Corrie: All right.
Nary: Second agrees.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 7 of 67
Corrie: Second agrees? Okay, Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-005
Request for
annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8
Verona Subdivision
zone for proposed by Primeland Development, LLP
– northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Number 8 is an Ordinance Number 03-1028. This is AZ 03-005, request for
annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone for
proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of
West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road. At this time I'd like ask the City Clerk to
read the ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1028, an
Ordinance finding that E.L. Bews and Shirley Bews, husband and wife, the owners of
certain real property generally located on the northeast corner of West McMillan Road
and North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, to be known as Verona Subdivision and which lies
contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land
be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential
District (R-8) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described
below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all
ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the
city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and
directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and
map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada county recorder, auditor, treasurer, and
assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code
Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have
Ordinance Number 03-1028 read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council,
recommendation?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1028, request for
annexation and zoning 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone for
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 8 of 67
proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of
West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road with suspension of rules.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve, with suspension of
rules, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved for Ordinance Number AZ 03-1028.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. TE 03-004
Request for a one year Time Extension on the Conditional
Queenland Acres (fka Meridian Storage)
Use Permit for by Queenland
Acres, Inc. – south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian
Road:
Corrie: Item Number 9 is TE 03-004, request for a one-year Time Extension for the
Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres, fka Meridian Storage, by Queenland
Acres, Incorporated, south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road.
At this time we will have staff comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a pretty straightforward Time
Extension for a storage use. The original developer has backed out, so the owner is
looking for another developer for the project, so they have requested a one-year Time
Extension.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council do you have any questions? Okay. Just in case, is
the requester of the time here tonight? Okay, Council, pleasure?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for a one-year Time Extension, which
would be until June 1, 2004, on the Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres,
formerly known as the Meridian Storage by Queenland Acres, south of West Overland
Road and west of South Meridian Road.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded, any further discussion? Roll call vote,
Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 9 of 67
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. FP 03-029
Request for Final Plat approval of 59 building lots on 14.92
Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2
acres in an R-4 zone for by JUB
Engineers – north of East Victory Road and east of South Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item Number 10 is FP 03-029. This is a request for Final Plat approval of 59
building lots on 14.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 2 by
JUB Engineers north of East Victory Road and east of South Eagle Road. At this time
I'd like to have staff's comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This Final Plat is the
second phase in Sutherland Farms. The project is here on the north side of Victory
Road, on the east of Eagle. Phase one was located immediately off of Victory. This
phase is completely internal to the boundaries. It does not have any frontage on either
Victory or Eagle. Here is a copy of the final plat that was submitted. There are actually
no common lots in the plat to point out. They are all buildable lots. Probably the one
item to point out in the staff report is that the Preliminary Plat had a 101 cap on the
number of houses that could be developed here without a secondary access for fire.
This phase of Sutherland actually pushes them over the 101 limit, so rather than the city
Building Department tracking all those Building Permits and saying we need to stop, we
are recommending that they go ahead and construct that secondary road immediately,
st
so it will be in long before the 101 Building Permit is issued. It will generally follow off
of Eagle Road and come in along this southern portion of this Preliminary Plat and,
again, we are talking about this section here. We are making that one slight tweak that
is a change from the Preliminary Plat. Other than that, we recommend approval.
Corrie: Okay, any questions of staff? Is the developer here tonight any changes?
Okay. Let the -- the applicant noted he shook his head no. Okay, Council, pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Final Plat of 59 building lots on 14.92
acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 2, with all staff comments,
and ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
and Order.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 10 of 67
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with staff comments
included, any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, naye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. Three ayes, one naye, passage.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Item 11. FP 03-030
Request for Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 1.98
Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3
acres in an R-8(PD) zone for by
Brighton Development Company, LLC – west of North Locust Grove Road
and north of East Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is FP 03-030, request for final plat approval of four building lots on
1.98 acres in an R-8 PD zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 by Brighton
Corporation Company, LLC, west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick
Road. Staff comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, there are only a couple of minor issues
related to this Final Plat. One is that the applicant in the first phase of the development
did request a Street Light Agreement for ornamental streetlights. It would seem
appropriate to extend that agreement to include all phases of the development, really,
as appropriate throughout, so that they have a common street light throughout. The
other issue is that the Preliminary Plat did show -- oh, I'm sorry this is four lots of the six
commercial lots in the front of the development along Locust Grove Road and the south
boundary being Heritage Park Street, the entrance to the property. That's the proposed
Landscape Plan. This is from the Preliminary Plat application. It does show a pull out --
a bus pull out in this area right here and those were shown on several alternatives for
this development, so it was fairly clear that it was part of the Preliminary Plat
application. The applicant has asked that that be in an easement at this time, so that it's
there when it's available, but that they not construct it at this time. We have talked to
Valley Ride a little bit about it. They are, obviously, not ready to send a bus line down
the road, but they do want to keep that option open and an easement may be an
appropriate thing to do. In that event, they would need to modify their Landscape Plan
to remove trees from that location where that easement would be, so that we are not
having to take any mature trees and they would relocate those elsewhere. Those
changes -- if the Council desires to make those changes, it would be to Condition
Number 9, and Condition Number 10 and it would -- any reference to a bus turn out
would need to be made as a bus turn out easement. That should accommodate that
change. Then, it's an additional staff -- or an additional recommendation to have them -
- sorry. Additional condition of approval to have them update their Street Light
Agreement with us.
Corrie: Okay, any questions of staff?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 11 of 67
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So, Anna how is that going to be monitored when there is a bus system in
there what happens?
Powell: Well, it leaves the issue of construction open, Council Member de Weerd.
They are providing an easement it will be a platted note. It will be on private property,
not on public -- dedicated public right of way, but it will be an easement for the purpose
of a bus turn out, but the question of who constructs that turn out would be pushed off to
a further future time. It would probably fall to ACHD or to Valley Ride, if they had
funding to do such a thing. That's why we bring the issue before you tonight. I didn't
feel comfortable making that call, that it was completely consistent with the approved
preliminary, because they did show it in several alternatives as being constructed, not
as an easement.
De Weerd: Well, maybe the applicant can address that. Thank you.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? Dave one question I have is that Quenzer?
Turnbull: Quenzer.
Corrie: Quenzer. Thank you.
Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12426 West Explorer Drive. I think the summary of the
application that Anna gave is appropriate. With reference to historic or decorative
streetlights, we haven't -- I think that's an option that we had in the first phase of the
subdivision. We did it on some of the main entries, but we didn't do it in all locations, we
did it prominent -- kind of the landscaped area locations. We may do some in this, but I
think it was left to us as an option in all phases. They really aren't appropriate for
parking lot lighting, so we would probably not do them at least in the parking lot
locations. I wanted to clarify that point. On the bus -- the other issue is the bus stop
turn out. Our proposal was to provide for that in the event that -- you know, that ACHD
commuter ride or Via Trans began to service in this North Meridian Area with bus
service. We are proposing to provide that easement. It would -- there would be future
program improvements by ACHD to widen Locust Grove and. At that time, they would
be able to use the easement that we provide to them to provide that bus stop, so I hope
that clarifies that as well. It's not appropriate to build it at this time, because there is no
service out there and we are -- hate to think what, you know, would happen with an area
that was paved and left as -- left in that kind of condition, it might be more confusing and
more of a nuisance if it's -- if there is no bus service available for that area right now.
Corrie: Okay. Questions? Okay. Thank you, Dave.
Turnbull: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 12 of 67
Corrie: Okay, Council, request for Final Plat approval. Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I had another question for Mrs. Powell. In looking at the condition, I
guess I'm not sure that nine really needs to be modified, because it's sort of -- it's kind of
broad. I mean it just says that the landscaping has to be in compliance with the
landscaping plan and that modification of the bus turn out, but it doesn't give a timing
issue, but 10, probably, is the one that does. It seems to me in looking at it that
probably all that needs to be amended is it says the plat shall be revised to reflect an
easement for a bus turn out adjacent. The applicant shall work with ACHD and Valley
Ride or -- and you might -- I guess it could say appropriate entity, because it may not
only be Valley Ride. I don't know if it's going to be Valley Ride that would be the proper
party. Does everyone -- Treasure Valley Transit and all of them that -- and that to
determine size, location, and timing of construction of the bus turn out or something like
that. Would that be adequate, do you think?
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, yes, that would appear
adequate and there was one other issue, I'm sorry, that I had thought had been
addressed just with the plat note, but that does need to be a modified condition of
approval and that would Condition Number 17. The applicant has some modified
language, if you'd like for me to hand that out or -- sorry. This one caught me a little bit
off guard. There was an issue of whether a Conditional Use Permit would be required
for every use that went on this lot and we went back and did the research on the original
approval in that there was a list of approved uses that were allowed without conditional
use. We have -- we have worked out the wording on the plat note, but we need to
discuss condition number 17.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess before Mr. Turnbull gets back up or Mr. Wardle, was the intent, Mrs.
Powell, for 17, then, that there would be some allowed uses with some -- some
identified allowed uses, almost sort of like a Development Agreement, and, then, other
uses beyond that would, then, be a conditional use?
Powell: Yes.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, there was a list in the
conditional use approval of the allowed uses, so we do -- we have already worked out --
you have already worked out that list.
Nary: Great.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 13 of 67
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Mike Wardle, 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise.
This, actually, is an item that we have worked with staff and I do commend them. I think
we have accommodated all of their concerns and corrected some of the information that
was not included and this specific time, the first one addressed here, was the fact that
there were specific uses identified in the original Conditional Use Permit as outright
allowed. We are simply suggesting in the first proposed action that any of the lots
included be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit if the proposed use does not
conform to the approved list about allowed uses. Then, the second question is on
Condition 17, if you look at that carefully, I didn't repeat it here directly, that condition,
frankly, could be deleted based on, you know, the wording in that first item of the staff
report or by changing the language as we have provided it here. It's very similar, but it
just basically restates that if it's an outright allowed use, a Conditional Use Permit is not
required. Anything that is not permitted outright must go through that process, so -- but
I want to thank the staff -- and I guess signal the fact that it's -- we hate to see Mr.
McKinnon leave, because he's worked with us very ably to address these issues. I
guess that's not a surprise, is it that he's leaving?
Powell: No.
Wardle: All right. I would be happy to answer questions, but that's really all that we
have, Mr. Mayor.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, I think that Mike is probably right, that's -- Condition 17 could completely be
stricken from the conditions, couldn't it?
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council member Bird, I believe it can be, because there is a specific
note on the plat that requires conditional use approval, unless it's a listed use with a
Conditional Use Permit.
Corrie: Any questions? Okay. Then, I'll entertain a motion on the request for Final Plat
approval.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of FP 03-030, the request for Final Plat approval of
four building lots on 1.98 acres in an R-8 PD zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision
No. 3 by Brighton Development Corporation, LLC. West of North Locust Grove Road
and north of East Ustick Road, with the following amendments to -- or include all staff
comments, with the following amendment. First Condition Number 10, that the
condition be modified to read that the language now will indicate that the plat shall be
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 14 of 67
revised -- this is according to the document provided by the applicant, Mr. Wardle, dated
June 2, 2003, that now the condition will have added the word easement after the words
turn out. That also that the -- to include that on the sentence it says the applicant shall
work with ACHD and Valley Ride to determine the size and exact location and timing of
construction of the bus turn out that the Condition Number 17 be deleted. After the
discussion that Condition Number 9 I think is adequate and does not need to be
modified as requested by the applicant, I think it leaves enough the way it's drafted and
that condition -- excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. We were going to delete -- so, it would only
be the one comment from the applicant, as well as all the staff comments and that for
counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
Bird: I'll second and I have one question.
Corrie: Motion. Motion has been made and seconded. Further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Nary, wouldn't 12, the streetlights, we need to clarify that, too, that
the parking lights and stuff in the commercial zone, isn't exactly like they wanted -- like
staff had recommended that it be throughout the development.
Nary: Well, I guess maybe some clarification. It appears to me that this -- that this
condition doesn't contemplate decorative lighting.
Bird: No, it doesn't, but the staff had recommended that and you had included the staff
comments.
Nary: Oh, I see. I'm sorry. Yes. That for Condition Number 12, that as written it does
not require the decorative lighting and that was what we wanted it to be, so not that
particular staff comment, extending the agreement regarding that, so we don't want that
included.
Bird: Second agrees.
Corrie: Any further discussion then, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: PFP 03-001
Request for Preliminary / Final Plat
Gala Park
approval of 2 building lots on 2.46 acres in an L-O zone for
Subdivision
by Paul Aigner – 1620 Celebration Avenue:
Corrie: We will go to Item Number 15, stated Public Hearing PFP 03-001, request for
Preliminary/Final Plat approval of two building lots on 2.46 acres in an L-O zone for
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 15 of 67
Gala Park Subdivision at 1620 Celebration Avenue. At this time I will open the Public
Hearing on Item Number 15 and invite staff's comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This application is
for a Preliminary/Final Plat. It's a two-lot subdivision. It's a 2.46-acre lot that is in
Resolution Business Park. Overland Road is to the north and the lot lines as shown on
the screen reflect Resolution plat as it has been recorded at the Ada County Assessor's
Office. This application is seeking this lot that is at the northeast corner of Gala and
Millennium, Millennium is not labeled there, but that is also a public street, and they are
just basically seeking to do a one-time split to divide this into two commercial lots. Lot 1
that is shown here on their plat, if you have been out there, has Treasure Valley
Pediatrics well under construction today that was approved by the Council earlier this
year. At that point they did anticipate re-subdividing that lot, so that's how they were
able to get their site plan approved. Their Conditional Use Permit in January did show
just the western portion of that lot for Treasure Valley Pediatrics. In order for them to
get another building on the property, they have to go through this Preliminary/Final Plat
process. As a condition of the Resolution Park, the -- Lot 2, the one on the east, would
also require a Conditional Use Permit, unless that's modified by Council. The
landscaping along Overland Road is installed, as are all services, irrigation, sanitary
sewer, water services, et cetera. The Planning and Zoning Commission did review this,
since it had a Preliminary Plat associated with it. They did recommend approval. I don't
think there are any outstanding conditions to point out. They are being asked to add --
graphically show a 10-foot wide landscape easement on the Gala frontage and the
Millennium frontage. I do see that 5-7 under site-specific comments has a typing error,
it should be exterior subdivision at the very end of that line, the third line, underlined
down there, you have six and seven. Other than that, I think you can -- not have any
other modifications or grammatical changes to this one so, we recommend approval.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Is the developer here this evening? Do you have
anything to say nothing okay? The applicant has nothing to say on the record. Okay.
Council -- or, excuse me. I'm sorry. Is there anyone else from the public that would like
to issue public testimony? Okay. Thank you. Council, any other questions in the
Public Hearing? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item Number 15,
PFP 03-001. All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion for the request for
preliminary/final plat of Gala Park Subdivision.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 16 of 67
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of two
building lots on 2.46 acres in an L-O zone by Gala Park Subdivision and to include all
staff comments, including the changing of the number -- of the numbers in Item 5, A-5,
and to ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision and Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
Preliminary/Final Plat approval of Gala Park Subdivision, any further discussion? Roll
call vote, please, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: AZ 03-006
Request for
annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8,
Paramount Subdivision
R-40, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed by
Paramount, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and north of West
McMillan Road:
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: PP 03-004
Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17
acres in proposed R-8, R-40, L-O and C-G zones for proposed
Paramount Subdivision
by Paramount, LLC – west of North Meridian
Road and north of West McMillan Road:
Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: CUP 03-008
Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 764 single-
family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center,
schools and churches in proposed R-8, R-40, L-O and C-G zones for
Paramount Subdivision
proposed by Paramount, LLC – west of North
Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road:
Corrie: Now, we will go back up to Item Number 12, 13, and 14. This is a Continued
th
Public Hearing from May the 20 on the request for annexation and zoning of 397.11
acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed
Paramount Subdivision. Item Number 13 is a request for a -- Public Hearing, request
for a Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 17 of 67
Item Number 14 is a Continued Public Hearing on the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development of 764 single-family residents, 73 townhouses, and
270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in Paramount Subdivision.
At this time, with Council's approval, I will open all three Continued Public Hearings on
Items 12, 13 and 14 and we will take testimony on all three of these tonight. At this time
I would like to have staff comments first. Brad.
Watson: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I think the one big issue left over from the
initial part of the Public Hearings had to do with the sewer easement that the Public
Works Department had requested or required be part of the annexation application for
approval. Since that time several things have happened. The first is we have had
several other interested parties upstream of this development come and talk to us about
lift stations and sewer service in general. Secondly, we have met with Mr. Turnbull, Mr.
Wardle, and Mr. Johnson, along with their engineer, last week and discussed this issue.
Again, I don't know the legalities of all this, it still makes sense to me to have a sewer
easement all the way through there, but that aside. If Council does approve this
annexation without the sewer easement as a condition, the Public Works Department
would request that this be a Public Works project for fiscal year '04, as far as securing
the easements and initiating design. We would anticipate construction in fiscal year '05.
The initial cost estimate, which I admit is very rough, ranges from about $900,000 to 1.2
million to bring it all the way from roughly their fourth phase to Locust Grove Road. That
will be about a mile and a half, roughly, of sewer line. In the process we would abandon
the Vienna Woods lift station and turn that whole area into a gravity system and we
would certainly take up Mr. Turnbull's offer on easement negotiation this fall. That's all I
have right now. If you have any questions I would that happy to answer those.
Corrie: Council, any questions of Brad? Do you have any comments?
Powell: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I wanted to remind you that the
applicant handed out this folder last time. I don't know if you still have it in your packets.
Included in that was a list of changes that they'd like to see on the conditions of
approval. They are primarily related to the sewer easement that you will be deciding
upon tonight. There was one other issue remaining at the close of the hearing last time,
it was regarding the irrigation facilities, and we did talk to the engineer and it will be
appropriate to discuss those issues as it comes forward as a Final Plat. Staff's
concerns regarding that issue are no longer -- they don't have any concerns regarding
that issue at this time right now. I did want to point out that one of the Planning and
Zoning recommendations was to delete the parcel down -- zoned C-G in this area, to
delete that from the development, because they felt that the commercial development
was not appropriate at this time, because it wasn't related -- physically related to the
residential development. That was still an issue. I believe two Council Members
expressed their opinion on it, that it wasn't a concern to them, but it was still an item out
there. That's all I wanted to refresh your memory on.
Corrie: Any questions? Mr. Nichols, any comments?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 18 of 67
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council wanted us to examine the issue
of whether requiring the easements through the annexation process would be a taking
and I -- you have my memo, which copies were also furnished to the attorney for the
applicant and the attorney for Mr. Goldsmith and the world, I think. There was a long list
it was sent to. To cut to the chase, cities do have wide latitude with regard to conditions
that they can impose as a condition of annexation, because annexation is, essentially, a
legislative decision, at least at this point. No court and the legislature has not said
otherwise. I'm not sure this is the case where you want to pick a -- this is the one where
you want that to be a test case. The development of your Public Works Department
from the community that Meridian was 10 years ago to where the community is today, is
such that the Public Works Department has begun to consider the use of eminent
domain as a necessary tool to achieve public purposes. If that, ultimately, is what is
required to sewer the north end, then, that will be the process that will have to be
followed. Typically, all of those things get worked out in the negotiation stage. The
implications that it has as a whole for the city is that there will likely be a different
structure with regard to sewer connections. Where the developer builds the trunk line
as part of his cost, there aren't any additional sewer connection fees that are charged to
that development beyond the typical connections and that may have to change. But
that's an issue to be addressed another day. So, whether or not this constitutes a
taking, there weren't any real clear cases that talked about this issue in an annexation
context, but I think the issue is fuzzy enough that I believe that you're left with two
options, which are, one, go ahead and annexation this property as proposed, leaving
the sewer easements to be acquired either through the final stages as they are brought
forward by the development or through negotiation and acquisition and possibly eminent
domain if you wish to build that sewer trunk ahead of the developer's schedule. If you
choose that route, I think there needs to be some pretty strong language in the
Preliminary Plat findings that the street layouts are pretty well fixed, because that's
where those sewer lines would go. Your other option is to not annex this property and
for the reason I think I set out in my memo, which is that you're not yet prepared to
construct a sewer east of its current terminus in Lochsa Falls. I believe those are your
options on that issue
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. This is a continued Public Hearing. Is the
developer --
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Mike Wardle, 4940 East Mill Station Drive
in Boise.
Corrie: Just second, Mike. Is the testimony you're about to give to the Council the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Wardle: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 19 of 67
Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We think that the issues were well addressed
previously. We appreciate the time that staff gave to us to further the discussions and I
think their solution is certainly an appropriate solution as one of the two options that will
be effected in the future. The other one is the private party negotiation process that
actually brought the sewer to a point where Paramount can be served today and that
was done through private party negotiation. If that type of activity does not occur prior
to the city's need to extend for other purposes, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Johnson are on
record as indicating that they will negotiate in good faith and accommodate the city's
need. Staff has indicated the second of the issues. The irrigation has been addressed.
The third, the Lot 57, Block 3, just, again, for the record, that site and any other
commercial or multi-family sites must come back to the Council or Planning
Commission and Council in the future as detailed Conditional Use Permits. There is no
outright approval that has been granted to the proposed conditions on that that will not
be addressed in the future. With that in mind, we had, as staff has noted -- and I -- if
you didn't keep copies of what we have proposed, I do have additional copies, but,
essentially, we'd ask for a couple of deletions that pertain to the sewer easement in the
annexation portion, that would be Condition A-4. We, obviously, in Condition A-5 of the
annexation requested that that condition be deleted and that Lot 57, Block 3, be
retained. Again, in the Preliminary Plat Condition B-1, had requested deletion of a
second paragraph that related specifically to the question of imposing that easement
requirement. Mr. Mayor, I believe that's all that we really want to put on the record
tonight and would answer any questions, if you have them.
Corrie: Okay. Council, any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I have a couple. In the ACHD report it -- or in their findings, they
give an A, B, or C. I don't know if it's necessary in our findings that those are chosen,
instead of leaving them open-ended. Where are you at with that? Are you choosing A,
B, or C or door one, two, or three or --
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council member de Weerd, can you take me to the specific -- I
have the staff report, but give me a specific on where those choices are offered and -- I
can make a general statement.
De Weerd: They are on Page 3 and it's Numbers 1, 2, and 3 and each of them have A,
B or C and it's under the ACHD findings.
Wardle: Is this the Conditional Use, the Preliminary Plat, or the annexation?
De Weerd: All of them.
Wardle: All of them?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 20 of 67
De Weerd: I believe so. I'm sorry. It was a note from last -- two weeks ago. Let me
pull it up. I believe it's in the annexation and zoning.
Wardle: If you will give me a moment to -- yes, Mr. Mayor. Actually, I don't -- I don't
think that the Council needs to take any action. This is a choice of solutions, any of
which they say will satisfy their requirements. It, really, will get down to an issue at the
time that we go into the Final Plat and construction design on precisely which means. It
does relate largely to the issue of how much they acquire for right of way and the
location of the sidewalk and so forth, whether they be in easements or within the right of
way. I don't know that Council needs to, actually, take any particular action it's an issue
that we will work out with them. I did note in talking with staff, however, that I do have a
concern about putting all of ACHD's conditions in as conditions by the city, because
since that's a separate entity. Some of these can change down the line, my question of
your director was does this, then, necessitate a return to change language or a part of a
condition that everybody is in agreement with, but happens to be part of the approved
conditions by specific wording, rather than just a reference to comply with the
requirements of ACHD. I hope that doesn't come back to bite any of us and it's certainly
not just us, it's apparently anybody that would have such a requirement. Long
statement for a short answer, perhaps, but I think these are issues that we work out with
ACHD that the city does not have to make a decision on.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I know we have had issues in particular with private lanes on those kinds of
conditions and when they change at ACHD. Personally, I like them in our conditions,
because it's, then, brought to our attention that something has changed. Although we
don't have road authority, we do have a responsibility for safety in our community and
some of the decisions that ACHD makes, I don't believe because of our responsibilities
of public safety, really conform to what we believe works best for our community. I kind
of like to have these recommendations in there and I guess out of curiosity, I am
interested in the A, B, or C, because as we moved forward -- and one of the whole
reasons we went into the North Meridian planning process was because of the road
issues and how we were going to accommodate traffic. This is something that we have
asked in joint meetings with ACHD on how the city can also be part of the solution, in
addition to ACHD and the development community. Frankly, I have an interest, I don't
know if the rest of the Council does, but I'm kind of curious as to what the feeling is right
now on the A, B, or C.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council member de Weerd, I assume that you're asking that
question of your Council Members, rather than us, or what?
De Weerd: Well, I'm asking the question of you. If they want to listen to the answer,
they are sure free to.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 21 of 67
Wardle: Well, quite frankly, I think what ACHD is proposing to do is to reduce the cost
of -- both in terms of acquisition of right of way -- it doesn't change, frankly, the
improvements that will be done. It really could change the cost for right of way
acquisition on all of their arterial systems, not just North Meridian, but literally,
everywhere and I think this has probably become a fairly standard situation for them.
Just, for instance, it's suggesting on any of these roads that you can donate the
additional right of way and construct the five-foot sidewalk with -- and talks about the
41-foot minimum improvement of the street or don't dedicate the right of way. Construct
the sidewalk in an easement or don't dedicate the right of way, but construct the
sidewalk located at the back of the existing right of way. Now, in all cases I think that
puts the sidewalk away from the physical roadway, but it just -- it helps them in one
regard to possibly reduce the cost when they improve those roadways in the future by
either their own action or in concert, in a partnership with any of the development
community.
De Weerd: Well, I understand what the choices mean. I just wanted to know what
choice you were leaning towards.
Wardle: I don't know that we have even discussed which choice. Mr. Turnbull may
have his feelings and I would certainly defer to let him make that statement, but I have
not had any discussions on which of these would be implemented in the design, so I
don't know.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess we have an application in the North Meridian area that, you
know, just came right out. I know they had those choices, too, and they just said we are
donating the right of way and so we just knew where we were going with that application
and since this is annexation and zoning, you know, I think that we can't help in looking
at this and I just wanted to know where things were coming -- what the idea was in this
regard.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member de Weerd, let me see if Mr. Turnbull can enlighten
on what he plans to do, because I have not had any involvement in that discussion.
De Weerd: Okay, while you're still here, though.
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: I also know that you have some really nice open areas as well and I just
wanted to ask, before Councilman Nary did, what your specific plans were for those
open areas.
Wardle: Can you -- which open areas, are you referring to, Council Member de Weerd?
De Weerd: I know you have the community center out here. If you will just go through
what the amenities are.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 22 of 67
Wardle: Yes. Let me actually go to a graph that I brought that will illustrate that in color.
De Weerd: Okay. Thanks.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, this was, actually, in your packet last week, I
believe, as Exhibit A and just to reference -- it doesn't really show up there. Of course,
the high school site, the elementary site, and, then, the community center is located in
this circular -- half circle area as you come into the project. Among the amenities there
will be a -- the location is provided for the regional trail connection through the project,
essentially, on the site where there is no lot frontage of that particular roadway system.
There are park areas and the plat actually defines the acreage, but I think this one is in
the range of three acres and they go down into one and a half to two acre sites. In the
future, as acquisition occurs of some of these parcels, there will be another such green
space or two in this particular area when that's laid out and brought back in a future
Preliminary Plat proposal. In terms of the amenities, they are scattered in a location or
a way that it provides immediate enjoyment and use right within the subsets of that
neighborhood. Obviously, there are the mixed-use components on the half-mile lines
on either side, so if you have other questions I would be happy to try to answer them,
but that's pretty much the intent.
De Weerd: And the one to two acre open areas, in particular by the higher densities, do
you have a tot lot in there or is it, you know, picnic areas, or it is just a plain open green
area?
Wardle: Council Member de Weerd, I don't know that we have actually done any
specific layouts on those. I would assume that that's the type of thing that we would
have to bring back to staff as we detail those. I -- based on what has happened before,
you get the landscaping and there would be, you know, certainly the open space, but
what types of physical amenities or hard scape, I don't have -- I can't tell you today,
because I have not -- we haven't talked about a specific layout in those. Obviously, the
community center element will involve a building, a pool, and other amenities, but,
obviously, are also going to have to be looked at in detail in the future. Mr. Turnbull
may be able to enlarge on what his intent is.
De Weerd: Well, after seeing what he put in the Heritage Commons, I don't doubt that
it's going to be nice, I just wondered, you know, in those other areas if there were any
specific plans.
Wardle: I'm certain that there will be, but I don't know.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 23 of 67
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Wardle, I heard you say that I guess your preference is for us to look at A-4,
A-5 of the annexation one and you said B of the -- and I missed the number of the
Preliminary Plat conditions that --
Wardle: Yes.
Nary: -- you had an issue with and I missed --
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, B -- and, of course, I'm -- the B that I'm referring to there
in each of these sections is the -- let me be certain. This is the Preliminary Plat and if
you go to the conditions -- and that begins on page -- Page 2 of the recommendation
and it starts, you know, A is the adopt the special recommendations. Then, B, the
recommendations of Planning and Zoning and engineer staff. B-1 on Page 2 of the
Preliminary Plat staff report, the second paragraph of that condition states the applicant
shall be required to dedicate and it's that four line statement that we are asking for -- to
be deleted.
Nary: Thank you. That's all I have.
Corrie: Any other questions any other comments from the developer at this time? This
is a continued Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to
have testimony at this time? Okay. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony
you're about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
McColl: It is.
Corrie: I'm sorry.
McColl: Brian McColl, 420 West Washington Street. I appreciate able counsel's
opinion. Although, I have not had a chance to review it, I'm not sure where my copy
went. That having been said, I think this is a very interesting legal question and it
occurred to me when I heard Council discussing the various options, of course, there is
a third option. That is to accept the staff's recommendation that there be a condition
that easements be granted to and through the entire project, which is sort of consistent
with the City Council's policy in the past, it's just a question of timing. You have always
said to and through the phases currently being developed and now you may choose to
say to and through the project that the applicant is asking for annexation, Preliminary
Plat approval. Council has, I think, accurately said you can do just about anything you
want on annexation, but, nonetheless, let's be conservative and not get ourselves into a
lawsuit. I want you to think about the logical conclusion of not requiring these
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 24 of 67
easements, with the understanding that the applicant says, oh, you know, when you
need it, come to us and we will work with you and with the idea that it goes into the city's
overall plan to have it built in '04 or '05. Then, you will go in and acquire easements.
This is not requiring easements over property that has not already been taken in as part
of the city and entitlements acted on. If you think of going to the applicant and saying,
okay, now we want the easements, what's your asking price? Well, it's five million
dollars. Well, that's silly, that's way too much money. We don't want to pay you that,
we'd like to pay the real value of that easement. Well, what is the value of the
easement? The value of the easement is the loss to the property owner. The loss to
the property owner of a strip of land across streets that the property owner, the
applicant, has already indicated that he's going to develop into streets and dedicate to
ACHD for the streets and the utilities that go under them. In other words, this property
in that eminent domain lawsuit that you might have if he says I want a little bit more
money than you're willing to pay. The value of that really ought to be zero, because
he's already said give me an annexation and a Preliminary Plat approval for this entire
property, and now its highest and best use is me, the developer, building streets and
giving them away. I just think that that potential lawsuit is more likely than this up front
sort of veiled argument that this is an illegal exaction. It is not an illegal exaction at all. I
mean your -- the project's need for sewer is given the minute the developer comes in
and says we are going to develop this property. The project needs sewer and the city
provides sewer, the city needs the easements. Thank you. If you have any questions I
would be happy to respond.
Corrie: Any questions?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. McColl, but the developer has already told us that, but -- that he will and he
has a history of working very positive with the city. Although, if we agree with you that
the need exists and the city engineer and public works is saying we are going to move
this project onto our priority list to get it done and the developer has agreed to work with
us to get that accomplished, why do we need to do it. Because of his concerns that
other property owners would, then, have the ability to use that easement at no cost or
expense to them. I guess that's really the whole issue here. I guess I'm not totally
hearing your answer to that question.
McColl: I think my answer to that question is when the developer says to you, you
know, if you need this, come to us, work with us, we will work with you. Well, the staff
has already come to them and said we would like to have those easements. Their
answer is -- not that we will work with you, it's a promise that we will work with you in the
future. If they were really sincere about working with you now, they would give up the
easement. It's an easement over one landowner's piece of property who we all know
practically would do anything to make sure that property is taken down. I don't, with all
due respect to the developer, I think it's code when he says we will work with you when
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 25 of 67
you ask us, when the city has already asked through this request, and they said, well,
working with you means you pay me money. How much? Doesn't have any value to
him, because it's not loss to him.
Nary: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you. Again, anyone else like to issue testimony?
Okay. Hearing none, David? The developer.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor --
Corrie: Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Turnbull: I do.
Corrie: Thank you.
Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I will try to answer some
of the questions that have come up here. Council Member de Weerd had a specific
question about the ACHD Conditions 1, 2, or 3, which -- or Options 1, 2, and 3, which
one we would choose. As Mr. Wardle said, we really haven't reviewed that. I guess the
point that I -- what I would say is that we are in this situation because ACHD has run out
of funds in its right-of-way purchase fund and so they are not acquiring right of ways out
in the future like they had to for the last 10 years. If ACHD were to modify their impact
fees where they took right-of-way accusation out of those impact fees, then, we could
consider one alternative over another. The fact of the matter is right now they are
charging -- they would be charging impact fees for right-of-way acquisition and we really
don't want to double pay, by -- you know, by making a donation then, being charged on
the back end for right-of-way acquisitions that are now building the impact fee schedule.
It's kind of one of those depend kind of situations. What we will do is put the sidewalk
where the sidewalk should be in the future and, then, we will work with ACHD about
whether we put that in an easement that they can acquire in the future when they do get
the funds built back up again or something to that effect. It's not an easy answer, but
you know, we do intend to make sure the public safety needs are met. I really don't
care to answer Mr. McColl's aspersions directly. I think that this Council knows and has
been well briefed on this matter, to say that this is consistent with city policy, it's just a
matter of timing, is incorrect. It's never been a condition of a previous annexation or
Preliminary Plat or Conditional Use Permit. To say that you can do anything -- the city
can do anything it wants on an annexation is incorrect. You know, an annexation,
whether you call it a quasi-judicial or legislative, it can't be arbitrary, it can't be -- you
can't just ask for anything you want or do anything you want. I think that you guys -- the
Mayor and the Council knows us well enough to know that we will work with the city
when the city has a need. Otherwise, I don't appreciate the aspersions that have been
cast here and I hope you can appreciate that as well. Mr. Wardle did summarize the
request that we are making as far as a few minor deletions -- minor modifications of the
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 26 of 67
conditions regarding the deletion of the sewer easement. I think Anna already
addressed the irrigation easement that will be -- irrigation easements will be addressed
at the Final Plat stage as she said and the other it would be to include Lot 57, Block 3,
in the application as we requested before. If you have any questions for me, I would
entertain them at this time.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Do our conditions adequately address the sales trailer?
Turnbull: I believe that --
De Weerd: On the Preliminary Plat.
Turnbull: I believe they do. Yes, they do.
De Weerd: Okay. You know, I guess I didn't understand -- I thought because those
roads were not on the five year plan that they could not collect impact fees for them and
that's why this is an issue. Are they still collecting impact fees for those roads?
Turnbull: Well, you have a representative from ACHD that might be able to answer that
question better. It's my understanding that they are.
De Weerd: Okay. We can him --
Turnbull: You can ask him separately. It is a confusing issue. You know, obviously, we
all want to do what's right. We have suggested ways that through the North Meridian
planning process that private development can work with ACHD. In fact, I was just
reading -- I sit on the commercial developers advisory committee of ACHD and I wasn't
able to attend the last meeting. I read the minutes just this morning and Winston Moore
brought up the subject of ACHD improvement costs versus private development
improvement cost and why is there such a disparity and how can we work together to
bring that gap closer together, which would save ACHD millions of dollars. I don't know
-- you know, that's a subject that we can't air out tonight, but there are -- there are ways
that we are exploring to provide mutual benefit to each other.
De Weerd: Well -- and I know you will do what's right. I think that you have shown that.
I guess our concern is this is an extremely large subdivision and in the history of
Meridian, this is the largest application we have had. Certainly, the roads are going to
be a big issue and I know you're not going to load them in one year it will be built out
over time. It is something that I think is the whole reason why we went into the north
Meridian planning process to begin with and so that is why I'm more than curious as to
what the answer is on these choices.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 27 of 67
Turnbull: Well, my answer is we intend to put the public sidewalk in the location where
it would be outside of future right of way, so it wouldn't have to be relocated at additional
expense to the public and that thereby -- that, thereby, sets aside the area for future
right of way for future expansion of those roadways. The only question is at what point
is ACHD prepared to come in and acquire that right of way and/or, you know, alter their
impact fee assessments, so the right-of-way acquisition is taken out. I mean it's just a
matter of not wanting to pay twice for the same thing.
De Weerd: I can understand that.
Turnbull: I would like to -- excuse me. I would like to address a question Council
member de Weerd asked about some of the green areas that we have scattered
around. Mr. Wardle is correct, we have not sat down -- you know, I imagine that some
of those details will come in the future as the project develops, but we haven't sat down
and decided exactly which one might have a volleyball net and which one might have
playground equipment. If you will notice out in Heritage Commons we have the
community center with the swimming pool and we added onto that a very nice
playground, tot lot playground. That wasn't part of the requirements of Heritage
Commons it's something that we just added to the plan after we had our approvals from
the city. We often do those things as we go through the development and see a need,
then, we put those in, whether it's required or not. The intent is, basically, to provide a
range of experiences. We don't want playground equipment in every one of those
parks, we may want, you know, a volleyball net in one and playground equipment in
another and who knows what else, just there is a variety of recreational opportunities.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Turnbull, I think the problem -- the one thing you said a little bit the last time,
too, that it is unfortunate that we didn't focus a lot of the attention on the benefits of this
subdivision. What you're trying to do here and I think it's tremendous, I really do, and
being a movie fan, I even like it more, I really -- I like all the street names and the like.
The concern I have is -- I do believe what you’re saying, your history with the City of
Meridian has been very positive and it has been a very good working relationship. It
appears to me that what the staff is asking for is some assurance, because things
change. This is a long-term development and the five of us up here, we can trust you
until the cows come home, but if you're not there, what do we put in this document to
make sure that we aren't going to get held up by somebody else. I think that's really all
the staff was really asking for is it's not you and it's not an aspersion on you, it's more of
a concern of making sure that the city is protected, because this is a long-term project
that's not going to be done in the next two years, but might take 10 or 15 or more to get
all the way built out completely. I think that's really the concern they are trying to
address and, obviously, there is a difference of opinion on whether or not the method
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 28 of 67
they are trying to address is appropriate and, obviously, some might disagree about
that, but I think that's all we are trying to get to is not getting held up. You know, I'm
sure you're well aware, as well as everyone else, on the other sewer project and how
long -- the White Truck, how long extra it took just to get it done. Help me out here. I
mean what can we do? You have said you will work with us. I trust you when you say
that, but, like Mr. McColl said, I'm not sure what that means and we can make sure, we
can put that in writing, when the five us aren't up here and you're not -- maybe not the
person there. You know, what would be better or what would be something to achieve
what we are trying get to that you have a comfort with and that the city has a comfort
with, so five years from now somebody else doesn't say what were you guys thinking,
you just left this hanging and nothing's getting done now and nobody wants to work with
anybody.
Turnbull: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Council member Nary, some -- you know, I guess you can
have people come up here and give you some horror scenario that might concern you
enough that you think you have to start hooking conditions back in. You know, the idea
that -- first of all, let me go back. We don't own all this property and, therefore, I -- as I
indicated two weeks ago, I cannot agree to a condition which I do not have any control
over. Okay? I can't grant you an easement, even if I wanted to right now, I could not
grant you an easement over that entire property, because I don't own the entire property
yet and I think if anybody has any questions about that, please, let me know, but I think
we explained that pretty thoroughly last time. The second item is the city always has --
you know, first, obviously, is just the ability to come in and negotiate some alignment
and whatever, you know, whether there is compensation involved or not, they can
negotiate that. The final option the city has is the power of eminent domain and the
power of eminent domain gives you the ability to condemn an easement for the value of
what that property is. You know, if I said it was worth five million dollars and, you know,
it was a point of ridiculousness, a judge is going to say, no, get an appraisal and that's
what the values were. You're not out there. You know, there is -- you have got that
ability to go in and acquire the easement, even through property that we don't own, at
the market value or, you know, the appraised value of that property. That huge
downside risk scenario that somebody is painting is not reality. All we want to do is be
treated the same as everybody else. This has never been a condition of any other
annexation, Conditional Use Permit, or Preliminary Plat. You can -- you know, I think
your own Council has been in contact with Boise City, you know, everybody wants to
look for other precedence, but they don't believe they have the ability to impose that
kind of condition. I guess it's when somebody starts trying to ram a condition down my
throat that I think is unreasonable that I get -- I start to get my back up and we have
spent too much money on attorney's fees right now trying to address an issue because
it's a condition that we don't have any, you know, total control over. We don't think it's
appropriate and fair.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 29 of 67
McCandless: David, when you do acquire the next piece of property and you own it,
what comes first, the easement or the street layout? I mean are you going to layout the
streets and, then, say, okay, you can have easements, but does that mean taking
easements that you have to tear up the streets in order to get the sewer in or --
Turnbull: You know, obviously, the concern is that you put the sewer in place where it's
going to be needed in the future. You know, the more study and the more engineering,
you know, the more you -- because Preliminary Plats are just that, they are preliminary,
they are not exact locations of everything. You try to get it as close as you can without -
- without going into the final engineering. Obviously, the closer you can get to that final
street layout or you put easements in place and before you actually construct the sewer,
it would be better for everybody, because the worst thing to do is come back later and
find out you have to relocate things. I think you have had a few instances of that in the
recent past, but -- so, obviously, the street layouts are the appropriate place to start.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, I guess no one is questioning -- well, everyone is questioning
this process, because this is the first application we have had where we have needed a
one mile easement. We -- the precedence that we have set before it seems -- and
maybe this will lead me to a question, too, is as we get these smaller pieces, they just
naturally do connect up through the street alignments. That, so that -- I know that is
exactly how some of these other areas are you get one, three months later, you get
another application, and somehow -- it doesn't get worked out in front of us, it gets
worked out at staff level. Somehow those easements are all granted and the one thing
that changes here is as we look at easements even now, we can say this will add value
to your property and so the people that we are working with will say, well, I'll donate that
easement, because it does add value to my property. It makes my property worth more
money, and so we are a little bit more in the hostage area that has nothing to do with
you, but we don't know it up front. You know, you're saying you will work with us,
whereas in the past we have worked with people and it's been donated. Now, we have
this big gray area out there as, okay, you're basically saying it won't be donated, but you
will be reasonable. I think that makes it a little bit harder to say we can give you value
to your property when we have already annexed you and approved the Preliminary Plat
that has shown where those things go. I can see it from two different angles here and I
-- before you comment, I guess my question to staff is did we not kind of have an issue
like this with Bridgetower Subdivision, because they were the first leg of our White
Trunk? Did we go in and pay them for their easements as they pushed the
development of that trunk line east? It seems like it did delay it, because they had to
work with the road alignments, but -- and did we pay them for those easements?
Watson: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor, and Council Members, I'll go in reverse
order. No, we did not pay them for the easement. Second, I don't remember it as a
condition of the annexation. One of the conditions of that project was that the whole
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 30 of 67
project be annexed at once. Most of the delay with the easement in that project, from
what I understand, had to do with realigning streets. That was the information we were
given, realignment of streets and the ongoing negotiation with ACHD and Settler's
Irrigation District. That was finally resolved. I think we paid for one easement out of
about ten on that project. Mr. Turnbull donated the easement on his portion of that as
well, the Quenzer Commons.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, Council Member de Weerd, I never said I was going to charge you
for any easement. I never said I -- I never made a statement one way or the other. I did
say that I don't own all that property and, therefore, I can't grant you an easement on all
that property that's been conditioned in this property. It's just a condition that's not in my
control. I said we would be happy to work with the staff. As Brad mentioned, the delay
-- well, for instance, in Bridgetower, it was not a condition of their annexation. The delay
was a matter of working things out between ACHD and Settler's Irrigation District to
make sure things were put in the proper place and this condition it's the same -- you
know, before you do your first plat, you will grant an easement through your whole
entire property. Well, you know, it's impossible for us to do and, really, not -- it doesn't
make a lot of sense. You know, that would be counterproductive. That would be -- run
a higher risk of getting the easements where they don't belong, instead of where they do
belong. You have a process that you can go through. You know, it's a -- and I'm happy
to work with the city if they have a Public Works project that they want to pursue and,
you know, if I die tomorrow, you still have a process that you can rely on to get that
same thing done. You may not be doing it with me, but you can still get it done, even if
you had to go through the condemnation process, that can be accomplished well before
any public need can conceivably be there.
De Weerd: I guess this just underscores the importance of staff, because most of this is
the unknown, we never see it, and so it's a lot easier for us.
Turnbull: Well, you know -- and I -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor, Council member de Weerd.
You know, that is the best way for you guys to have it done is with staff, so that you
never see it. I'm sure that you don't want to get in the middle of these kinds of issues.
That's maybe not your -- maybe it is, maybe not your level of expertise and, you know, if
those things can be worked with staff, so much the better for your time. Again, like I
said two weeks ago, it pains me to sit up here talking about a silly sewer easement
when, you know, I think we have presented to this city a really fine project. We hope
that you will approve the annexation, the Preliminary Plat, and the Conditional Use
Permit and we hope that you will agree to the conditions that we have asked to be
modified and give us your favorable vote. Unless you have any further questions, I'll
take a seat.
Corrie: Okay, any further questions? Do you want Bruce to testify?
De Weerd: Yes.
Corrie: Is the testimony you're about to give to the Council the truth, so help you God?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 31 of 67
Mills: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you name and address, please.
Mills: Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District, Garden City. Just dive in or --
De Weerd: Please.
Mills: Okay. I hope I don't put anybody in a coma when I start talking about impact
fees, but I will try to be brief. In the north Meridian area -- first of all, for a project to
receive -- let me back up. Yes, they will be charged impact fees. Every development is
charged impact fees, regardless of whether the road that they are fronting is in our 20
year capital improvements plan or not. However, we can only spend money, for
instance, purchasing right of way from an applicant, if, in fact, that roadway that we are
buying right of way along is in our 20 year program, capital program. That means that
for this development we cannot spend impact fee monies to purchase the right of way
from the developer. We either have to use general fund money or we have to work out
some other arrangement where, you know, hopefully, when COMPASS redoes their
model. Just some of these projects will, then, fall into this rapidly growing area and into
the new 20 year program, that we can, then, make it eligible and have purchase money
down the -- purchase easements down the road with money we have. We don't have all
the answers right now, to be honest with you, because this is something new, with the
new Capital Improvement Plan that we have in place and the way our impact fees are
now tied to that, again, we can't buy right of way on those roads that aren't in the CIP.
Corrie: Can they not dedicate that right of way and, then, you pay them back later?
Mills: Anything's possible. We don't have any formal agreement for that type of --
Corrie: Because I notice that's happening on another couple of things right now, so --
well, I didn't want to put you on the spot.
Mills: No. That's fine. The answers aren't clear.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Now, as I understand it, the roads in the north Meridian area really are not
in the 20-year plan.
Mills: That's correct. I believe Ustick is from Meridian East to Eagle.
De Weerd: And you're collecting an awful lot of impact fees, so those impact fees can't
go in those areas?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 32 of 67
Mills: Those impact fees can be used anywhere within the service area that we have.
Presently, we are in the interim basis and we actual have a countywide zone. When we
-- later this summer are going to have a new revised ordinance and at the present time
they are learning towards four service areas. Regardless of that, the fees that we
collect can be used in the service area that they are collected in, which means they
need to be used on projects that have high priority right now. Franklin Road or some of
the other things in this area that have higher volumes of traffic, and future impact fees
that are collected would probably wind up paying for projects like, you know, up in the
area of Paramount. Does that mean that we are -- see, we are never -- well, I shouldn't
say it, but it's true, we are probably never going to catch up. We are just going to keep
trying to define the worst roads and improve those.
De Weerd: Well, Ustick is one of them. I guess I remember a comment that -- in
another application that the intersection improvements will at least be done, because --
is that still being discussed?
Mills: Yes. We are looking right now at the intersections and trying to put those in the
CIP and the highest priority intersections will get done, but this is -- right, we can
improve intersections and move more traffic, even though we are not widening the road
in certain areas.
De Weerd: And that's why you're requiring the detached sidewalks, so that at least
sidewalks can be developed without, then, depending on the road improvements?
Mills: Well, it's interesting. Our policy requires sidewalks all along any new
developments. However, if we don't have the right of way, then, we have to rely on
some sort of interim agreement where they -- as Mr. Turnbull indicated, perhaps they
put it in an easement, which we can purchase later down the road, or we have got some
other deal or as one of the other applicants did, they just went ahead and donated, but -
-
(Mayor Corrie stepped out of room.)
De Weerd: Okay. Well, Council, any other questions for -- okay. Thank you. Okay. Is
there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Council, what is your pleasure? Do
you want to ask any further questions of staff? Would you like to close the Public
Hearing at this time? Would you like to have discussion prior to closing the Public
Hearing in case a question comes out?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would be in favor of some discussion in case there are issues that --
since is such a significant project, I guess there may be issues in discussion, but -- so
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 33 of 67
rather than closing the Public Hearing, I guess I -- I guess my comment is, again, it's
very unfortunate to have to spend all this time on a sewer easement when, overall, this
project is a tremendous asset and addition to the city. I think it's a great project and I
appreciate Mr. Turnbull and Brighton Corporation bringing this to the City of Meridian.
The issue of sewer, we passed a policy last week that Mr. Watson and Mr. Smith had
proposed from the Public Works Department that basically was to get the city on a more
-- I guess more modern footing dealing with these easement issues and the intent of
that policy. As I understood it when we approved it, was we will go to the landowners,
we will attempt to get these easements negotiated, but if we can't, we can't, we will buy
it and we will move on. That's -- we weren't going to spend two years trying to negotiate
free easements, to take two extra years to get a project done. I agree with that policy
and I think that was a wise decision from the Public Works Department, as well as the
Council to say we are not going to spend and waste a lot of time trying to get this
accomplished. Although we spent two different hearings talking about this, I just cannot
see why this is any different. Mr. Turnbull is correct. If he isn't here, we have a process
to acquire these easements. We can deal with it just like our policy says, we can
negotiate with it, if that doesn't work, we can condemn it and buy it and move on, and I
don't see this as a major -- as major a concern as it seems to have become. I
appreciate the Public Works Department and the memo that we received, that they'd
like to move this project up. There are some other areas in the north that need this
North Trunk or north sewer line and move it up on the agenda to be able to get this
accomplished within the next, I guess, two and a half years, but I guess I'm not sure
what's the need to have this condition. We can do everything that we'd like to do
through the policy we are already approved and there is not a necessity to impose this
condition -- you know, this just doesn't appear to me to be a dog worth fighting over, we
already passed a policy to address it, and we can move forward on this project, we can
delete those conditions regarding it, it's not going to change anything in regards to how
we do business. It is larger, it is significant, I understand the staff's rationale and
reasoning for wanting to kind of cover this base, because it is such a large project and
such a long-term project, but in the interim we have passed a policy that addresses it
and we can take care of it. We can go forward and delete A-4, we can delete A-5,
because I don't think it's a big concern to me to include that commercial piece. We can
delete the condition out of the second paragraph of the -- of the Preliminary Plat
conditions and our policy we adopted covers this and we have spent a lot of time, again,
talking about a sewer easement when we really should be talking about what a great
addition this is to the city. Certainly, we have always said in any project there is a level
of trust and Mr. Turnbull has earned the trust of the city. When he says he's going to
work with the city, he has, he always has, and I don't see a reason that it's going to
change. Even if he doesn't or even if he isn't there and someone else is in that seat, we
have a policy and a means from which to get what we want to accomplish anyway.
Whether or not whoever is in that chair, we can get this done. I think we can just move
forward. I don't know if that -- if anybody else wants to make a comment or whether
anybody on staff does, but I don't think we need to spend a lot more time on it.
Bird: I agree 100 percent.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 34 of 67
Corrie: Any other comments? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think you summed that up very nicely. I guess I do have a question for the
attorney. In all of these applications that we have seen in front of us, we have put a
condition on there that -- I don't know if it's obsolete now or not and it has reference to
any policies that come out of the North Meridian planning area be adopted and applied.
If you could address that, Mr. Attorney, I would appreciate that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the condition that Councilwoman de
Weerd was referring to, for those in the audience that may not be familiar with it, was a
condition that we inserted into most of the approvals which required that the developer
cooperate with ACHD with regard to any road and infrastructure agreements that might
be entered into as part of the north Meridian plan process. What was originally
contemplated was there was some issues that were being kicked around, as the private
development community building the roads, because of the cost issues that were
discussed in terms of a private developer building a road in a less expensive way than
what ACHD is able to do and some of those things. With the status of the north
Meridian plan, I don't think it removes the issue of trying to work toward an agreement
with ACHD. I -- it wasn't really a condition of approval before that you could say, well,
we can deny the Building Permits, because there was one that was going to -- basically
telling people, well, agree to it or -- so it was a different condition to enforce to begin
with. I don't know that we lose anything by taking it out and under the current
circumstances it could be that the Council may, within its power, adopt some sort of
ordinance issue that pertains to these things in the future that applications will have to
comply with. I don't think that's set yet and I know ACHD is continuing to examine the
issue of what's a permissible exaction and what isn't and also to try to explore some of
these issues about having these roads built more quickly and less expensively. As a
practical matter, the more -- the more traffic these roads carry, the better for the
development community, so that people can get to and from their lots more quickly.
Long answer to your short question.
De Weerd: So -- Mr. Mayor? I'm sorry.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So, can I -- some -- your answer that we can place that same condition here
and in the event that something -- a policy for the North Meridian area does come to
fruition, that it can be applied?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can include what we have
done before for a standard condition, which references potential future agreements
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 35 of 67
between the development community and ACHD. Again, it's more of an
encouragement thing.
De Weerd: Right. Okay.
(Mayor Corrie returned.)
Corrie: Any other questions? You haven't closed the Public Hearing?
Nary: We have not. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I will I guess amend one thing I said is I think -- in condition number four
and this is an opportunity for the applicant if he has a problem with it. I think in Number
4, because, again, it's a large project, it's a long-term project, and we have had issues, I
think, as Mr. Turnbull raised, in other developments, like Bridgetower where there was
some time in getting the easements straightened out in relationship to the roads and
such, that I guess I would probably in making this motion. Probably amend condition
four to say something more to the effect that the applicant shall negotiate with the City
of Meridian to locate a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement
through the project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after Preliminary
Plat approval, not prior to submittal of Final Plat and all of those things. Just to make it
clear in our findings that the intent is that we are going to work together to get the
easements done, to get it aligned properly, to get all of that taken care of and I don't
know if the applicant has an objection to that, but I think it's just to make it clear. Other
than that amendment, I don't really have any other suggested changes. Basically,
Condition Number 4 would say the applicant shall negotiate with the City of Meridian to
locate a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement through the
project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk, after Preliminary Plat
approval.
Corrie: Do you have any problem with that, Dave any other discussion? Okay.
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the continued Public Hearing on Item 12,
13, and 14.
Nary: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the continued Public Hearing on the
request for annexation and zoning, request for Preliminary Plat, and the request for a
Conditional Use Permit.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I think before we close the Public Hearing --
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 36 of 67
Corrie: Okay. Discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.
Turnbull: I guess I'll just have to reiterate that -- what I have said before. We do not
own all of the property subject to a future easement, so we can help, we can assist, but
we can't actually do something that we don't have any control over there. I don't know
how you would word that.
Nary: Right and I think that I guess -- I'm sorry. I think the intent is just to make it clear
that the intent is just as you spoke of, is simply to work together with the city and it's just
to help located the --
Turnbull: To locate where they should be?
Nary: Right. Were they should be. That's all.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed no? All ayes. Continued Public Hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further comments or discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of AZ 03-006, the request for annexation and zoning
of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L-O, and C-G zones for the
proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC. West of North Meridian Road
and north of West McMillan Road, pursuant to the recommendations of Planning and
Zoning, all staff comments. To amend Condition Number 4 of the staff -- or the
Planning and Zoning recommendations to now read that the applicant shall negotiate
with the City of Meridian to -- negotiate -- the City of Meridian to locate a permanent
easement and temporary construction easement through the project to Meridian Road
for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after Preliminary Plat approval. To delete condition
five, and the remainder of staff comments and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts
and Conclusion of Law and Decision and Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. We have a motion to approve AZ 03-006, request for annexation and
zoning of Paramount Subdivision, any further discussion? Okay, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 37 of 67
Corrie: Now, we have Item 13, Preliminary Plat 03-004, request for Preliminary Plat
approval.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of PP 03-004, the request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 764 building lots, 37 other lots, on 392.17 acres in a proposed R-8, R-40, L-
O, and C-G zones for the proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC. West
of North Meridian Road, north of West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments and
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. With the amendment of
Condition B-1, second paragraph, shall now read consistent with the annexation
condition, that the applicant shall negotiate with the City of Meridian to locate a
permanent easement and a temporary construction easement through the project to
Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after the Preliminary Plat approval.
To include all other recommendations and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for
Preliminary Plat for Paramount Subdivision, any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr.
Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Number 14 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Paramount
Subdivision.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of CUP 03-008, the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a planned development for 754 single family residences, 73 townhomes, 270
apartments, community center, schools, and churches in a proposed R-8, R-40, L-O
and C-G zones for the proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC. West of
North Meridian Road, North of West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments,
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and for counsel to prepare
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 38 of 67
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. I do not believe there
are any amendments to the request.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a
Conditional Use Permit on Paramount Subdivision, any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. The request for Conditional Use Permit is approved. David, I wish you a
long life. You can do well. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-011
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in
Resolution Subdivision
an L-O zone for by G.L. Voigt Development –
1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road:
Corrie: Okay. We had Item 15 already, so we go to Item 16, which is a Public Hearing,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with
associated site improvements on an L-O zone by Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt
Development, 1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road. At this time
I will open the Public Hearing on CUP 03-011 and request staff comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. You will be pleased to
know there are no sewer easements associated with this application.
De Weerd: Why, thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: The project is the same subdivision that you have already approved
one item on tonight, the Resolution -- Resolution Park Subdivision there on Overland
Road. The original approval for this subdivision, since it was conceptual, did require
detailed Conditional Uses. That is one of the reasons why they have a conditional use
on this project. The other is that they are proposing to put two buildings on a single lot.
They have submitted a Site Plan and that's shown here. They have shown two different
phases to their project. The phase line is, essentially, about three quarters of the way
through the project. I believe they are proposing the more easterly building first. There
is a private drive that was approved on the west side here coming off of Overland Road
and Millennium Way is a public collector, that, as you know, goes and serves the
Mountain View High School to the south. The original concept did show about 63,500
square feet of retail and 22,000 square feet of that total retail was on this lot. That has
been reduced pretty substantially, so even though they have two separate buildings, the
approved concept for the square footage of retail is, actually, less than what you
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 39 of 67
originally approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of
the project. As you may have noticed on the recommendation on Number 6 on Page 1
that there was a slight conflict, I guess, on -- between the Comprehensive Plan land use
map that we approved in August of last year that showed this property actually as high
density residential. We feel that it still complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because
of the approved resolution concept and it was basically just an error when we did the
mapping. In terms of compliance with the Comp Plan, we think that takes care of that. I
guess the only other thing to point out is as a Planned Development, they are having
sort of a central plaza that is in the center of the project that will have benches for
employees, et cetera, to utilize during lunch hours and things like that. We think that the
scope of that is -- fits the total scale of the project. Those -- that's the amenity that they
have proposed. Otherwise, they have shown parking that meets the city's ratios and
other landscaping. The Overland Road landscaping, of course, is in, along with the
sidewalk, so the only landscaping that you would be approving with this would be the
internal, more shaded landscaping shown here on the Site Plan. I think with that I will
take any questions.
Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Questions? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant
here this evening or representative? Okay. Council, any further questions? You want
to continue the Public Hearing or close it?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess traditionally we have continued them, so that the applicant can
respond to the staff conditions or to the recommendation and I prefer it that way, so --
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion, then, for a Continued Public Hearing to next week.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we continue the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in an
th
L-O zone for Resolution Subdivision and that would be continued to June 10.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on
the request for a Conditional Use Permit on Resolution Subdivision. Is there any further
comment? Okay. All in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17. Public Hearing: RZ 03-005
Request for a Rezone of 4.738 acres from
Christ Lutheran Church
R-4 to L-O zones for by Christ Lutheran Church
– 1406 West Cherry Lane:
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 40 of 67
Item 18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-012
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
Christ Lutheran Church
a church / preschool in a proposed L-O zone for
by Christ Lutheran Church – 1406 West Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Item Number 17 and 18 are Public Hearings involving Christ Lutheran Church
RZ 03-005, request for rezone of 4.73 acres from an R-4 to an L-O zone for the Christ
Lutheran Church and also a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church/preschool
in a proposed L-O zone for Christ Lutheran Church. At this time I will open the Public
Hearing and, Brad, I believe you're going to handle this one.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The two applications, the
rezone and the Conditional Use Permit, are related. You have seen several of these
over the last couple of years where churches have wanted to either do additions or add
other uses to their property. Most of the churches have had the R-4 or some residential
zoning, because of the previous Zoning Code and so that has made them necessary
when they want to make amendments to do this rezone. That's what we see here
tonight. They do have an R-4 currently. A piece of their property is -- it's more or less a
flag shaped parcel. It does have frontage on North Linder Road. Excuse me. The
majority of the site plan conditions related to the next item is here on the eastern larger
portion of the parcel that fronts on Cherry Lane. The site is bounded by the Meridian
Assembly of God Church on the north and the Vineyards and Duncan Place Subdivision
are on the east and the west. As you can see, the majority of Linder to the east is
currently vacant. The church sits on the western -- or eastern portion. The Site Plan
as shown here, they really are not proposing any modifications to this plan as you see it,
with the exception that the City Planning and Zoning Commission did ask for the
frontage on Cherry Lane here to be planted with 35 -- or trees 35 foot spacing, which is
our Landscape Ordinance. The buffer width is, by ordinance, required to be 25 feet
wide from the right of way into the property and my understanding is the applicant has
agreed to do that and we do have a Landscape Plan here that shows the required eight
trees along Cherry Lane. Since they have not improved the other portion of the
property here, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend that they
could just maintain that property as is and, then, upon any future redevelopment, then,
that would have to be brought up to code, as well as the interior portion of the parking
lot. The landscape ordinance says if they replace 50 percent or more of the parking lot,
then, they have to bring it all up and at this point they are not replacing any of the
parking lot, so -- there aren't any new structures being proposed, it's primarily using
their existing church and the Sunday school classes for their preschool and the
preschool is the Conditional Use Permit. That would all be within those buildings. I
don't believe there are any modifications to the recommendation as submitted to you for
either item. I think that's it.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Brad, any questions from Council? Okay. Is the applicant or
representative here this evening? I need to have -- just so I can hear you.
Spackman: No comment.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 41 of 67
Corrie: Raise your right hand. We need to swear you in just to say no comment. Is the
testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God?
Spackman: Yes, it is. Dirk Spackman, 5040 Westview Drive, Meridian.
Corrie: You still stand by your no comment?
Spackman: Yes. No comment.
Corrie: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to
issue testimony in this Public Hearing? Okay. Council, any other questions on the
Public Hearing? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on
Item Numbers 17 and 18.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the
RZ 03-005 and CUP 03-012. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All
ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Comments? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion for the Public Hearing -- or
the request for rezone.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for a rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L-O
zones for Christ Lutheran Church and to ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and accept all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a
rezone for the Christ Lutheran Church, any further comments? Hearing none, roll call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Request approved.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 42 of 67
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
church/preschool in a proposed L-O zone for Christ Lutheran Church and to instruct the
attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order
and to include all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a Conditional
Use Permit of the Christ Lutheran Church, any further comments? Roll call vote, Mr.
Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006
Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from
Bear Creek No. 6
R-4 to R-8 zones for by Westpark Company – west of
South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road:
Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-005
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31
building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Bear Creek No. 6
by Bear Creek, LLC – west of South Meridian Road and
south of West Overland Road:
Corrie: Item Numbers 19 and 20 are Public Hearing, a request for a rezone of 3.41
acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company. A Public
Hearing on Item 20, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and two
other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek,
LLC. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on both items and invite, Anna,
comments.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, there was a Variance request associated
with these applications for a block length variance and that did not make it onto tonight's
th
agenda, so we ask that you continue this to June 10, so that it catches up with the
Variance -- or so that the Variance catches up with this.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 43 of 67
Corrie: Okay. Since this is a Public Hearing, is there anyone that wants to testify at this
time, since we will continue the Public Hearing. Okay. Thank you. You want to
th
continue that, Anna, until next week, the 10?
Powell: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue Public Hearing RZ 03-006, the request for a
rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark
Company to June 10, 2003.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Second -- motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing
on Item Numbers 19 and 20, the request for Rezone and request for Preliminary Plat to
th
be continued to June 6 -- or 10, 2003, any further discussion? All those in favor say
aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-017
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
Carl’s Jr.
a new restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones –
north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and
South Main Street:
Corrie: Now, Item Number 21. This is a Public Hearing, CUP Number 03-017, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior restaurant with a drive-thru service
by Clayton Jones, north of intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive, and
South Main Street. At this time I will open Item Number 21, Public Hearing, and invite
staff comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a familiar site, I know. It's the
triangular parcel between Main Street and Meridian Road. The Kentucky Fried Chicken
was approved -- relocated to its present site. At that time there was -- well, the
applicant is now proposing to remove the existing structure that -- the second existing
structure, which is shown right there, that -- Kentucky Fried Chicken is down here. He's
proposing to remove this one and construct a new Carl's Junior with a drive-thru. The
Carl's Junior building would be 2,124 square feet, where to start with the Planning
Commission. They had a very long, long hearing on the item. Most of it centered is
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 44 of 67
around what was approved and/or denied through previous applications through the
city. Regarding the new layout, there was a lot of discussion -- I think I should go
through the layout. This is the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken. The traffic would move
in this direction. The drive-thru was here and, then, it would loop around there. This
would be an escape from there and it would also allow traffic to move from here and out
onto the street. Some of the previous issues concerned with development of the site
and, in particular, a drive-thru development on the site is that it would slow down this
traffic coming through this way to the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru and coming
out. The applicant proposes this location as not interfering with that traffic pattern on
the south end of the site. As the Planning Commission reviewed the project, they -- the
staff concerns were that the parking was on the other side of the drive aisle. The
Planning Commission considered those in relationship to the other issues that I have
mentioned and they felt that the -- that the issue of pedestrians crossing the drive aisle
or the queue aisle for the Carl's Junior was addressed in that there was a sidewalk here,
which would have a raised pattern on it. There would be fencing in that landscape
buffer here to direct people to that specific location. That they would have one
designated area to cross the street. This is a Planned Development to -- because there
are two structures on the same lot, so the applicant is required to provide amenities and
the two -- the amenities that he's providing are -- I'm sorry -- flags and entry sign, two --
three flags, an entry sign to the city, and a landscape island at the east end of the south
parking lot. I believe that was it. They did discuss also relocating this to move it three
spaces further south, so it would be kind of more in the middle of this location, which is
where his amenities were, so I think the applicant will probably have some comment on
how he's redesigning that small portion. What I haven't discussed, perhaps, is what the
controversy was with the last application. I do have all those applications here. We can
look up the old conditions of approval and the comments that were made regarding the
Kentucky Fried Chicken approvals and also the prior decision on the second drive-thru
after Kentucky Fried Chicken at this site. I will leave that for the question period, rather
than anticipate what your questions may be on all those applications.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Anna, any questions of staff? Okay. Is the applicant here
this evening? Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you
God?
Strite: It is.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Strite: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm
here, along with Joann Butler, the applicant, and Mr. Gibbs, who is the property owner.
We have come before you tonight with a positive recommendation from Planning and
Zoning Commission. This is, in fact, a very difficult site. I think everybody's agreed to
that. I think that what I'd like to start off, if I might, is to do a handout, because the
particular plan that is before you does not delineate those issues and conditions that
were placed upon our approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I think that
you probably all recall in your testimony in the original submittal that there was a couple
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 45 of 67
of major concerns, not only by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but this Council,
one of which was the access off of Meridian Road, the second one was site congestion
in general. First, let me address the access off of Meridian Road. We have negotiated
a raised median, which is a directional raised median with Ada County Highway District.
They, in fact, have approved the site that you see in front of you, the access with the
raised bubble there, the directional left-right and raised median, so that you're not
crossing traffic. That has been, in fact, approved by Ada County Highway District. The
second issue and probably the one that was of more concern by this Council, was site
congestion and I think one of the first things I'd like to point out to the Council here is
that if, in fact, Mr. Gibbs, the owner, decided that he would like to keep the exiting KFC
without the drive-thru, as deemed removed by this Council, he, in fact, could take that
particular building and place approximately 85 to 90 seats in it. That would be a sit-
down restaurant, that restaurant, in fact, would require more parking, it would require
longer parking stays, so we feel the alternative to that would be to remove that building
and provide the Carl's Junior as you see before you. Now, secondly, in terms of what
the applicant has done in terms of concession, he has reduced his original square
footage, as you recall, was 3,900 square feet, he's reduced that to 2,100 square feet.
He's reduced his original seating from 84 seats to 44 seats, both of which are nearly a
50 percent reduction in the original proposal that you had denied previously. Thirdly --
and I think importantly -- this particular alternative site plan increases the parking by 22
percent. We were able to go from the existing 42 spaces that you see out there today
to 55. We were also able to go from the one that you saw before you in November of
'02 from 43 spaces to 55 spaces. I think, thirdly, the drive-thru as it is presently
configured allows a lesser intense use in terms of parking. We are anticipating a
greater use of the drive-thru with this particular prototype. Incidentally, if, in fact, there
is a question relative to operations, Carl's is here to answer those in my stead. The site,
then, as presently posed, provided for this drive-thru required pedestrians to cross the
drive-thru lane. This is not unusual in urban settings. We have done it in a number of
spots, but it is unusual here. However, I think that we have been able to provide
enough safety measures to make this a nonentity. We have asked and Carl's has
agreed to provide decorative wrought iron railings on both sides of the drive-thru, not
only a raised delineated walk, but a raised delineated walk with flashers and adequate
signage prior to entering the drive-thru, which would make you aware that there is a
pedestrian crossing. I think that the staff's concerns have been mitigated and I think,
more importantly, the alternative -- and I don't want to be repetitive, but the alternative
would be to take the existing building as it is without the drive-thru and make it into a sit-
down restaurant, plus or minus 85 to 90 seats. That's totally conceivable. We also have
come before the Planning and Zoning Commission with three amenities. The first
amenity is a raised pedestrian -- delineated pedestrian walk that takes you out to East
st
1 Street from the backside of the drive-thru. The second and probably more
appropriate at this particular time in our country, is a memorial bench with a three-flag
setup. We are anticipating having the United State flag, the Idaho flag, and if, in fact,
the City of Meridian has a flag, we would be happy to fly it. The third amenity -- and I
think you have that in your packet and I will propose that to you tonight, is a welcome to
Meridian sign. Now, we do not have a location for this sign. We were hoping that Mr.
Gibbs and/or the lessee on the parcel to the south of us is agreed to -- or would agree
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 46 of 67
to. If not, we are prepared to go to the Ada County Highway District, requesting, if you
will, a License Agreement to provide signage to the city that would be more
appropriately shown in that that's before you tonight. I think, in summary, I think the
important thing to note here is although there is site congestion there. I don't think
anybody would argue that, I think the mitigating factors by revising the access entry in
and out, as well as redesigning the site to enhance the parking, enhance the circulation,
and provide the type of amenities Planning and Zoning Commission wished, we would
ask for your support and approval. I'd like to ask that if I can, in rebuttal, if there is any
questions relative to operations, we have Carl's here, if there is any questions relative to
previous applications and minutes and decisions made by this Council or the Planning
and Zoning Commission relative to the drive-thru, Joann Butler is here to address those.
I will open it up for questions, if you will, please.
Corrie: Council, any new questions?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Strite, it looks a little congested. I mean in this structure right here, but it
appears that your -- this is an entrance, right?
Strite: That's correct.
Nary: Okay. So, you're going to have traffic drive down here and, then, make this
pretty hard left turn into this drive-thru from here? It just seems fairly tight.
Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, that particular radius can be increased. We didn't feel
that if it were a 15-foot radius, it would inhibit any automobile turning, but if, in fact, it
needed to be greater, and there is room to do so.
Nary: But if you increase the radius there and you're not going to change this portion of
the Site Plan, then, aren't you, then, going to push these -- wasn't the whole idea was to
maintain this free drive-thru here for this drive-thru.
Strite: That's correct.
Nary: And the only way to push this radius out, then, would be to be back to the
driveway.
Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, no, that's speaking of the radius that would,
actually, be on the east side, the east side radius. You're referring specifically to traffic
that I would consider coming westbound, if you will, turning and going southbound.
That radius by the handicap space could be increased if, in fact, you think that's a
problem. We felt that a 15 radius would easily accommodate the turn lanes. You have
to understand that the existing Taco Time you have opposing traffic, if you will, coming
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 47 of 67
eastbound -- it's tough, because this thing is going cockeyed. Heading eastbound. This
traffic would be going westbound and making a left turn, if you will. Other traffic coming
st
in off of East 1 would be coming eastbound and making a right turn.
Nary: And, then, this is just a sidewalk, it's not a wall, correct?
Strite: I'm sorry?
Nary: This is just a drive walk right -- it's a walkway out to the sidewalk, so the traffic
can drive through here from this portion of the property?
Strite: I think your light’s out, sir. The east side and the west side, if you will, of the
drive-thru, both have raised wrought iron railing, but the walkway -- the raised walkway
that I made reference to that would be part of the amenities is a continuation of the walk
st
around the drive-thru and straight easterly, if you will, out to East 1.
Nary: So, there is a fence here?
Strite: No.
Nary: The fence is just right around the drive-thru next to the building?
Strite: Yes. We pick the fence up here and we bring it around to here, we pick up here,
we bring it there, we pick it up this side and bring it around to here.
Nary: So, it doesn't divide the property?
Strite: No, it does not. No. There is total accessibility, greater than 25 feet to give you
north and southbound traffic from KFC or back into KFC, however you wish, coming off
st
of East 1. We were also able, under this design, to split and, actually, provide a raised
planter area here that would delineate the drive-thru from the bypass lane and/or
accessibility to and from the KFC or people that are leaving this facility from this
direction, heading south, if you will, heading back to the east and turning and coming
st
back out here to East 1.
Nary: Now, the drive-thru window is here?
Strite: Yes, sir.
Nary: So, how many cars will this stack through here?
Strite: Eleven cars. Actually, if you got all the way back to here, you could have as
many as 12, but we -- normally the pickup time here -- Carl's requires five cars from the
order station to the drive-thru and that would put you about right there.
Nary: The order station is approximately over here?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 48 of 67
Strite: Yes, sir.
Nary: Okay.
Strite: Yes, sir.
Nary: And there is no escape? I heard somebody --
Strite: Yes, there is an escape. If you come around like this and if you decide by this
point that you decided not to have a hamburger, you go straight out this way.
Nary: Okay.
Strite: And I think that that's what Anna was referring to.
Nary: I got you. Thank you.
Corrie: Where are the employees going to park?
Strite: Mr. Mayor, that's been a bone of contention, as you probably well know, and I
think testimony with prove me correct. Mr. Gibbs has offered to provide off-site parking,
24 spaces, I believe that was the number that was discussed throughout the minutes
that I could find. That has not been accomplished yet, but I understand Mr. Gibbs is still
prepared to do that. It's also my understanding that both the adjacent users are not in
favor of that and have stated publicly that they would not use it. However, I think that
the applicant has stated publicly that he would use it if, in fact, it was offered to him.
Presently, the way I see it happening, is this line of parking over here is going to be
primarily for employee parking. Keeping in mind your ordinance requires only one
space for 200 square feet. Obviously, this particular Site Plan would be considered
over-parked, but I think a good point at hand is one that all you have to do is drive out
there and you can see that one for 200 is probably not realistic. However, if, in fact, it's
the wishes of this Council and if Mr. Gibbs is willing to proceed with his endeavor to
provide those parking spaces, this applicant is prepared to use those and would
certainly welcome those, just so it would alleviate any on-site congestion in and above
what is out there today.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Strite, I guess I'm a little curious, too, on your comment about, basically, if we
weren't to approve this drive-thru that this would be created into a sit-down restaurant.
Is there adequate parking to have a sit-down restaurant there?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 49 of 67
Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, there is more than adequate parking, as a matter
of fact. Again, you have to look at the square footage. Your ordinance requires one
space for every 200 square feet. It has no relationship to reality where you're actually
sitting people based on the number of seats you have. My comment and my position is
if Mr. Gibbs wants to use his existing building, he can put probably 80 seats in there.
Well, in fact, I think easily 80 seats. Well, you know, if we want to say that it takes you,
what, two people per car -- three people per car, if you like, well, you know, you have
already doubled the amount of parking that's required for this particular application
alone, set aside KFC and Taco Time.
Nary: But the --
Strite: And he -- excuse me. One more comment.
Nary: I'm sorry.
Strite: He does not have to come back before this Council, nor the Commission,
because he goes directly to a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and a Building Permit
so, I think the alternative in my mind is fairly clear.
Nary: But isn't the current building 4,000 square feet?
Strite: The current building, I believe, is only 3,000 square feet.
Nary: Well, I thought the building you were building was 2,100 square feet and the
existing building was 3,900 square feet. That's what they were tearing down.
Strite: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I probably confused you. Councilman Nary, the building
that we brought before you the last time, November 12, 2002, Carl's Junior, was 3,900
square feet. That was, again, assuming they were going to demolish the KFC.
Nary: Okay.
Strite: Tonight we are coming before you with 2,100 square feet or a 46 percent
reduction in size and seating.
Nary: So, the current building there, if we retain this restaurant scenario you're talking
about, the current building that's on that site is about 3,000 square feet.
Strite: That's correct.
Nary: And so that would require how many parking spaces and how many -- is there
adequate parking even for that?
Strite: There would be adequate parking for that, as far as your ordinance is concerned,
that's true.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 50 of 67
Nary: Right. But if Mr. Gibb wants to put 80 seats in it and he only has eight parking
places, because that's all the ordinance requires, that's not very good business, is it?
Strite: That's absolutely correct. It could, in fact, be done. The thing is -- and I think
you, as I read the minutes, made an astute comment relative to cross-parking
agreements. We could find no evidence that there are any cross-parking agreements.
As it exists now -- and I'm sure you're going to have further testimony from KFC and
Taco Time, when Bolo's is operating -- and I'm probably the biggest abuser, I park
there, I may sit there three hours to watch a ball game. Well, what does that do to the
parking? That's exactly what would happen in terms of a sit-down restaurant, whereas,
the drive-thru restaurant, at least at this particular point in time -- and I think KFC would
-- excuse me -- Carl's would testify to the fact that we are looking at more like 70
percent of the business through the drive-thru. You're better than reducing at better
than half the long-term parking and I think that's the key.
Nary: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Strite: Thank you.
Corrie: We have got two people here signed up. Is there anyone here that wishes to
testify in favor of the -- okay? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth -- to the
Council, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Nelson: Yes.
Corrie: You have three minutes.
Nelson: My name is John Nelson, 496 Calestoga Circle, Fremont, California. I just
wanted to tell you I know you denied this project last year, but this is a new project with
a building that is about half the size, half the parking, and half the seating, with way
more parking. We, actually, have 25 or 26 spaces over code. What I want to say is that
we listened to your minutes, your discussion, the reasons why you denied it. We went
back to the drawing board and took all those comments into play, your comments, along
with the Planning Commission. I think what we have is a solution that showed that we
listened to what you had to say. We brought back something that the city could approve
that uses the space properly, allows -- we have the better stacking for the drive-thru.
We also had a lot of comments on the safety of crossing over the drive-thru for the
pedestrians, so we came back and added those blinking flashers that would be in the
asphalt, so that the cars would notice that there is a crosswalk from the parking. I also
want to say that a lot of comments were made on the crossing over the drive-thru for the
pedestrians. Well, if you go throughout this whole city or any city, go to the Crossroads
shopping center or the Winco I was at today, everybody crosses over drive aisles to get
to the entrances. The entrances are always in front of the building and there is always
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 51 of 67
about a 25 to 30 foot drive aisle with cars going in both directions and everybody parks
on the either side of that and crosses over and there are not fences directing everybody
to one space and not blinking lights to protect the pedestrians. I think we have done
everything possible to alleviate that problem. Also, I think the amenities are a nice
touch. The city requires two by code, we are offering three, and, again, that would be
60 percent. We are adding parking to a space that's already congested, so we are
adding 26 spaces and we are basically using a lot of drive-thru business, so we will be
helping the KFC and the Taco Bell with their parking situation and cleaning up an
abandoned building right now or a building that's just in use for storage. I just want you
to keep in mind that we have done everything, listened to all your comments, and made
what I believe is an excellent compromise. I just want you to keep in mind that our
competitors may have issues, but their main could be that it's competition and I don't
think that's a place for the Council to be involved in, so thank you. Any question?
Corrie: Any questions? Thank you, anyone else to testify for? Is the testimony you're
about to give the Council the truth, so help you God?
Gibbs: Yes.
Corrie: Okay name and address, please.
Gibbs: Jonathan Gibbs. I'm general partner of G&H Enterprises II, which is the
property owner. I live at 9502 Scorpio, Boise, Idaho. I just want to say that I have put a
lot of time and effort in the consideration of a restaurant in that site. I think we have got
the best setup that we could have with the least amount of congestion, with the least
amount of parking and there is, I believe, plenty of parking for most -- most all the times
of service there. There is always going to be times when there isn't enough parking and
that's always the case in every good restaurant site around. There has been a lot of talk
about Bolo's taking the parking at night they do bring a lot of people that stay a long
time. Brad Bolicek, the owner-operator of Bolicek's, would like to have some off-street
parking. I think we will arrange some for him and his employees in the near vicinity, it
would be across the street, and he has no problem with that and so if this site is
approved, we will be working on obtaining some site for at least his staff there. That's
about all I have got to say.
Corrie: Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify for the
project? Okay. We have two against. Phil Atteberry. Is the testimony you're about to
give the truth, so help you God?
Atteberry: It is.
Corrie: Okay. Name, please.
Atteberry: My name is Phil Atteberry and my address is 1756 Stonybrook Court, Eagle.
I represent KFC and we have a few issues, like we did last time, for this new design. I
brought the -- a picture of the first design that was presented last year that was denied
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 52 of 67
by the City Council and the drive-thru lane was here and he had blocked this lane up
here and that was our concern, along with the added traffic of having a drive-thru in
already a congested area here. The new design that I have here, I have drawn a few
cars in here. This is the drive-thru speaker here and these shows cars. When you have
four cars backed up through here, it actually blocks this crosswalk, number one, and
having a crosswalk through a drive-thru lane is not a very common thing to have. They
use the example of the front of the grocery stores, but that is not a designated lane
that's curbed on both sides that most drive-thus have. In fact, most cities do not allow a
crosswalk across a drive-thru lane. I'm not sure that having a fence across here
directing all these people through here would -- could possibly impede the vision of the
people of a young child coming across here and a car being able to see them, you
know, walking across here into the restaurant. The congestion if the drive-thru is
backed up through here would completely start to block this area. Provided that this
wouldn't happen all the time, but the times it does happen is when Taco Bell is backed
up through here, we have cars coming in here, and both streets are full of traffic. Those
are the times it's going to happen and that's going to be the most critical time when
you're busy. This pulling out of the drive-thru here this way and cars wanting to go this
way, it seems -- and you got Taco Bell coming out this way, it just seems like it's just too
much, in our opinion. I think the restaurant design, I think the amenities that were, --
and the restaurant is fine. Adding a drive-thru to this area is just -- you got three drive-
thrus and then -- I don't know what the distance is from here to here, but that is just -- I
don't know if I have ever seen that many drive-thrus in that short of distance.
Corrie: Okay.
Atteberry: Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions of Phil? Thank you. Don Skinner. Excuse me. Dan. I'm sorry.
Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God?
Skinner: It is.
Corrie: Thank you.
Skinner: I'm Dan Skinner at 3475 East Franklin Road, Meridian, as I spoke last
November -- and, by the way, I'm with Taco Bell. As you can see, that's the property I
guess north of where the proposed Carl's Junior is going in. My concerns are much the
same as Phil Atteberry's with KFC. I agree with the size of the building being
downsized. That was something that I totally agreed with. However, the issue that I
have with the downsize is it doesn't really make any difference with the amount of traffic
that we are going to be dealing with, with another drive-thru going into that area. Our
concern is, yes, we understand that the size of the building has been dropped down
almost 50 percent, but we still believe that the amount of traffic that's going to be
generated isn't going to be much different than what the full size proposed building was
in November. The other issue is, certainly, the increased congestion that's going to be
there with the other drive-thru is our concern. As we mentioned last time, it is already
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 53 of 67
very congested with just the businesses that are in that area alone and we do deal with
issues today with people trying to get in and out of the property onto the main streets.
The other is the increased traffic is certainly going to lead to a -- what I believe is a
safety issue with patrons moving in and out of those areas, not only at our location at
Taco Bell, but also the other four locations that are in that general vicinity. The other is I
guess when we look at the way the traffic flows are going and it does look pretty nice
there, however, the issue is the traffic that is going to be moving in two directions, but it
could potentially be moving two sets of traffic or two sets of cars moving in one direction
at one time. With our drive-thru -- I apologize. I'm shaking -- being right here, it could
cause an issue with people being able to get in and out of the area. That's all I have.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I want to ask questions of each one of the testimonies. Taco Bell, what is your --
what do you guys market drive -- trips through your drive-thru per day?
Skinner: The number of transactions, sir?
Bird: Yes.
Skinner: We -- around three to five hundred a day.
Bird: Three to 500, if I could, Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I'd like to ask Kentucky Fried and Carl's Junior both what theirs would be.
De Weerd: What does mean in --
Skinner: Oh, well, let me clarify that. That's transactions that occur at the facility, if we
took 70 percent of that, we run about 60 to 70 percent, the same as Carl's Junior, on
drive-thru. Most of our business is through drive-thru.
Bird: What kind of -- if it's 300 transactions, would that be about 200 cars?
Skinner: Yes. Roughly.
Bird: How about Kentucky Fried?
Corrie: Name, please.
Atteberry: At this location we have about 500 transactions per day.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 54 of 67
Bird: And cars?
Atteberry: We are about 55 to 60 percent drive-thru. We are around 250 to 300 cars.
Corrie: Anyone else against the proposal? Okay. Now, we have a rebuttal here, so
which one of you wants to do it? Oh, I'm sorry, just a minute. Councilman Bird has a
question about the number of trips.
Nelson: We have about 500 -- well, this store is going to be less. About 400
transactions and we do about 65 percent drive-thru business.
Corrie: About 260 cars. Thank you. Okay. Joann. Is the testimony you're about to
give the Council the truth, so help you God?
Butler: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Name and address, please.
Butler: Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant. You have all
read the staff report and you know that ACHD has approved the application and has
reviewed it extensively for circulation given all of the uses in this area and showing that
the traffic system does accommodate this with the new redesign. Just answering -- a
little bit disjointed here, but answering some of the issues that came up, people said that
it just seems like it's too much, but we don't have any evidence of that it seems like too
much and it has been designed for proper circulation on site. The idea of that it's
unusual to cross a drive aisle, I think everybody that when they go to their Albertson's
and they walk across in the front at their Albertson's, every Albertson's has a striped
sidewalk for people to walk from the parking area into the front of the store and here
there may be stop signs there and stripes, but here the -- because of the issues raised
by this Council and the Commission at the last go around, Mr. Nelson is right, they did
very much go back to the drawing board and say, okay, how can we do more than just
stripes, more than just channel people to a particular area and when -- and with Billy
Ray Strite's help went above and beyond in terms of providing those safety features.
Staff has given you a recommendation, the Commission has given you a
recommendation for approval, finding that the criteria for conditional use are met and
the issues that were raised on traffic issues, again, were met by ACHD. All the facts
here point to the conditional use criteria being met. If you do choose to deny this
application, not unlike the last time, we ask you to be very, very clear about the reasons
why and why that our request is outweighed by any of the testimony that's been
presented to you here and, then, if you do decide to deny the project as well, as
required by state code, we'd ask you to tell us what it will take to gain approval on this
site. We hope that you don't and we respectfully request that you approve this
application as a very good faith attempt by this applicant to respond to the Council's
concerns a couple years ago. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 55 of 67
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Ms. Butler, you seem to imply by ACHD's approval of the project that their
approval addresses the interior traffic situation on that parcel?
Butler: But for the fact that they did approve -- I mean they did disapprove some
driveways and we are abiding by those approvals of ACHD. They do take into
consideration movement as you come in off of the site -- into the site. I'm not saying
that they necessarily looked at all of the circulation in the site, but by looking at the
driveways and the surrounding transportation system, they definitely took that into
consideration, but I don't mean they extended it all the way through.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, any questions? I guess I had one, counselor. You stated
in the letter of Jonathan Gibbs our Legal Counsel has indicated to us that as far as they
can determine, we can still use the building number one for a restaurant, including the
approved drive-thru. If you have a legal document that states otherwise, please, send a
copy. They raise the question that they didn't have to come through us. How do you
interpret that?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: That Mr. Gibbs is wrong. That's how I interpret it. We transferred the drive-thru
specifically to the other building and Mr. Gibbs was made well aware of that at the time
he requested that KFC-A&W be moved to that other portion of the lot. He may be
correct that a restaurant may be allowed there, but it has to still meet parking
requirements and as I asked Mr. Strite, he could put 80 seats in there, but if you have
got ten spaces, it's not very smart business to not have sufficient parking space for your
customers. The issue of the drive-thru still requires a conditional use. If they thought
they didn't need it and it was already approved, we wouldn't be here. I don't think that's
right. We did intentionally transfer it, that was the whole intent of the previous
discussion of Planning and Zoning, but if I'm wrong I'm sure Mr. Nichols will let me
know.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think the attorney referred to in the
letter was Ms. Butler and I just wanted to point that out.
Corrie: No. I didn't imply that. I just -- questions?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, clearly, the drive-thru was abandoned as
part of that previous one and any new drive-thru would have to come through for your
approval.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 56 of 67
Corrie: Thank you.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, before you close the Public Hearing, I did want to address an issue
that Mr. Nary raised and that was the turn radius from this drive aisle onto that drive
aisle. There is about 26 feet here and turning onto 12 feet, which is -- well, a parking
stall is nine feet wide in the City of Meridian, so it's about 30 percent larger than that.
You don't -- I think you were correct in noticing that there is not a lot of turn radius there
for doing a -- coming back on it, so particularly for large cars, which are prevalent in this
area. It might be difficult to get a Suburban around there. There is 12 feet between the
sidewalk. This is a handicapped stall and the ramp unloading area and this is a
sidewalk. There is 12 feet from this point out to there, so there would appear to be a
little room to increase that turn radius, so that it might facilitate the movement of cars a
little better.
Corrie: Thank you, Anna.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Powell, I don't know if you know this answer or not, but we have had a lot of
testimony about the drive aisles and crossing over the drive aisles at the front of Winco
and Albertson's now. They appear to be about 30 feet wide and this one appears to be
about 12, but do you have any idea how large those drive aisles are?
Powell: I suspect they are right at code, which would put them -- well, the minimum is
25, I believe -- I could grab my zoning ordinance, so they probably are considerably
wider, but they do allow for two-way traffic. This is one-way directional traffic.
Nary: And they are normally fire lanes, in my experience, so they don't have any parked
cars and they don't have any stopped cars that they allow. I recognize that occasionally
happens, but they don't allow that, is that right?
Powell: Yes. That would be right and it's a commentary, but I would like to say that
there is also the general perception that there will be people crossing that, whereas, I'm
sure that that perception is there on a drive-thru aisle for a restaurant.
Corrie: Any other questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I don't have any questions, but I'd rather have the discussion before
-- or at least comment before we close the Public Hearing. You know, I appreciate the
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 57 of 67
fact that this is a smaller building, you know, and I also appreciate the effort that has
been spent on making this a viable application. What it doesn't do is take -- it does not
take away the concern about a third drive-thru and I know Carl's Junior needs a drive-
thru. You have to the north of their building a possibility of three different flows of traffic,
the flow from Taco Bell's drive-thru. Then, two-way traffic in front of Carl's Junior -- I
just think it's a disaster waiting to happen. I guess I -- if they wanted to turn the existing
building into at sit-down restaurant there isn't much we can do, but I don't know how
many people would invest in that building because of the congestion that is already
existing. All of us have been there. I have. It's when it's busy and, then, all of that
parking from Bolo's and Taco Bell spill over into it, I just can't imagine another high
traffic generating business being there and not causing some serious safety risks for
that whole area and even though I like what I see that they have done, they will add to
the parking that already exists, I just cannot see another drive-thru in that area.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Ms. Butler had asked that -- almost anticipating that the public would ask what
would we recommend differently and I do agree with Council Member de Weerd that I
think Carl's Junior has done an admirable job to change the Site Plan. I think this is a
significant improvement over what was previously proposed, but this traffic -- and we
told Mr. Gibbs this when we transferred this drive-thru from this building, the original
KFC to the new one, that this one would be abandoned when this drive-thru from KFC
opened, that this was not a very practical site to have a drive-thru any longer with the
drive-thru being placed here for KFC and A&W. Now, I am no traffic engineer, but it
only makes sense to me that this entryway -- and, again, I know that you need the
property owner's approval, but this entryway has pretty much evolved itself into a right
in, right out entry and trying to get traffic to turn left off of Main Street into here causes
part of the bottle neck. This building in size, at least to me, again, not as an engineer,
should be turned the other way, so that drive-thru traffic can all come this same
direction for Taco Bell and KFC. Most of the drive-thru traffic comes off of Meridian
Road. This one should come off of Meridian Road. The drive-thru can snake around
this building, but the building should be going the other direction, so that the drive-thru
comes around it this way going towards Meridian Road and, then, they need to figure
out a way to get the traffic back right out here and not have the cars backing themselves
in here. I can't see anybody getting a Suburban around this curve. I see traffic back up
into this drive aisle, which was the problem when KFC went westbound here as a drive-
thru. I see this lane being congested all -- quite often during the busy time. This is just
not -- this just needs another look through. The other thing I guess I'd say while the
hearing is still open and if they want to comment. I absolutely hate somebody coming
up here and saying approve this or we are going to make it worse and I hate that and I
really respect Mr. Strite and respect the work that he's done, this is a tremendously
improved project. I absolutely hate somebody telling me you better approve it or it will
be worse than what we have asked for. Secondarily, I have said, since Arby's was
approved -- and I was on the Commission at the time and did not notice that the
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 58 of 67
walkway crossed into the drive-thru, that I would never vote to put a crosswalk through
a drive-thru again and nothing has convinced me different. I won't vote for something
that kids and families have got to cross into a drive lane. This is not the front of the
store it's not comparable to the front of Albertson's and Winco. That's an unfair
characterization. This is a narrow pathway with vehicles. They have improved it some,
but it's still dangerous, I don't think it makes sense to have a crosswalk there and they
haven't said anything to convince me that it's compatible, it complies with this ordinance
for conditional uses, and I haven't heard any evidence about that. I think they have
done some good things, but I think it needs more work before we would even reconsider
it.
Corrie: I'm only going to allow one rebuttal on that, so, Billy, you have got it name and
address, please.
Strite: Mr. Mayor, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante. First of all, if necessary, I will
apologize. There certainly was no intent to threaten one for the other. The pure fact
was that it is available and I was just trying to point out the fact. I agree with you
wholeheartedly from a business standpoint that would be potentially disastrous, so I -- if,
in fact, I made that mistake, I apologize, and that's all I have to say.
Corrie: Any other comments on the Public Hearing? I'll take the silence as being no.
Then, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the CUP
request, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit 03-017 is closed. Further
discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Council, I will entertain a motion to either approve or
deny the Conditional Use Permit for Carl's Junior restaurant with drive-thru service by
Clayton Jones.
De Weerd: I don't know. You're so good at it. Who better to make the motion and state
clearly the reason why?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 59 of 67
Nary: I would move the denial of CUP 03-017, the request for Conditional Use Permit
for a new Carl's Junior restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones, north of
intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street. To
include comments on the record tonight. Specifically, in regards to the ordinance for
Conditional Use Permit, Meridian City Code 11-17-3, that there has not been adequate
-- there has not been adequate evidence presented that this site is large enough to
accommodate the proposed use. That there has been testimony about the level of
traffic congestion and the difficulty of the design and providing an adequate safety for
patrons of this particular site. There hasn't been adequate evidence showing there isn't
-- that the site is large enough, which is 11-17-3A, that there has not been adequate
evidence for 11-17-3C, that this design, construction, operation, and maintenance will
be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood. The specific testimony is
that it will change the existing and intended character of the general vicinity, the impact
on the other businesses in this particular area will be severely compromised by this
particular design, construction, and operation, and that it will adversely change the
essential character of the same area by having a third drive-thru on this particular site in
that location as presented by the site plan and that there also has been adverse
testimony under 11-17-3D that the proposed use, if it complies with all the conditions of
approval, would adversely affect, again, other properties in the vicinity for the same
reason the operation, maintenance, and such, because of the traffic congestion and
traffic safety concerns for pedestrians crossing the drive-thru, as well as the traffic on
the site. I think that's all of the conditions. Those conditions haven't been met and for
Council to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order
pursuant to those.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the denial of the request for
the Conditional Use Permit CUP 03-017, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, with the Council's permission, I would ask that you indicate what, if
possible, the applicant could do to obtain approval of this. I think one of the things that
would be appropriate would be whether you would approve any drive-thru or what would
you need to see in a drive-thru in order for the applicant to convince you that a third
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 60 of 67
drive-thru would be acceptable, so that those things are part of the record and we can
make them part of the Findings as well.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would conclude, pursuant to whatever else the Council's comment is, as
I have stated, I think the building -- I think the building needs to be oriented -- basically
it's now oriented that the drive-thru faces Meridian Road. I believe the drive-thru should
be in the same configuration so that the traffic flows from west to east as it does for the
Taco Bell, as it does for the Kentucky Fried Chicken, that they can really seriously
consider a right in, right out, so there is no cross-traffic across that parking lot coming
from east to west to cross into those drive-thru lanes so that all of the traffic flows
through those drive-thus from west to east and, then, back out again onto Main Street.
Again, it is a right in, right out, and there are other traffic considerations, I don't know if
whether north of this site can be done. I wouldn't say, at least from my perspective, that
a drive-thru cannot be accomplished there, I think it has to be accomplished with a
traffic pattern that's the same for all of the drive-thrus, rather than having one cross
traffic the opposite direction.
Bird: I would agree with that. Second would. You got congestion and there is cross
traffic, everything that comes through.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I know we have already had a vote on it. I don't know if I could support a
third drive-thru. The two choices that I have seen -- and I'm sure the architect has spent
considerable amount of time in trying to figure out those flows. I just don't know if it's a
possible -- if it's possible to not compromise the existing ones that are already there and
still assuring the safety of the motoring and the pedestrian traffic.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And just one other comment in the same vein. Again, my concern is always in
having crosswalks crossing a drive-thru. I still haven't seen that there is adequate
visibility -- they have improved on it, but I'm very -- still very committed on having any
type of traffic. The design and orientation of the building, at least from my perspective,
has to eliminate pedestrians crossing directly into the drive-thru path to get to the front
of the building.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 61 of 67
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess one other thing is the handicapped parking would be entering into a
potential three-way traffic area that just -- I'm not going to stereotype a handicapped
driver, but, you know, that just seems like a real problem waiting to happen.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Nichols is that adequate for you to include for the comments that you
requested?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe so.
Nary: Thank you.
Item 22. Public Hearing:
Amending the Fence Variance Ordinance:
Corrie: The last item on the agenda tonight is a Public Hearing amending the Fence
Variance Ordinance. I will open the Public Hearing on the amending of the fence
ordinance and have staff comments first.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, did you receive anything on this item?
Corrie: Yes, we have.
Powell: Okay. It wasn't -- I wasn't sure if you had. The intent of the ordinance is to
disband with the special committee that currently considers fence waivers and to grant
your zoning administrator that authority to look at those waivers and decide whether
they are warranted. There are also provisions at his or her discretion, the administrator
may schedule a hearing on an application. It became evident today that we didn't
decide who would conduct that hearing, so I suppose as a first issue I just want to raise
that tonight and if we could -- if you could give me some direction on who you would like
to see conduct that hearing, we will come back to you with an edited version of this.
There is some other little wordsmithing that I'd like to do that I just can't keep from
doing, so -- but the only real substantive issue would be do you want me to have the
discretion to require a second hearing. The other thing that we could do is that if they
were disappointed with my decision, presumably to deny a waiver, that they could just
immediately appeal it up to you and those provisions are in there, that they could appeal
it directly to City Council. If you don't want to see those appeals, then, we can set up
procedures whereby the Planning and Zoning Commission would conduct a hearing
and have findings and all those good things that the Planning Commission can do. But
it's just a question of how you want to handle that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 62 of 67
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Although I would, actually, prefer Council member McCandless hear all of these
appeals, just because I didn't want her getting out of it, but I think -- I mean I think you
have captured the intent that we have discussed on it, is the idea of really having this
done at the administrative level, at least to me it makes no sense that if they want to
appeal or based upon something that I think you would need to articulate, so we can
avoid an arbitrary type of situation and you feel a hearing is necessary, I still think the
Planning and Zoning Commission is probably the first step they should go to, but I think
-- like I said, I think because it's sort of open-ended in here where it just says you have
the discretion, I don't mind you having discretion, I was just thinking you articulate that,
because I don't want someone saying Mrs. Powell hates me and that's why she made
me go to this hearing, which takes longer and I have to go hire an attorney or whatever
to deal with something, you know, as long as we can articulate our reasons, where it's
because there has been, you know, signature objection, whether there is -- they haven't
stated adequately what their reasons are after we requested clarification, but whatever.
I mean something to that effect, so it's not an arbitrary or merely a subjective decision,
but based upon something that's objective and reasonable. I think that's fine. I think it
makes the most sense for the Planning and Zoning Commission, that there are findings
and it is heard and if they really feel like -- I can't even fathom somebody wanting to
appeal that, but if they can certainly go to Council, but I think the Planning and Zoning
Commission is the first step.
Powell: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I do -- I'm having a little trouble
imagining under what circumstances I would want to schedule a Public Hearing versus
recommend denial. To my mind, that would be the only condition under which I would,
so -- and I'm just looking for ideas and apparently Mr. Nichols has one.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, when Anna first talked to me about this
late this afternoon, I couldn't remember and didn't have it in front of me, but looking at
the text, I think what was intended was it was going to be an administrative process.
She gets the application, she looks it over and the notice goes out to people, if anybody
objects, then, she looks at the objections, she can either make her decision based upon
what's in the record or she could ask that they come in front of her and talk to her about
it. I think that's what we intended by a hearing was that you could say, okay, I'm going
to hold a hearing, because a neighbor has this objection and I can't figure it out or, you
know, it raises enough issue, I'm just going to have a hearing. The applicant and the
objecting party comes in front of you, states their case and, then, you make your
decision and, then, that gets appealed. I think that's what we intended was rather than
get it to the P&Z level or you just have to look at it and go, gee, I have got to either, you
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 63 of 67
know, grant it or deny it, basically schedule a conference, in a sense, that they come in
and, you know, if you say, okay, I'm going to do it at such and such a time and nobody
shows up, then, you're back in the same spot, but if the objecting party doesn't show up
or submit something additional, then, I think you go forward. I think that's what we
intended when we were looking at it was trying to -- it was trying to streamline the
process and I didn't remember that today when we talked on the phone.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: In the two and a half or so years that I served on that committee, we had
questions about two applications. That's all. And both of them a neighbor didn't like
what they were going to do and they came and talked and, then, we made a decision.
Nobody said anything about it later, so --
De Weerd: Then, why don't you like it?
McCandless: I never said I didn't like it, I just said I wanted off. And it was a little bit
silly, because 90 percent of them are no brainers. It can be done on a staff level. It
doesn't need a committee.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think that Mrs. McCandless just hit it right on the head, I think that it can be -- I
have sat on a committee, which all of us have, and I think it can be done on a staff level
very, very good. I'm like Mr. Nichols, we just want to streamline the process and there
is no sense of having a committee they have -- and by state code anybody that has a --
can always go before the City Council if they don't agree with it, so -- but I think we
ought to go to the Planning and Zoning, if they want to hear it, if they can't get along
with staff and -- but I can't imagine -- I can't imagine it ever going above staff. I have
never seen one that's even been -- you know.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, particularly, Mr. Bird, are you saying you
don't -- that you still -- if the intent was to the give the administrator the authority to
conduct that hearing, are you saying you'd rather see it go to Planning and Zoning. You
mentioned Planning and Zoning again.
Bird: No. No. What I'm saying is if they don't agree with you and want us to -- you can
conduct that hearing, but if you want to send it forward for something, I would go to
them first.
Powell: So, you would want the appeal to go to them, rather than to you?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 64 of 67
Bird: Yes.
Powell: Okay. I'll work with Mr. Nichols. I --
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony tonight? Hearing
none, I will recommend a motion to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Should we continue it, so we can get the changed document?
Corrie: If you want to do it that way. I don't know, as we need to. We can continue the
Public Hearing.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as you can see, there is a great deal of
public interest in this process.
Corrie: Yes. Everybody was --
Nichols: And the Council has the privilege of looking at whatever draft Anna and I come
back with and saying we want this changed. We can certainly bring it back and
highlight whatever changes have been made from this draft, so that you can see those
changes and go forward.
De Weerd: And if we want to comment on those changes, we would have to open the
Public Hearing.
Bird: No.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Okay.
Corrie: But you have the right to comment yourself.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: So we want to close the Public Hearing?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 65 of 67
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I think, Anna, you have your marching orders now.
Powell: Thank you, sir.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I just have two questions. One is on the Wilkins Ranch, if we could get an
update under Department Reports next week on if they were going to -- what solutions
they were looking at. I know the water is flowing and -- and summer -- school is out on
Wednesday, so I just wondered kind of where we are at with that. Then, a couple of
months ago we met with the golf course and at that time the golf course committee and
its mission was going to come back to Council to either confirm or discuss what their
mission is and I understand there is a committee meeting, but I wondered what the
process was on that. It's not a recognized committee yet, so --
Corrie: You want to answer that, Keith, or --
Bird: Go ahead.
Corrie: Okay. They are having a meeting tomorrow night. They had to cancel the last
one they had and they will be giving us a recommendation probably next week and it
would just be a -- on what they come up with. We will have to make the decision, based
upon legal terminology and everything else, so that's where it stands right now. We
th
should have it about either next week right after the meeting on the 4 and you will see
it in written form.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tammy just said that it wasn't a recognized committee and seeing how I was not
in -- I was in the hospital when they set this thing up, but up I didn't realize it was not a
recognized committee, I thought it was appointed and approved by you on the --
Corrie: It was an ad hoc committee.
Bird: Ad hoc. Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 66 of 67
De Weerd: And I thought when we had left that meeting and stated in the minutes that
it would come back for confirmation and to state the mission, so I just went on the
minutes.
Bird: I did not have --
Corrie: Okay. They weren't -- I don't believe they were a committee that was formed by
the council. It was an ad hoc committee to give Council information that they found out.
De Weerd: Okay so, they are not recommending any course of action?
Corrie: They will just bring back what they find.
De Weerd: And just one more thing is I understand that we were going to do some
equipment sharing and I think they were -- had asked to use a sprayer.
Corrie: That's right and I refused. I'm not going to allow public money and equipment to
go to a private party that's leasing -- that makes money off it and, besides that, I
understand that the equipment is very expensive and should be handled by the parks
crew. So -- and I made that decision myself, that I don't feel it's right to use city funds
and money and equipment on a private organization.
Bird: And I concur with him.
Corrie: They can go out and rent some --
Bird: If they want to help purchase some, I think that, or if it was Ward or somebody like
that, but it's another public entity that is bought through taxes, then, I think that that is
proper, but I think in something like this, unless we get a policy stated of the city, that
our hands are tied right now on something like that.
De Weerd: Well, I just thought that was the conversation.
Bird: And I definitely question whether we need one of those things in our city either,
you know, because it is a very expensive item and --
De Weerd: We already have it.
Bird: Yeah. We already have it. I know.
Corrie: I hope that answers your question. I just kind of made the decision, an
administrative decision that we wouldn't use public funds and equipment to --
Bird: I think on the golf course, that's the first time they have ever asked for it, and I
don't have a problem with it. I think we need to make a policy on some of this, because
I think we ought to look at some -- I think it's policy that we need to make as a Council
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 3, 2003
Page 67 of 67
on what we would share and do stuff like that, because you are talking about tax dollars
and money and you're talking about somebody out there that, hopefully, is making a
profit. I think they are, but, you know, they are a private enterprise that is -- that would
be like a farmer coming in and asking to use our sprayer for his five acre field out there,
you know.
De Weerd: If he's spraying our park land?
Bird: He's not --
Corrie: He's not spraying our --
Bird: That's leased parkland. That's leased.
Corrie: We don't --
De Weerd: Well, I don't know. I didn't know any decisions had been made, all I -- I
talked with Doug Strong and he wanted to train someone on it and that's the last I
heard. I didn't know any decisions had been made.
Corrie: Well, all you had to do was ask. I made the decision and -- but Doug came into
my office and he said I would rather not, because of the expense of the equipment, and
we have to have somebody who really knows how to use it and I said I agree with that
and, besides that, they are charging maintenance and the city is not. Now, that's the
way I read this lease, so -- but if you have any questions like that, ask me and I'll tell
you. That's fine, but -- anything else? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Nary: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourn at 10:45. All in favor say aye.
Opposed no.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:41 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
DATE
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK