HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 05-20
Meridian City Council Meeting May 20, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., on
Tuesday, May 13, 2003, by President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: William Nary, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, and Keith
Bird.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: William Nichols, Sharon Smith, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Anna
Powell, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird
__O__ Mayor Robert Corrie
th
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the City Council Regular Meeting of May 20
to order. It is 7:05. Deputy Clerk, roll call attendance. Please.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay Item Number 2 adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: One change in the agenda that I know of, the Executive Session we have
scheduled on the Pre-Council was changed over to this, we were going to do it at the
end, but due to circumstances we need to have it -- with Council's permission, have it as
Item Number 4, Department Reports. We are assured that it's going to be a fast one, so
-- and other than that, that's the only change. If we have to have -- if we have to
continue it to another part, we will do that at the end, as planned, but an Executive
Session just to take care of this one part of Executive Session right now. With that, I
would move that we approve the agenda as noted.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those favor of the agenda as amended, please, say aye. Okay.
All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 2 of 51
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. April 8, 2003
Approve minutes of Pre-Council Meeting:
B.April 15, 2003
Approve minutes of Pre-Council Meeting:
C.May 6, 2003
Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
004
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to
Montvue Medical Clinic
L-O zones for by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
– 360 East Montvue Drive:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 03-
003
Request for a Rezone of 0.35 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for
Merlyn Schmeckpeper
by Merlyn Schmeckpeper – 230 West Pine
Avenue:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 03-
006
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Facility
Sunshine
for approximately 30 children in a proposed O-T zone for
Academy
by Sharon O’Toole and Debbie and James Sheridan –
230 West Pine Avenue:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
007
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT
Comfort Suites
to C-G zones for by Kanti Patel – west of South
Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-005
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Meadow Lake Village
Development for by Hummel Architects,
P.A. – east of South Eagle Road on East Franklin Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-009
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the development
Hark’s Corner
of a rental / restaurant complex in a C-C zone for by
Van Hees Properties, LLC – southwest corner of West Franklin
Road and South Linder Road:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-014
Request for a Variance for a Time Extension of Final Plat
Staten Park Subdivision
for by Doug Campbell – east of North
Black Cat Road on West Ustick Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 3 of 51
K. Development Agreement: AZ 01-016
Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 7.32 acres from County zone to C-G zone for
Meridian Storage
proposed by Queenland Acres, Inc. – south of
West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road:
L. Approve Beer and Wine Licenses for St. Luke’s Regional
Medical Center – 520 S. Eagle Road:
M. Change Order No. 1, Meridian Settlers Park Restroom Building
– Golis Construction:
N. Change Order No. 2, Meridian Settlers Park Restroom Building
– Golis Construction:
De Weerd: Item Number 3, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move the approval of the Consent Agenda as published. I think we had the --
Powell: Madam President?
De Weerd: Anna.
Powell: There was a Position Statement received today regarding CUP 03-009.
De Weerd: On Hark's Corner?
Bird: Hark's Corner. Yes.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, can we go ahead and enter this in with the amended Findings?
I believe we got amended Findings today.
Nichols: Madam President, the position statement addresses some scrivener errors
that were clear scriveners errors. Those have been fixed. You have a revised set of
Findings, which fixes those scriveners errors, as long as the record reflects that the item
that's referred to on the Consent Agenda, as 3-I is the corrected set of Findings, I think
that's appropriate to adopt.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Okay. With that, 3-I as adopted the Findings, and for the Council President to
sign the Clerk attest on all proper papers.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 4 of 51
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda with
the changes of 3-I. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. Okay.
Item Number 4.
Nary: We need a roll call vote.
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry.
Nary: I thought we were just approving the amendment.
De Weerd: No. The amendment is included in the motion if you will call roll. Thank
you, Mr. Nary. I will admit a mistake when I make it.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: I do appreciate that.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports: Executive Session
De Weerd: Okay. Item 4. It's been called for an Executive Session. I would entertain
a motion.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move that we move to executive per to Idaho Code 67-2345, Subsection 1-B
and C.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved to move into Executive Session per state code roll
call vote.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. We probably will be about 15 minutes. We apologize for the
interruption.
(Enter into Executive Session)
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 5 of 51
RECONVENED AT 7:35 P.M.
McCandless: I would entertain a motion to take us out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Nary: Second.
McCandless: All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Item 6. Ordinance No. : AZ 01-016
Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 7.32 acres from County zone to C-G zone for
Meridian Storage
proposed by Queenland Acres, Inc. – south of West
Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road:
McCandless: Nothing was decided. We will move onto the regular session, if the clerk
would read the Ordinance 03-1020 by title only.
Smith: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. Item Number 6. Ordinance Number 03-
1020 by Queenland Acres, Incorporated. Ordinance Number 03-1020, an Ordinance
finding that Queenland Acres, Incorporated, is the owner of certain real property
generally located south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road,
Meridian, 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
General Retail and Service Commercial District, (C-G), 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 map
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
recorded, 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.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1020. Is there anyone
in the audience who would like the ordinance read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none,
I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 6 of 51
Bird: I would move we pass Ordinance Number 03-1020, request for Annexation and
Zoning of 7.32 acres from county zone to C-G zone for the proposed Meridian Storage
by Queenland Acres, south of Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road and
with suspension of rules.
McCandless: Second.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to pass Ordinance 03-1020, with
suspension of rules. Deputy Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-001
Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zones for
Central Valley Baptist Church
by Central Valley Baptist Church – east of
North Ten Mile Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item Number 7, Ordinance Number 03-1021, request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Central Valley
Baptist Church. If the Deputy Clerk will, please, read this ordinance by title only.
Smith: Thank you, Madam President. Ordinance Number 03-1021, an Ordinance
finding that Central Valley Baptist Church, the owner of certain real property generally
located on the northeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and the railroad tracks, south of
West Pine Avenue, Meridian, to be known as Central Valley Baptist Church 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 Limited Office District (L-O)
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 map 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 recorded, 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.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1021 by title only.
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to hear the ordinance read in its
entirety? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 7 of 51
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we pass Ordinance 03-1021, request for Annexation and Zoning of
10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Central Valley Baptist Church by Central
Valley Baptist Church and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest, with
suspension of rules.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1021, with
suspension of rules. Deputy Clerk, roll call.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Ordinance No. : AZ 02-031
Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 39.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2
proposed by Crestline Development,
LLC – 4000 West Pine Avenue, east of North Black Cat Road and south of
West Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: Okay. Item Number 8, Ordinance Number 03-1022, request for Annexation
and Zoning of 39.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Castlebrook
Subdivision No. 2, by Crestline Development, LLC. Deputy Clerk, if you will read this
ordinance by title only.
Smith: Thank you, Madam President. Ordinance Number 03-1022, an Ordinance
finding that Great Oaks Water Company, Incorporated, the owner of certain real
property generally located at 4000 West Pine Avenue, east of Black Cat Road and
south of West Cherry Lane, Meridian, to be known as Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2
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 map 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
recorded, 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.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 8 of 51
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading by title of Ordinance 03-1022. Is
there anyone in the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing
none --
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval or Ordinance Number 03-1022, request for
Annexation and Zoning of 39.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed
Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2, by Crestline Development at 4000 West Pine Avenue,
east of North Black Cat and south of West Cherry Lane, with suspension of rules.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1022, with
suspension of rules. Deputy Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Ordinance No. : RZ 03-001
Request for a
Mallane
Rezone of 6.95 acres from L-O to L-O and C-G zones for
Commercial Complex
by The Land Group, Inc. – north of East Fairview
Avenue and west of North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Item Number 9, Ordinance 03-1023, request for a Rezone of 6.95 acres
from L-O to L-O and C-G zones for Mallane Commercial Complex by the Land Group,
Inc., north of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle Road. Deputy Clerk, will
you read Ordinance 03-1023 by title only.
Smith: Thank you. Ordinance Number 03-1023, an Ordinance finding that the owner
M&L Limited Partnership of certain real property generally located on the north side of
East Fairview Avenue, approximately one half mile west of North Eagle Road, Meridian,
has made a written request for a Rezone of the zoning classification for real property
which lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from L-O, Limited Office, to L-O,
Limited Office District, and C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial District, Zoning
District, as defined under Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2G and K, repealing all
ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the
city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of
Meridian, Idaho.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 9 of 51
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of 03-1023 by title only. Is there anyone
in the audience who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval Ordinance Number 03-1023, request for Rezone of
6.95 acres from L-O to L-O and C-G zones for Mallane Commercial Complex by the
Land Group, north of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle Road, with
suspension of rules.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1023.
Deputy Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Ordinance No. : Adopting the 2002 National
Electrical Code and Additions and Exceptions:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10, Ordinance -- and I am assuming this is 03-1024? Okay.
Adopting the 2002 National Electrical Code and additions and exceptions. Deputy
Clerk, will you read this ordinance by title only.
Smith: Thank you. Ordinance Number 03-1024, an Ordinance of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, repealing Chapter 3, Title 10, Electrical Code of the Meridian City Code and
reenacting Chapter 3, Title 10, to incorporate the National Electrical Code of 2002 and
additions, with exception of Article 80, providing for penalty, severability, conflict,
validity, savings clause, and an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1024, by
title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? I appreciate this
cooperative audience. Council?
Nary: Only one more to go.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 10 of 51
Bird: Knowing that this is okay with the Public Works Department and the engineer and
everything and our Legal Department, I would move we pass Ordinance 03-1024, the
adopting of the 2002 National Electrical Code, and additions and exceptions, with
suspension of rules and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1024.
Deputy Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: Thank you. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10. Ordinance No. : Adopting the 2002 National
Electrical Code and Additions and Exceptions:
De Weerd: Item Number 11, Ordinance Number 03-1025, adopting the 2000 Uniform
Plumbing Code and additions and exceptions. Deputy Clerk, will you please read this
ordinance by title only.
Smith: Thank you Madam President. Ordinance Number 03-1025, an Ordinance of the
City of Meridian, Idaho, repealing Chapter 2, Title 10, Plumbing Code of the Meridian
City Code and reenacting Chapter 2, Title 10, to incorporate the 2000 Uniform Plumbing
Code, including Appendices A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J and L, with exceptions to Sections
604.2, not allowing the use of Type M copper pipe, and deletion or additional language
to Section 218, Section 420.0, Section 604.1, Section 609.10, Table 6-4 and Table A-2,
Table 7-3, Section 703.1, Section 703.2, and 710.5, Section 704.2, Table 7-5, Section
707.4, Section 722.2, 722.3, 722.4, 722.5 and 722.6, Section 807.4, Section 908, and
Section 1002.3, providing for penalty, severability, conflict, validity, savings clause, and
an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1025 by
title only. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to hear this ordinance read in
its entirety? It's an exciting one. Okay. Hearing none.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Same thing with the staff and legal and everything, the ordinance okay?
G. Smith: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 11 of 51
Bird: I would move that we pass Ordinance Number 03-1025, the adopting of the 2000
Uniform Plumbing Code with the additions and exceptions, with suspension of rules,
and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved to approve Ordinance 03-1025 with suspension of
rules. Deputy Clerk.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from May 6, 2003: MI 03-006
Request for
use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model / sales office for
Corey Barton Homes
by Corey Barton Homes – 3590 North Ettay Way:
th
De Weerd: Okay. Item Number 12, a Continued Public Hearing from May 6 on a
request for use of Lot 1, Block 2, in Sundance Subdivision for a model sales office of
Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes and I will open the Public Hearing with
staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this was continued due to lack of
an applicant last time and it was at the end of a long agenda, in case you have
forgotten. The applicant is here and, really, there is just a standard sales model home.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here? Would you, please, step forward?
If you'd raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give
tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Barton: I will.
De Weerd: Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Barton: Corey Barton, 2826 Silverleaf, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you. The reason we asked you is we have staff comments and we
like to have the applicant here before we impose anything to make sure that they agree
with what staff has written or have any comments or questions.
Barton: Any questions?
De Weerd: Council?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 12 of 51
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Barton, do you -- have you read the comments from our staff and stuff
regarding their findings?
Barton: I have not, sir.
Bird: Okay. Well, there are a couple questions in there that we just wanted to make
sure that you felt okay with it. We didn't want to stick somebody with something that
they don't want regarding that sales office out there. The time was 718 months to the --
18-month or 24 months out there. Did you have -- do you have any problems with --
Barton: No, sir.
Bird: That's all that Council has asked back is we felt you needed a fair chance to say
yea and nay, whether you agreed with it or not.
Barton: Okay. I agree.
De Weerd: Well -- and I think the change was from 18 months, rather than the 24
months in the written --
Barton: Is it possible to get the 24 months?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As Brad Hawkins-Clark explained, I think it comes out to 24 months, even when it
does say 18. There was some explanation. Maybe Anna can -- it does come out to 24
months, doesn’t it, Anna, instead of 18, even --
Powell: Well, Madam President, Mr. Bird – Council Member Bird, it says 24 months in
his conditions of approval. I think the 18 months might have been something else. Had
you considered changing it to 18 months?
Bird: No. I don't recall us considering changing it, we were just going off of what Brad
had said and I -- somehow or other 18 added up to 24. I know I'm not a mathematician,
but that was 24 --
Powell: I remember now what the discussion was. I believe they had 18 months to get
the model home up and running and, then, they have got 24 months of use once
that's --
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 13 of 51
Bird: That's it.
Powell: So, potentially, if he finished the building next month, then, his 24 months
would start from that point, but he's got 18 months to finish construction and get it set
up.
Bird: And you're fine with that?
Barton: Absolutely.
De Weerd: Okay. Great. Well, thank you. Any other questions, Council? Okay.
Thank you. Okay. It is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to
testify? Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we close the Public Hearing for the model sales office for Corey
Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes on 3990 North Ettay Way.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Motion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve request MI 03-006, request for use of Lot 1, Block 2 in
Sundance Subdivision for a model sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey
Barton Homes, 3590 North Ettay Way, and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order, with suspension of rules.
De Weerd: You don't --
Bird: They don't need that. Okay. That's it.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 14 of 51
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the request for MI 03-006.
Deputy Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from May 13, 2003: CUP 03-004
Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for
Building Bridges Child Development Center
by April Reynolds – 3289
North Towerbridge Way:
Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from May 13, 2003: VAR 03-007
Request for
Building Bridges Child
a Variance to the parking requirements for
Development Center
by April Reynolds – 3289 North Towerbridge Way:
De Weerd: Item 13 -- if Council doesn't have a problem with it, I would like to open 13
th
and 14, the Continued Public Hearings from May 13 of CUP 03-004, as well as the
Variance for 03-007. We do have some correspondence in front of you tonight received
th
on May 20 by the applicant Tyler Reynolds, requesting withdrawal of his Variance
request, so I will go ahead and open the Public Hearing with staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, the issues at the last hearing were
largely centered around the Variance request and the parking standards for day cares in
our zoning ordinance. After meeting with the applicant, they have decided to pull the
Variance request, recognizing that perhaps they don't even need it at this time. What
they have asked for -- and also in that letter they have indicated how many full-time
students they expect and that's between 111 to 120 and they anticipate having 12 to 14
employees. This would make their proposed parking adequate. The other conditions
regarding the driveway entrance and the design of the parking lot would still be
necessary, but with -- there is no need to approve the Variance or have a Variance
associated with this. They have also asked that as the property to the south of them
develops, if they are able come to a shared parking agreement with that property and
that property is able to provide excess parking spaces, they ask that they be allowed to
expand their facility without coming back to us for a Conditional Use Permit. They are --
they had not indicated a potential cap on exactly how many students they may want
under that scenario. That's out there for the Council's consideration. There was also
some discussion about -- the footprint they have shown is 6,800 square feet. The
original elevations show a two-story building. There was some discussion also about
doing a daylight basement, because there is a fair amount of slope on the property. I
think the applicant is trying to leave some room there to stay within that general
architectural style and principle, but have a little flexibility regarding -- if it's a full two
stories everywhere, with a daylight basement on part of it. They haven't got refined
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 15 of 51
architectural drawings at this point. Again, they are asking for a little flexibility regarding
that. That's the end of staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols, the request to come back -- you know, I guess it would
be to amend a CUP, but that's my layman's interpretation. Could you respond to that?
Nichols: Madam President, I think perhaps it might be best to have the applicant tell us
what exactly they intend by that provision. I believe Mr. Reynolds is here.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nichols: On that paragraph and, then, I would be glad to comment after he clarifies it.
De Weerd: If you will raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm that the
testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Reynolds: I do.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Reynolds: Tyler Reynolds, 2650 North Chancellery Way in Meridian, Idaho 83642.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Reynolds: The question was the last paragraph on the CUP application and I put that in
there for the -- I guess the easiest way to explain it is to eliminate the need for a full
Council process. I don't anticipate going above and I think that's where a lot of the
confusion was last time was our intended use and the intended amount of children.
Obviously, this is a big building that the maximum cap right now, with construction costs
and everything else, was about 8,500 square feet, even though much of it is not really
used in the facility. We are trying to design it in case something fails, it can be turned
into an office building, but if, in fact, we ever do try to develop office space or what I call
the cafeteria into a room, I think we could work with staff or City Planners to say what
can we do. We have X amount of parking and a Cross-Parking Agreement, without
having to go through the, you know, mailing everybody within a, you know, one mile
radius and coming to City Council Meetings and everything else, I could actually go and
negotiate it on, you know, kind of appointment type times, instead of going through the
whole process over again. That's just where that came in. I don't foresee saying, hey,
let's, you know, separate this building and do, you know, more than what we are asking
for, just, ideally, I think it's just as easy to say, hey, the Cross-Parking Agreement says
we can have X amount of spaces. You guys think that that would let us take on more
kids, you know, and go from there, without having to go through the time and expense
and application fees and everything else. I'm just trying to avoid doing something twice.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 16 of 51
De Weerd: Thank you. I guess, Mr. Nichols, my question is right now we would be
capping it at a specific number and if you have a specific number in there and they want
to modify it, the number, can the process be superceded?
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, there are a couple of things that --
I'm not sure you can do it this way, I think for a couple of reasons. One is just tying the
future user expansion to parking spaces may not be an adequate -- I mean that may not
be enough. Secondly, as far as a different use, potential different use, that might be
somewhat accommodated, because it was a -- I'm reading from the recommendations --
it's an R-4 zone. It's been modified by an approved Planned Development permit,
which allows uses other than those typically allowed in an R-4 zone, as long as a
Conditional Use Permit is obtained for all uses allowable in the L-O zone, including
those requested by the applicant. It sounds to me like if you're going to do something
additional besides the day care, you would have to come back for a CU anyway,
regardless if you had acres and acres of parking, because it's not just the parking itself,
there are other issues involved. I think, although I can understand your desire to do
that, it's more than just parking spaces that goes into these decisions and it's possible
by the time you get this up and running maybe the code will be changed and you don't
have to come back for a CU. At this point that's the way the code reads and given the
Planned Development aspect of this particular parcel and what's around it and the rest
of it, I would be reluctant to recommend that the Council include something that just
simply ties expansion to the number of parking spaces. That may not be adequate.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary.
Nary: What Mr. Reynolds, though, is -- I guess is asking is pretty limited. I mean from
what I understand from what you're saying, Mr. Reynolds, if you're able to work out
these shared parking agreements that we had talked about and if my recollection serves
me from what we talked about last week, it was three space -- one space per three
people, whether it's a child or worker?
Powell: It's one space per 10 children and one space per employee. It works out to
about two spaces per ten kids or 10 to 12 kids.
Nary: Okay. Because I was thinking if we could create a -- whether Mr. Nichols thought
we could create a very limited ability to expand based only on this use, no other
additional use, not office building use or anything like that. It sounded like what you
were wanting was simply to say if you could workout the parking to comply with the city
-- the current city requirements for parking. Then, you could expand the use for just the
number of children in relation to those parking spaces and that if we can -- we normally
do have a cap, but right now, the cap is about 135, if I'm reading that right.
Powell: Correct.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 17 of 51
Nary: Okay. It would allow him an increase of a percentage of use or up to an
additional 50 children, as long as they have adequate parking from the parking
requirements.
Reynolds: And, honestly, kind of -- I guess I'll give a quick explanation. The hard part
with a business like this is if you were doing all infants it's one teacher per four, if we did
it the way we wanted or one per six. If we did five year olds, it's one teacher for 25 kids.
You say, okay, this is the amount of teachers I have and this is the amount of students I
would have, so numbers vary greatly depending on what your goals are and what's
popular this year and, you know, three years from now and, you know, what I guess
population wise was happening. We took what our goal was, you know, the amount of
ones, twos, threes, infants, and when I broke it down on the business plan, it was kind
of funny, because as far as full-time students. There is nowhere near the amount that
the facility would hold and I guess I explained to Anna earlier, I started this project with
two people doing it and now it's just one. I'm a little behind the curve and so I have to
refer back to some of the notes, but when I broke it down, what just kind of made sense
to me is with writing this agreement with the developer and saying, okay, right now we
already, with the size of our building. We can hit, you know, 24 more kids than even
initially planned if we have goal rations. I think, well, geez we're already meeting that
goal. Unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding on how many we were going to do.
If, in fact, we ever want to go larger, since we do have a larger building, we would have
to share or give a shared parking agreement or a shared parking access, I can't
remember how it's termed. We did talk to him and he said, yes, we can work that out,
we kind of need to know and that's where we would write it up, submit it to you or submit
it to staff for their approval and say, yes, we think that's -- according to the ordinance
that would work, saying, you know, we are a dentist office that needs six parking places
and have, you know, 25. Well, anything above 135, the one per, would eventually cap
us out whatever, you know, their available parking would be and the new property
owners at peak times. It was, you know, how do you guess, but we would still, even in
the parking agreement, have a cap to say, well, we can only steal so many of your
parking places between this time, this time, and this time or, you know, two to possibly
three peak periods. That's where I put it in the very end. You know, the Fire
Department, really, by everybody I have talked to, said they are the hardest ones that
are really going to critique it. They have to come and certify your building and say your
building will hold X amount and they are the ones that are saying, well, we prefer a 29-
foot aisle, instead of a 26-foot aisle. Well, if they are going to be that tough and it's up
to them anyways what our building was, well, I figured just logically they would say 150
max, no matter what. Here is what your parking says and we have got the 135, is it
would be 15, according to what the new owner of, you know, the property just south of
us would be. I was trying to put in there -- I'm not trying to get around anything, I just,
honestly, said, gosh, for 15 kids, you know, I have got a year until I pay that back. I
have got to, you know, hope that these kids stay enrolled long enough to do that and I
don't know that I'm going to be in the day care business forever. I'm trying to design a
building that, eventually, it could be used as an office in case, you know, the day care
industry flops or, you know, my kids go to college and I don't want to be in it anymore,
you know, and at that point any use -- I mean we are the -- you know, obviously, the
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 18 of 51
most intense use of parking of just about everything, landscaping, all the way down, you
know, with this property, so I think that no matter what we changed it to, we wouldn't
have anything to fight, it's just if, in fact, we ever decided to grow and that's where I was
trying to just say, you know, I don't know starting this from ground one, like everybody
else.
De Weerd: Right.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have a hard problem and everybody up here knows how I like CUPs. I just have
a hard problem of tying future Council's hands to an agreement like this and I just don't
think you do something -- I mean we are talking about a business that's going to go in
here, he just stated he didn't know if he wanted to stay in this business that long and,
then, we get into other kind of things. I believe we just take it as -- for what it's being
built for right now and my philosophy is just put it in like that and if it works, it works, if it
don't and if he needs to come back, he can come back for another CUP.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: I was reading this paragraph as, you know, being all-inclusive to all Conditional
Uses and being able to change it around. Councilman Nary, if I understood your
comments, what you're saying is perhaps you might support a situation that if he's going
to add any students above 135, that he has to show adequate additional parking to
handle the additional staff and the additional students by obtaining parking through a
Cross-Parking Agreement or some other method. That if he brought something to staff,
he could get a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and be able to have more students, we
would write into the Conditional Use Permit to exceed 135 students he would have to do
X, Y, Z, show an adequate parking for those, and satisfy any other code provisions that
would pertain to that. Is that what you had in mind?
Nary: Madam President. Yes, that's what I was thinking is that we could create
something very narrow, just to deal with that particular issue. Then, he can provide --
we wouldn't look at Variances, we are looking at simply compliance and still have a cap,
but I guess I'm a little interested in Mr. Bird's point of view, which is -- normally, in
Conditional Use Permits we are dealing with now. What is it you intend to do now, not
what you might do two years from now or three years from now. We don't normally try
to incorporate everything that could possibly ever happen. I think normally when people
come and need a Conditional Use Permit, for example, to have a drive-thru, we don't try
to create it so that they can figure out whatever they want to do in the next two years,
we say here is your limits and do with -- live within those limits. I was thinking of trying
to just basically change the limit. His current amount is 135. What I was hearing you
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 19 of 51
saying is your livelihood or potential is, really, 150 or 160 and so all I was trying to figure
out is can we fashion in the conditions that to exceed the 135 currently. You still have
to comply with all the City Codes requirements for the Fire Department, as well as
parking requirements that exist, and provide proof of compliance with all of those to
exceed the 135 that are presently allowed and would that be adequate. I mean can we
do that as a defensible type of --
Bird: I misunderstood you --
Nary: I think that seems reasonable to me. That still doesn't allow anymore than what
he's trying to use, other than providing him an avenue to increase it in very small
increments, as long as it provides that, but I don't know if --
Reynolds: Yes. I think you and I are actually -- I think you and I are on the exact same
page and that's all I was trying to get in here is, you know, not in the future I want to turn
it into a -- you know, something the size of the mall, as much as in -- you know, right
now I'm more than in agreement with what is already stated. Now is, obviously, the time
if I'm going to get a Cross-Parking Agreement to do so. Then, when I do get that and
sign -- I mean we have already started it, it's just I, honestly, couldn't get everything
done, typed up, and brought here tonight saying these guys will give me X amount. If I
turn that into you and say according to this part of this Cross-Parking Agreement, if, in
fact, we do end up having, you know, a set of triplets that is going to affect our ratios,
then, we do have a safety clause that will allow us to go up to 150 kids. I was just trying
to put a clause in there -- I mean it doesn't -- it's not a deal breaker for me, I was just
trying to make it to where, you know, two years from now I don't have to go, hey, can I
have three more kids. I -- you and I are -- I think what you're saying is what I want to
say I just have a harder I'm saying that.
Nary: Madam President, what I was thinking we had -- if memory serves me, we had a
situation with a CUP for expansion of the church on Meridian Road and we allowed --
we limited the size of the number of people allowed. We allowed them to have that
expansion of people when they got their parking done so that we gave them some room
to say once you get that done. Then, you will have adequate spaces, therefore, you
can have the expanded use of the facility and that's what I was thinking is some way to
fashion that kind of thing and not an unlimited amount. I mean I still would rather have
an upper limit of -- whether it's 150 or 160, so that we have something that a person
could look at and say, okay, it's still around 160 children in this facility and with the
appropriate number of workers. The number is a moving target and I understand that.
If you have 160 infants, you need more workers, than if you have 160 eight year olds. I
recognize that. There is some moving target there, but you still have to comply with all
the parking requirements. I was just trying to at least give them some room to allow
them to purchase or work out an agreement and so effect what they'd like to do without
it really requiring a tremendous amount of time and effort and a new hearing just so we
can foresee a small amount of difference.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 20 of 51
De Weerd: Yes. I guess the question is to Mr. Nichols, though, then, is how that can be
phrased.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I would suggest that we -- we can
approve this -- not we, you. You can approve, if you choose, the Conditional Use Permit
application as presented with the parking spaces as presented, with the provision that
he has an upper end cap of 160 students, provided that any increase in students above
120 -- no, 135, excuse me. Anything above 135 would require submission or proof to
the Planning Department of adequate parking to accommodate additional students and
staff.
Nary: In compliance with all the applicable codes and --
De Weerd: And, Anna does that work for you and your staff?
Powell: Yes, it does. It's just basically phasing the development, with phase one being
135.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, this was continued on the Public Hearing just basically about
this one issue. Are there any other things in the recommendation from Planning and
Zoning, staff comments that you need to address?
Reynolds: Not that I'm aware of. I went over it with the gentleman that I have been
working with and a couple things were just kind of a mistake on the draftsman, we are
fixing a spot here and there and, according to him, we are -- there is nothing other than
that. The whole parking Variance was a misunderstanding or a complete mess up in
communication. That's, honestly, where the future idea of the parking Variance, when I
said, you know, I think we are ready to get this done, is because somebody somewhere
said that we are going to have 200 kids and I got a business plan that says that's not
even close. You know, I can't find anything in any papers that I have at home that I
have a problem with at all.
De Weerd: Okay. Staff, did you have anything that needed to be specifically
addressed? Okay. Council? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. It is a Continued
Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Hearing none --
Powell: I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Anna.
Powell: I went back and looked at my notes. Sorry to interrupt but before you close the
Public Hearing, we did have a site-specific requirement number two. We did ask that
that be modified, so that the drive aisle was 25 feet wide and shall align with the
driveway on the east side of Towerbridge Way.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 21 of 51
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for that reminder. Okay. Council, I would entertain a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing CUP 03-004, the request for Continual Use
Permit for a childcare center by Building Bridges Child Development Center and also
VAR 03-007, the Variance request for the parking requirements for Building Bridges
Child Development Center.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Items 13 and 14. All those in
favor say aye. Okay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Discussion? Or motion?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of CUP 03-004, the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a child care facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development
Center by April Reynolds at 3189 North Towerbridge Way. To include all staff
comments and I'm not going to try to necessarily repeat the same finding, but that also
that amending site-specific requirement number two that the drive aisle be modified for
a 25-foot design and that it also be aligned with Towerbridge Way or --
Powell: Correct.
Nary: Okay. Towerbridge Way and that, also, that the CUP reflect that the current Site
Plan indicates the capability of 135 full-time students and that to increase up to 160
students will require the developer to provide compliance -- or proof of compliance with
city parking and fire code regulations. Whether by purchasing property or whether it is a
shared Parking Agreement, to provide adequate parking for the number of students in
excess of the 135 that's currently allowed by the Site Plan, include the rest of staff
comments and for Council to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 22 of 51
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded and I will not even attempt to repeat
it, but it's regarding CUP 03-004, and if there is no further discussion, I will ask the
Deputy Clerk to call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 has been withdrawn. It's obsolete. We don't need any
motion to -- in regards to that item, do we, Counsel?
Nichols: Madam President, I think, typically, the Council has made a motion to accept
the withdrawal, so that it's of record and action taken.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we accept the Variance, VAR 03-007, the withdrawal of the
Variance for Building Bridges.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved to accept the withdrawal of Variance 03-007. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: VAC 03-001
Request for Vacation of existing
easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be
replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for
Presidential Subdivision
by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. – northeast corner
of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue:
De Weerd: Item 15. Request for a vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat
for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate
instrument for Presidential Subdivision and I will open the Public Hearing with staff
comments.
Watson: Thank you, Madam President, Council Members. This is a fairly simple
application. It involves the vacation of the water and sewer easements in Presidential
Subdivision along Eagle Road. Those facilities are in place. They have provided
replacement documents for our review to prepare replacement easements. That has
not formally occurred yet. If this is approved, I would request that it be approved and
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 23 of 51
subject to the applicant providing signed easements. That's all I have. It's pretty
straightforward.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you
give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Simons: I do.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Simons: Andy Simons, 2700 Airport Way, Boise, with Rocky Mountain Management
Development. Quadrant Consulting prepared this application on our behalf. They
couldn't be here tonight and I concur with staff and will answer any questions that you
have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a
Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Seeing none,
Council, you would like to close the Public Hearing?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing VAC 03-001 for Presidential Subdivision
by Quadrant Consulting.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Do I have a motion on this item?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve VAC 03-001, request for vacation of existing easements
on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities, to be replaced with easements
recorded by a separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting,
Incorporated, on the east corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue. To
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 24 of 51
incorporate staff and applicant comments and for the attorney to draw up the Findings
of Facts and Conclusion of Law and Decision of Order.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the request for vacation.
Do we take roll call on this? Deputy Clerk.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Public Hearing: AZ 03-006
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
Paramount Subdivision
for proposed by Paramount, LLC – west of North
Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road:
Item 17. Public Hearing: 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,
Paramount Subdivision
L-O and C-G zones for proposed by Paramount,
LLC – west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road:
Item 18. Public Hearing: 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-
Paramount Subdivision
8, R-40, L-O and C-G zones for proposed by
Paramount, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and north of West
McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Item 16, 17, and 18, if Council doesn't have a problem with that, I would like
to open all three Public Hearings for AZ 03-006. 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. PP 03-004 request for Preliminary Plat of 764
building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres in the proposed R-8, R-40, L-O, and C-G
zones for the proposed Paramount Subdivision. Item 18, 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 the proposed
R-8, R-40, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision. Open the Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, my staff convinced me, since there
was only one item, really, of consequence on the agenda that I could fly solo today. It
wasn't until after that that I found out it was the biggest development that has ever gone
on in Meridian, but -- so forgive me while I muddle through this a little bit and try to get
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 25 of 51
up to speed today on everything. As you can see on this site, it encompasses nearly an
entire section of land. It's bounded by Chinden to the north, Meridian to the east, and
Linder to the west, and McMillan to the south. It's predominately in agricultural
production right now, as you can see. There are -- as you saw in the one before it -- I'm
sorry, there are all the new developments for the north Meridian area shown, so that
you can see it and how it connects, especially to Lochsa to the west. They are
proposing a number of zones within the Planned Development, rather than just apply a
residential zoning to everything, they have asked for Variance zones as part of their use
exception and those zones would be R-8 for the residential, as well as R-40, light office,
general commercial, and that's it. Okay. Here is an overall view of the development. I'll
start over here. As you come in there will be general commercial area here and, then,
apartments rimmed around there. This is kind of a village area, a combination of retail
and light office. There are townhouses here, as well as here. There is a -- there is a
difference in the architectural style between those townhouses. We consider them all
just townhouses, but they will have some information on the different housing product
types that will be in there. These are detached -- come back, arrow. Where are you?
There we go. These are also alley-loaded, single family homes and, then, you get into
the traditional single-family homes around it. This is an open space, another sizeable
open space, and yet another open space. This is the elementary school site. You will
notice it's open to the street on two locations and, then, you have houses flanking it on
another two locations, but it will be a very visible, very open part of the community. It's
connected by an open space to the community center, which will have meeting rooms
and workout rooms and similar facilities. This, again, is residential through here. We
have got a couple ponds here for the irrigation system. There is linear separated
pathway that extends all along here and down here and, then, up through here, I
believe, and also going to the north. These are single-family homes through here. This
will be a lot in the subdivision, but they don't have the -- it will just be a single lot at this
point. They are asking to have it zoned to R-8 and, then, they will come back with a
different Preliminary Plat that will re-plat that lot, basically. This is the high school site
right here and, then, below that is a proposed -- another retail and office use with more
of a predominance on the retail. Then, as we go through you can see more detailed
areas of these again. You can see the differentiation on the townhouse lots and the
size there will be like carriage houses or row houses. This is the area that's the large lot
that will be -- come in for further Preliminary Plat work. There is one item here that
ACHD has asked them to remove the -- there is a little island -- a little -- this little --
called a -- no. This is a little roundabout and they have asked them to remove the
center island from that roundabout because of safety reasons, I believe, and I'm not
sure -- this is a revised Preliminary Plat from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm
not sure if the applicant has decided that they want to argue for that or if that was just
forgotten to be removed. The applicant needs to address that. I didn't have a chance to
ask about that. This right here is the one and only knuckle. In this subdivision there are
no cul-de-sacs. There are -- and this is the one and only knuckle. They did, thankfully,
put a landscape island in it and I appreciate that fact. There is the high school site and,
then, their retail use here at the intersections again. All the commercial uses would
need to come back in for detailed Conditional Use approval for the detailed Planned
Development. There, again, is the overall site. As far as planning goes, our comments
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 26 of 51
are very limited. They discussed at length at the Planning and Zoning Commission the
location of additional stub streets. They came to an agreement on those stub streets
and the applicant has submitted a revised drawing with those stub streets on it. Again,
very thoughtful, very considerate design, that is -- obviously, they took a lot of time and
care in coming up with this design and making a community out of it with the integrated
open spaces and school yards, the community center, the pathways, the variety of
housing types and relationship of the retail, particularly in these areas here, as they
relate to the commercial and, oh, this is an LDS stake center. I'm sorry, and another
light office. There is a little seminary lot right here right next to the high school. Also
particular care with how these relate -- uses relate to one another. The one remaining
issue out of Planning and Zoning Commission that was not resolved was this site here.
Because it only shares a small connection with the high school and they are using the
use exception on this lot, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that that lot
should be removed from the development. The idea of the use exception as it relates to
a Planned Unit Development is to incorporate those uses into the design of the
community. You see a perfect example of how to do that here and we don't want to
minimize that they have done that here and here, but that this, really, is serving a much
different type of commercial need than the others. This is serving the needs of the
people passing by on these section line roads, so the Planning and Zoning Commission
did ask that the revised Preliminary Plat remove that lot. The applicant has chosen not
to. There are other issues concerning easements and that will -- I will let the Public
Works Department address. I do want to point out for you that there should be in your
th
files a detailed letter produced by Bruce Freckleton and David McKinnon on May 15
that specifically addresses the revised Paramount Subdivision Preliminary Plat and how
it related to what was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. You also
have in your packet the revised staff report with -- addressing the changes proposed by
PZ and how those address the findings and the conditions of approval. With that, I'm
going to turn it over to Brad, unless you want to ask me questions now, but I think you
probably need to talk to Brad.
De Weerd: Brad.
Watson: Thank you, Madam President, Council Members. If you've read the minutes of
the Planning and Zoning Meeting and the voluminous correspondence in the files, you
will see that the issue of a sewer easement is attracting a lot of attention. Our staff
comments recommended that a sewer easement, both permanent and construction
easement, be provided with the annexation of the whole project all the way through to
Meridian Road. There has been correspondence back and forth speaking to
Constitutionality, if that's a word, and I don't know anything about that. I'm just going to
give you our take as sewer guys, I guess. The reason that we put that into the staff
report is that so properties upstream could develop or the city could come in and
construct a sewer all the way through the upstream section. One of the letters in the file
speaks to the public city getting involved in the private market. I think that's what we do
all the time we are planning for private development. We very rarely plan sewer to
serve ourselves. We really don't have any loyalties to any landowner to any developer
we are just trying to put together a system in a logical manner. One of the things that I
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 27 of 51
guess I'd like to point out for you tonight is what happens or what could happen if we
don't have that easement, just from a sewer point of view, nothing -- nothing from a
legal point of view, certainly. Some of the documentation talks about this development
taking maybe seven years, maybe more. The applicant is proposing to grant sewer
easements with their Final Plat as they progress from west to east. I haven't looked at
the Phasing Plan real close, but it looks like the east side is probably close to the end,
where that sewer would be provided. What I envision happening over those next seven
years is properties upstream coming to me asking about the possibility of a lift station.
Ultimately, those come to you with a recommendation for approval or denial. Either
way, Council ends up deciding. It's pretty well known our attitude about lift stations.
That aside, all those lift stations would be required to pump south into the White Trunk
service area. Today that's probably fine, that would probably work. There is a lot of
capacity. By looking at this map, you can see how much of that has already been
approved and how much is developing. There are not a lot of white spots left up there.
I get into this juggling act trying to figure out if lift stations up there would work, the
timing, compounding the problem is we have the Vienna Woods lift station that exists on
Locust Grove Road that, ultimately, will go into the North Slough, if it can get from
Meridian Road to Locust Grove Road. It will be turned into the White Trunk here very
shortly. The other thing that's going on is the annexation paths to that area around
Edinburgh and Vienna Woods are becoming a reality with Quenzer Commons coming
up to Locust Grove Road. There are quite a few parcels in there that -- well, the
dominoes could fall very quickly. There have been landowners and speculators,
potential developers in our office over the last couple of months looking at those
properties. The interest is definitely there in the North Slough -- upper North Slough
service area. If it comes to be that sewer access to the North Slough can't be given in a
timely manner or as fast as those upstream properties want it, we are, again, faced with
the -- with two options. We either let them build a lift station -- I will back up a little bit.
They can go to this developer and try to negotiate sewer easements. Having been in
the sewer easement negotiation process for three or four years, I know how that goes.
We spoke about that a little bit earlier, this evening at Pre-Council. If that fails, the
easiest thing for a developer to do is to simply try to build a lift station. Those are
relatively cheap when you're talking about a half-mile of sewer easement. We would
have two options. We could either say, yes, let's go with a lift station, that causes
problems for your staff, both in review time, operation, maintenance, it could impact
development within the White Trunk area. If it's not approved, then, there is no service
access to that whole square section. Just last week we had a developer in front of you
requesting water service in that square section -- that square mile. Also, the issue of
dry land sewer came up and he pretty much point blank said if you don't give me water
service, United Water is right across the road. I think we will see proposals like that.
United Water providing water service or we get back into where we were two years ago
with the private sewer systems. That wouldn't conform to our Comprehensive Plan, so I
don't know that there is any way that those can be approved, but, again, speaking as a
sewer guy, that's what I see, that's what I hear coming through the door. One of the
things, perhaps, we could do is try to negotiate these easements prior to some stage of
this annexation or maybe if the easement can't be obtained all the way to Meridian
Road, we only annex what can be provided at this time. I guess a third option is that the
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 28 of 51
City Council decides that this North Slough Trunk area or trunk project is a priority and
we budget for it and make that a city project and maybe that would force the issue. I
don't know. Again, those are just engineering thoughts, sewer guy stuff. No legalities
here. Again, we are not looking out for private interest or a specific private interest, we
are looking out for a multitude of private interests. That's our function, I think and I'll
leave it at that.
De Weerd: Well, we appreciate you're looking at the public interest. Council, do you
have any questions for staff at this time? Okay. It is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant
here? We don't need to time you, do we?
Wardle: Before you swear me in, let me get set up first.
De Weerd: I do need to swear you in once you're ready. I guess it was my way of
saying brevity is appreciated. Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give
tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Wardle: Mike Wardle, 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wardle: And I hope that I will be brief this evening. I suspect there are other issues that
will take more of your time. I have given to each of the Council Members a packet that
has several items in it. There are only four -- or, excuse me, four graphic slides that
come under just a copy of those slides that will be shown here in a moment.
Interestingly enough, those same slides are also in a color handout for each, including
the master plan. The second, Exhibit B, is the exhibit that we worked from at the
Planning and Zoning Commission that showed the issues. Exhibit C is, actually, the
final revisions that were submitted to the city staff as a result of the decisions made by
the Planning Commission. Two other pieces of paper are included in that packet and
one is simply a summary of the conditions. The second one is a brief discussion of the
th
staff memo that was referred to just a moment ago, dated May 15. In brief, I just want
to -- Anna, if you would go -- and I appreciate you pushing the buttons for me this
evening. I appreciate Anna's comment about the character and quality of this project.
Quite frankly, we are excited about it, because it is a fully integrated community in terms
of placing the elementary school at the heart of the neighborhood. It's got green space
around that's very close to each of the neighborhood elements. The high school, which
is, obviously, a much larger facility is located on the arterial on Linder Road, but the way
that this property functions or this project functions, we don't have large, bisecting
collector roadways. The traffic build up will occur at the outside edges, but this will be a
safe walking community in which the children will be able to go to the focal point of that
neighborhood, which is the elementary school. The services are located such that,
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 29 of 51
obviously, with the one exception that we will talk about in a moment, but the services
are located so that they can all be accessed anywhere within this section without having
to go to the arterial to get to them. In terms of the conditions, I just want to go very
briefly through the items that I have presented in that first page, the first single page,
talking about the annexation issues for the -- that particular file, AZ 03-006. It refers to
the conditions in your staff report, Conditions A, one, two, and three, which are on
Pages 2 and 3 of that staff report, we are in full agreement, no issues related to that.
Condition 4 the sanitary sewer easement will be discussed at length by others here this
evening. I do want to identify that David Turnbull and Greg Johnson, the owners of the
project are here, Gene Smith, Engineering Northwest, is here, has designed the
subdivision, and Joann Butler, Legal Counsel, and there will be some discussion by
some of those individuals in a few moments. Condition A-4 is the sanitary sewer
easement and, obviously, we are requesting deletion of that condition. Condition A-5
relating to -- this is Lot 57, Block 3, we are requesting deletion of that condition and go
on to the Preliminary Plat issues. It really comes down to the same conversation, the
sanitary sewer easement question, Condition B-1 on page two of that staff report, we
would request deletion of the second paragraph, which calls out for that specific
requirement to carry the easement initially with the very first phase of the project onto
Meridian Road. We agree with Conditions 2, 3, and 4. We have complied with
Condition 5, relating to the irrigation requirements. We agree with 6 and 7. We have
realigned the intersections at the north to comply with the requirements. The street
stubs have been addressed and provided. The micropath in Condition 10 has been
provided. In fact, Anna, if you would go to the third graphic -- there we go. This is a
summary of those, back to the intersection, that intersection alignment. The micropath
that was requested has been included. The street stubs, all of those that are identified
in orange -- and this is on your Exhibit C -- are the ones that were added at the request
of the Planning Commission. Those that are shown in green were those that were
already in place. This also relates back to the irrigation question where all of the
irrigation alignments necessary to trans -- to transfer that water from existing locations
to the downstream users are identified specifically. Condition 11 relates to notes that
were not included in the revised Preliminary Plat, but staff knows that they need to be
and we concur that they will be added at Final Platting. A new phasing plan has been
provided and shown on the revised plat and we agree with Conditions 13 and 14. On
the Conditional Use Permit, there, again, is the Condition B-1 on Page 2 of that staff
report is the sanitary sewer easement question. We agree with all of the other
conditions of that recommendation. I want to take just a moment to go to the second
loose page there that is the applicant comments on the May 15, 2003, staff
memorandum. They talk specifically about Condition Number 5, which relates to the
irrigation issue. In their discussion they note that we have not complied, but I want to
read into the record that condition and simply note that we have complied with
everything that has been requested. That condition was revise the Preliminary Plat to
show how all existing irrigation and drainage ditches are to be treated. All the irrigation
ditches, laterals, or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing, or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be filed per City Ordinance. Plans will
need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation and drainage district or lateral users
association, with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 30 of 51
Department. If lateral users association can't -- approval can't be obtained, plans will be
reviewed and approval by the Meridian city engineer prior to Final Plat signature. The
revised plat shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review at least ten
days prior to City Council Meeting for this project. All of that condition and the
requirement have been met. Our engineer Mr. Smith reviewed the irrigation drainage
facilities with Settler's Irrigation. The routing alignments have been determined and
shown on the plat. Staff, in talking about easement issues, is, actually, introducing a
new requirement and according to the testimony that was provided at Planning and
Zoning, these ditches in the Settlers District do not have defined easement widths. The
level of information that we have provided is sufficient for Preliminary Plat approval and
the specifics will addressed at Final Plat, just as in all other projects. I want to know that
the city is protected. There are conditions in the annexation, in the Preliminary Plat, and
in the Conditional Use Permit that all specifically require compliance and those can and
will be complied with. As noted, Condition 11, all of the notes required will be put on the
Final Plat. The last item that I really want to speak to is the commercial site, which is
the Lot 57, Block 3, and this, essentially, comes because -- this more clearly shows the
high school layout. Obviously, if we hadn't worked through the site issues with the
school district to secure that high school site, we would have had a fully integrated
corner parcel. There are conditions in the annexation and in the Conditional Use Permit
that require that all of the retail, office, multi-family parcels come back through a detailed
Conditional Use process in the future before any development will be approved or can
occur. We suggest that the city is not taking a great risk, because this same parcel
would be subject to that condition and the issues of integration into the rest of the
development and the adjacent properties that, certainly, at some point will be
developed, can be addressed. Obviously, if the Council agreed with that position, we
would ask that you delete Annexation Condition A-1, Preliminary Plat Condition B-1,
and approve the inclusion of that parcel in both the annexation and Preliminary Plat. I
think the last item that I will defer to our other team members is the sanitary sewer
easement. You have, hopefully, a copy of a letter that was provided to the Council,
dated May 15, 2003, from Joann Butler, our Legal Counsel. That talks about the issue
at great length and with that I will defer and want to note that Mr. Turnbull, probably, will
make some concluding comments, either at this point or in rebuttal at the end of the
hearing. I appreciate your time and we would be happy to answer questions if you have
them of me.
De Weerd: Council, are there any questions at this time? I do want to note that we do
th
have a letter on record from a George Boyack and it is date stamped May 20. Do you
all have that?
Wardle: Do you not have the letter from Joann Butler? Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. We will give you five minutes.
Butler: Okay. Joann Butler, 251 -- oh, I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 31 of 51
De Weerd: Do you promise and affirm the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Butler: I do.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Butler: Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant. Mr. Wardle
said I went on at great length. I hope that in my letter I was able to give you the other
legal aspect to this issue. We really do appreciate what the sewer guys have said.
They have raised engineering issues that they have faced on other public projects that
the city has had before it and although we do appreciate it, we also understand that we
need to balance our zoning decisions based also on the legal decisions specific to that
particular project. I'll try to summarize that letter just briefly. I'd also appreciate it if the
Council would ask any questions. As I was putting this letter together, I realized I'm
writing something that is all -- is at once difficult and simple to write, because all I'm
talking about here is fairness, which is just always asked of a city when it is putting
conditions on a development. What is fair? Because fairness is just another word for
due process and just another word for Constitutionally valid, and when the conditions
are fair and that means legally, what's reasonably related to the needs created by that
particular development, then, your conditions, if it were ever to be challenged, would be
upheld and that's what we are asking for today. The needs created by this development
-- as I mentioned in my letter, it almost goes without saying, the easements and the
mains that you require are going to be provided each step of the way as this project
creates the need. On the other hand, the things that the staff is talking about, the fact
that there are other properties north, east, elsewhere, they may develop and they may
create a need outside of this development. That's a more general public need that
needs to be addressed by the public. What the Supreme Court, not only in the U.S., but
in Idaho, says is that what we look to see is whether or not the zoning conditions fairly
make this applicant provide for their -- what they create, the needs that they create, and
what the Supreme Court says is that we are trying not to Constitutionally force
individuals to bear public burdens and that's all we are saying in this case. It's just an
issue of what is the correct timing. The needs are not there to require easements all the
way through this development at this time. Now, at the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing, the applicant got up to say to the Commission we have worked
very hard with people to the east of us to create sewer agreements -- I mean to the
west. We are absolutely willing to talk to all of our private property owners surrounding
us. If there is, a need that they think is arising and we can negotiate together, but
before that need arises, it is not fair for us to provide those easements. I noted in my
letter we are talking only about sewer. I have to speculate that because of the White
Drain project and the fact that it was difficult, maybe, time consuming, a lot of staff time
that it took to get those easements, staff would like to, in the guise of a development
condition on just this single developer, speed up what is really a public process.
Although we appreciate the pain of negotiating those easements going through that, it is
not fair to this one property owner to require that. Also, with regard to the unfair market
advantage that staff says would be eliminated, of course, the Council understands that
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 32 of 51
legally that the Council does not get into competition between private parties. It is
absolutely true that any zoning decision has some impact on the private market. What
the government has to determine -- the job of the government is to determine if the
conditions are constitutionally valid. That means are they fair. If they are fair, then, they
are going to be upheld, even if they do have some indirect impact on competition. Your
main job as a government is not to influence our capitalist system and competition
between private parties, but just to make sure that the conditions are constitutionally fair
and valid and just reasonably related to the needs created by this development, which is
why we are only saying this is an issue of timing. As we come from west to east and as
each Final Plat is approved, absolutely, those easements, those mains, will be
constructed, as they absolutely have to be for the public. We are willing to do our part.
We are willing to do our part at the time that those needs arise and so I would
appreciate it if this is, in some ways, a very simple concept, what's fair and what are
related to the needs. If this Council sees this as somehow complicated or would like me
to explain more, I would happy to answer any questions.
De Weerd: I would just have one question and this is a layman's question, is, generally,
we ask that the applicants put their utilities to and through. Mostly, I see the
developments doing that in a timely fashion and not backwards or -- so what is the
definition of to and through?
Butler: What the Meridian City Code says is in your finding -- you have to make a
finding that the person responsible -- and I'm quoting from the code -- the person
responsible for the establishment of the proposed Zoning Amendment will be able to --
is able to provide adequately for any of such services and you're talking, generally,
about utilities generally. That is exactly the finding that can be made here. This
landowner, this developer can provide or establish the proposed utilities as they move
along. As each Final Plat -- remember, before your Final Plat is recorded, those lots are
not for sale. You cannot -- you cannot sell those lots. They are not publicly available.
Once that plat has been recorded and a public -- and a person needs to flush their toilet,
you need to make sure that that main is in there, but not before, because that developer
has not created that need. Now, it's -- again, that's why your code says that we do have
to make a finding that we will provide these services and it will go to and through, it will
go through the first, the second, third, and so on, all the way through the development
and always remember, too, that we are assuming, as we stand here today, that this
development will develop totally and right now, until you get your -- each plat, you don't
know that it will. We don't own part of the property at this point, we have options on it,
the economy could go deep south on us, and, then, it can't develop. Hazardous
materials could be found on the site so it can't develop. The issue is as each phase is
platted and those lots become available for the public, we absolutely have to make sure,
just as the code says, that will be able to provide adequately for any such services.
Does that answer your question?
De Weerd: Kind of.
Nary: Madam President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 33 of 51
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Ms. Butler, I have read the minutes from Planning and Zoning and I have read
your letter and I read the staff report and I guess just one thing I haven't seen is I
haven't seen an opinion from our legal counsel in response to yours.
De Weerd: I guess that means you're next, Mr. Nichols.
Nary: And I had another question first, but one thing I haven't seen is I haven't seen our
legal response. Secondarily, I mean you can simplify it for me. I understand your legal
argument. I understand the constitutional question that you have raised and the issue
of exaction on whether or not we are requiring something that really is a private
necessity, not a public necessity at this juncture. Maybe you could explain to me -- or
maybe Mr. Turnbull or maybe Mr. Johnson can, what's the beef here? What is your real
risk or concern in providing this easement now because that I haven't seen in the
minutes specifically and maybe I just missed it? They are pretty lengthy, but you know,
specifically, I guess, if I want to agree with what you said. I think I also have to feel like I
understand what you really consider to be your risk in providing this, because, really, all
you're providing is an easement and that may or may not have some particular
significant amount of value or not, I don't know. I understand your value argument that
you raised at Planning and Zoning, but I really -- I guess I really just want to hear what's
your real beef here.
Butler: And Mr. Turnbull has said that he would answer that in part, but I'd also like to
say this, just from a legal principle perspective, and if you read the minutes from the
Commission meeting, you didn't quite get the feel of Commissioner Centers coming up
out of his chair when --
Nary: Well, I got that sense form the minutes and I do -- I mean I really understand your
legal argument, but I guess, you know, we have citizens and some input from private
citizens as to why they think it's important and I haven't seen that addressed real
specifically enough in the minutes and I guess I just want to hear about it.
Butler: And Mr. Turnbull will address it as well, but I will also say that, in part -- and
what we are trying to convey to the Commission -- and I know all of us lawyers have a
little bit of trouble when we start talking about legalities and Constitution. When does a
condition go too far and when is it something that's not reasonably related, people's
eyes glaze over. It's sometimes difficult for us to get that principle across, just because
it is a legal principle and that what we try to get across to the Commission is, please, we
are not trying to talk legalese or talk down or at or anything to the Commission. We are
trying to convey -- we are trying to educate one another about the fact that sometimes
conditions can go too far and at that point it puts the city in jeopardy. It definitely puts
the developer in jeopardy by having to do that, but it also puts the city in jeopardy in that
you don't want to be faced with a situation where you're being challenged. It's
appropriate for us to raise those issues purely on a legal principle and that's where we
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 34 of 51
were saying that this condition, because its needs are not related to the development as
yet, went too far. Now, also Mr. Turnbull can address the ownerships in the area and
the other risks and the other agreements that they have worked on in the past with their
private property owners in the vicinity and I hope, collectively, that will answer your
question. In part, it is legal principle that all of us should adhere to, I think.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't want to -- I'm not discounting that. I mean I know -- I know the City of
Tigart went to the Supreme Court over building a bike path. I didn't see a whole lot in
those decisions as to why it was such a big deal to build a bike path why that was so
hard. That's the part I guess I want to hear, because I understand the legal argument
you're making and I don't total disagree with what you're saying, but I guess I really
want to hear the --
Butler: And, it's true, you're right, a bike path in the City of Tigart case was not a
condition and you wonder how it would get to the Supreme Court. The easement that
was asked for visual access in Nolan wasn't a huge issue, but it made it to the Supreme
Court, because at times people say, wait a minute, and I’m not sure I'm being treated
fairly. Is that appropriate. They, on principle, say I need to have somebody else look at
this, that’s what happened in Tigart, and that's what happened in Nolan. Are there are
any other questions?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, do you want Mr. Nichols to answer your question now or
would you prefer it after you have heard further testimony?
Nary: I guess probably -- I think at some venture I think we are going to have to
address that and have some -- have our counsel at least address Ms. Butler's
comments, because her comments are predominately legal issues and I think we need
an answer to feel comfortable anyway, but we can certainly hear from Turnbull first and,
then, finish theirs and, then, Mr. Nichols can address that.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols is that appropriate?
Nichols: Madam President, I'd prefer that, because I have had some of the same
questions that Councilman Nary had in terms of is it the legal issue only or is there
something else that hasn't been stated.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Turnbull? Okay. It is a Public Hearing. We will --
do we have a sign-up sheet? Do we want to follow -- or we will just ask anyone who
wants testify to come on down. Do you promise and affirm the testimony you provide
tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
McColl: I do.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 35 of 51
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
McColl: My name is Brian McColl, 420 West Washington, Boise. Madam Chairperson,
Members, I represent the developer who has so kindly brought the sewer and water to
the front door of this development, to and through his project. I know you have able
legal counsel, but because the comments of Ms. Butler address the legal issue, I would
just like to throw in my two cents worth, for what it's worth. The Tigart case, actually,
threw out the term reasonable and they said that any requirement for an exaction to be
a legitimate use of police power or zoning or land use needs to be only roughly
proportional to the project. That's the language. The issue here is the City Council's
past policy of to and through. If it's reasonable for the city to require a developer to
bring the sewer or water or another utility to the end of their development, as opposed
to the last house in the development, if that's roughly proportional to the need of the
development. Then, it is not an unconstitutional taking it is reasonable exercise of the
city's right to regulate land use. I think we get way off the topic if we start saying that it
is okay to have a developer bring his sewer and water right to the very external
boundary of Phase 1, then, Phase 2 and, then, Phase 3. It is unreasonable to ask a
developer when he's coming in and he wants the entire project annexed and the entire
project zoned and the entire project concept approved. To approve the Preliminary
Plat, it is no more unreasonable -- not that it is -- to ask him to procure the easements to
the very end of the project, because there is no question that the sewer and water
proposed for this development is directly related to the needs of this development. The
Supreme Court in both those cases, actually, said there was a three-part test. Number
1, does the development create a need for the particular service. Obviously, all of those
homes, offices, they all need sewer. Number 2, does the development benefit from the
exaction. In other words, you say to the developer you got to have sewer and water, is
that a benefit. Of course it is. The hard one is, is it roughly proportional -- is there a
nexus between the requirement, the condition, the land restriction, whatever you want to
call it in this case, to go get us easements, is that -- is there a nexus between that and
the development there, just like this. Now, if it was supposed to be exactly proportional,
as opposed to roughly proportional, then, all you could do is say to this developer, give
us easements just to the last house or the last office. If you're going to build the
easement because -- or build the sewer, because we haven't done it yet, you just make
it size enough for this development, don't have to make it any bigger. The Supreme
Court saw the folly of that. They said it just needs to be roughly. In this case, make it
large enough for our overall city planning for that north trunk and make it all the way to
and through. That's my two cents worth.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? I have a Ken Aschenbrenner. Do you promise
and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Aschenbrenner: Yes.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 36 of 51
Aschenbrenner: Ken Aschenbrenner, 4990 North Meridian Road. My property is at the
corner of McMillan and Meridian to the east of this project. Right there. In the past year
I've had several inquiries from developers and their primary question is what -- how
soon will they be able to access sewer and it kind of depends on getting through the
North Slough line. If this project takes seven or eight years to build, I will be sitting there
as a hostage waiting. The to and through policy, as I understand it, if it's up there to
Meridian Road, if someone wants to do something with my parcel, they would be
obligated, then, to kick it on ahead to the next guy to the east and on up the line. This is
an important issue to me.
De Weerd: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Aschenbrenner? Okay. No.
Thank you. Becky McKay.
McKay: Becky McKay, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle.
De Weerd: Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
McKay: I do.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: I'm here on behalf of clients that I have that are downstream from this
development on the North Slough Trunk. The Amyx family is one of my clients they
own property there at the tail end of the trunk. The Reeds are here this evening in their
support for the city to, obviously, require that easement -- that sewer easement be
instituted with the Paramount project. You guys are pretty familiar with this North
Slough Trunk and, as you well know, the trunk is being constructed at this point
between Ten Mile and Linder. Paramount is between Linder and Meridian. As you will
see, there is substantial trunk that will be required to be built at some point in time in
order to service the rest of that North Slough area. We have talked multiple times about
the projects in the North Meridian area and the infrastructure benefiting not only just the
project at hand, but benefiting the North Meridian area as a community. I guess I'd like
to say for the record when we talk about that infrastructure, we talk about schools,
parks, collectors, interconnectivity, but we also talk about sewer, water, and so forth. I
guess I'm asking in the spirit of cooperation, I think that this easement should be
required. The property owners -- I know -- I know there are multiple property owners
involved in Paramount, as were in the project that I had, Bridgetower Crossing, we had
multiple property owners and we just went to those property owners that we had not
closed with and said this is a requirement of the city that you grant this easement for
this White Drain Trunk to proceed through. I think they will testify that it's difficult for
them to plan, to design for future phases, but we have done it with the White Drain
Trunk. We just made sure that we had our streets tied down and our engineers
provided the easements to the city, the legal descriptions, and we are, obviously, held to
that, but we had to make sure that we have our streets, our lots tied down. It was not
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 37 of 51
difficult, it just took some future planning, but it has been done. It's not an impossible
endeavor here. I talked to one other developer who has done substantial development
in the Boise area and he indicated that the City of Boise has placed this condition on a
project that he had. They worded the condition a little bit different and I tried today to
get that exact language and the person I needed to talk to happened to be out today,
but, basically, their condition stated that they shall provide an easement to the City of
Boise for extension of the trunk. It will be provided at such time as Boise requests it or if
they happen to accelerate their phasing and they construct it to that point, then,
obviously, Boise would not come and request it, but that they would provide that. We
are not asking that this trunk be built, just asking that these easements be provided and
we believe that's fair and I would hate to see that trunk sit there for five or seven years,
as Mr. Aschenbrenner said. It affects a lot of people downstream and I have been in
the position to be a downstream -- representing someone downstream on parcels in
Boise. That's a bad feeling and it's difficult, sometimes, to find -- get the parties
together and get them to cooperate, because, obviously, when one has a particular
project and they have got control of sewer, they like to keep that and keep the
competition down to a minimum, if at all possible. I think it is reasonable, I think it is fair.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. McKay, I guess I have a question. You worked on the Lochsa
Subdivision. How were you able to plan for easements to get it over to their property? I
mean it's obvious that you're not built out or anything. Can you explain what happened
-- can I ask that question? Okay.
McKay: Madam Chairperson, that's a very good question and unlike -- just like -- or just
like what I said about Bridgetower and the White Drain Trunk, we made sure that we
had our streets tied down, that we had provided adequate areas for any waterways and
so forth and we just tied everything down and it's possible to do that. You're not
providing services off of those trunks. In fact, the city staff does not want us to put in
services, so it's not like you're trying to predict where those lot lines are going to go, all
you're predicting is where those streets are going to be laid out and that's not difficult to
lay those streets out and make sure that you have got a pretty good alignment and it's
been done multiple times. All the way along the White Drain Trunk it was done.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Here about four or five years ago we had JUB doing extensive sewer out for the
City of Meridian and that included all that and it's just a natural drain, you don't have the
exact foot or -- you know, or anything like that, but, then, Becky is right. The plan has
been put in place and I was quite shocked when we hear that we are going to have to
put in some more lift stations now, because in that report there was one lift station going
in and that was the main one out there on Dill and now there is the possibility of more lift
stations. I thought this followed the natural flow, but --
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 38 of 51
De Weerd: Well, I think that the lift station she raised was if you don't gain the
easements to -- okay.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, that I'm clear, Ms. McKay, on the Bridgetower Development was this a
condition?
McKay: No. We went on the record and stated we would grant that easement. We did
not receive any monetary funds from the city for that easement.
Nary: And on the Lochsa Falls one, was this a requirement?
McKay: We provided the easement, because our first phase was on Linder Road, so it
was voluntarily done.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Those two are the only ones I had sign up, but -- Mr. Johnson. I will swear
you in, please. Do you promise and affirm the testimony you provide tonight is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Johnson: Yes.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson. I live at 2433 Can-Ada Road.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: I'd, first of all, like to clarify why Lochsa is building the sewer to Linder Road.
Mr. McColl forgot to mention that we had spent about six months in negotiating with
himself and Marty Goldsmith in reaching an agreement for a land swap for a major
portion -- I think it was approximately 110 acres of Lochsa was optioned by myself and it
sits right in the middle of Lochsa, runs towards Ten Mile. That negotiation included
exchanging that for a property that is now part where the high school is and it was a
total of 96 acres and includes part of the commercial that we are proposing here in
Paramount. It also provided for us sharing water costs up Linder Road to both of our
entrances. It provided for sharing sewer costs on Ten Mile and it provided for us to
agree to exchange those properties to make his project more viable and put a parcel in
our project. He agreed to extend the sewer over to Linder Road. That was all an
extensive negotiation. It's something that we are very open to if Mr. Goldsmith or
whoever buys Ken Aschenbrenner's property or any of the other properties there, we
are not opposed to sitting down to that. Our objection is being told by City Council or
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 39 of 51
another government agency that we will give this easement, even though we don't own
that property yet. Mr. Wolf still owns the property along Meridian Road, an 80 acre
piece and also a 60 acre piece, which would put us a half a mile back into the
development. He's farming this or leasing this property and so if we were to now have
to give this easement with the first plat, we would, then, be forced to go back to Mr. Wolf
and negotiate an easement. Now, yes, it's not being built yet, but as soon as that
easement was there, it could be built, and, in fact, it includes a construction easement,
as well as just the sewer easement. That could be very costly for Mr. Wolf as far as his
land rents are concerned, because the sewer, once constructed, requires a road to go
along with the sewer line, so that it can be maintained, it would change the irrigation of
several of the fields, it would be fairly costly. We have not sat down with Mr. Wolf and
attempted to negotiate this easement, because we don't feel that it is a fair requirement
and it would put a burden on us and this project that we feel should be a private
negotiation. If they need sewer prior to us getting it there, they are welcome to come to
us. If the city needs sewer prior to that, we will cooperate fully with a project that is a
city project, such as the White Trunk, which has been mentioned. We don't have a
problem of sitting down and we will sit down with yourselves and Mr. Wolf and help
negotiate that easement if that's required prior to the time that we get there. We are not
opposed to that. We will help all that we can and I think Mr. Turnbull and myself have
always been helpful to the city if something was needed and we will always be.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: Any questions?
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Johnson?
Johnson: Yes.
Nichols: You heard Ms. McKay's testimony about a potential alternative condition that
would indicate that the sewer easements would be granted at a future date when
requested by the city. Have you given that some consideration? Would you have the
same concern with that sort of thing? Do you want to think about it, talk it over with
counsel?
Johnson: If it was for a Public Works project, I don't think we would have a problem with
that. If it's for a private project, I think we would rather sit down with that private
individual and work it out.
Nichols: Okay. Mr. Johnson, as I understood Ms. McKay's testimony, though, it would
be the city requesting the easement for a city sewer and that, essentially, would serve
presumably some upstream user, whether it be Vienna Woods that's existing now that
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 40 of 51
has a lift station or whether it be Mr. Aschenbrenner's property or whether it be
something else that's upstream from yours. As I understood the condition as she
recited it, it would be a sewer easement at such time as the city requested it for the --
essentially, it would become a public sewer, it would be a city sewer line.
Johnson: As long as they -- as long as the city or whoever is building the line
compensates those individuals that are involved in that, we would be favorable to that.
But that would need to be negotiated at that time, depending on how far across we are.
Nichols: So, Mr. Johnson, you would view this much like an ordinary condemnation,
eminent domain type thing, and the city had a public need and decided to -- I mean,
essentially, that's what happened is there is negotiation first and, then, if it doesn't work
you go beyond that.
Johnson: We would cooperate fully with a city Public Works project. Right now it's very
clear to us that this easement is wanted for a couple specific people and we would
rather that they come to them, like we have always had to come to someone else, and
negotiate that easement with us and we will cooperate with that.
Nichols: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Johnson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay so anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Are you
providing the rebuttal?
Butler: No. Mr. Turnbull is. I just wanted to ask if that's where you are at this point, on
rebuttal.
De Weerd: If there are no other people who would like to testify. Yes. Do you promise
and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Turnbull: I promise.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12425 West Explorer Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Turnbull: I have to apologize for the sunglasses. I had eye surgery last week and to
take them off would be more repulsive than I really am, so you have probably been
wondering why I'm wearing sunglasses. That's the reason. I have a really ugly eye
right now. I don't want to have some discussions about some -- you know, what could
be some mundane things kind of take away from the -- I think what has been referred to
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 41 of 51
by the Planning Director and own consultant as a well thought out project. We did put a
lot of planning into this we’re really are excited about it. There are, really, just a couple
issues here that seem to be a concern and I will address the one -- the two. The first
one is the inclusion of Lot 57, Block 3 I believe it is, at the corner of McMillan and Linder
Roads. I understand the planning staff's rationale for wanting to have that deleted. I
would ask you to consider the following. We are always asked to work with public
schools and I think that we have done probably a better job than anybody on that count
in working with public schools. Every time we do a development, almost the first person
we go to is the public schools and we ask them what sites they need. They came to us
-- back to us on this one, it was a high school site and an elementary school site and
you see both of them provided here. By virtue of providing that high school site, we
have, in effect, cutoff that corner from the residential portion of our development. To be
penalized for that by not being able to incorporate that into our plan I think sends the
wrong message that you better be careful about when you work with public schools,
because if you don't consider all of the ramifications, you might be penalized when it
comes before this body. I'd ask for your consideration in keeping that included in the
project. I will try to be brief on answering the sewer easement condition. In my view
this is an unprecedented condition. I don't think it's been levied or try to be imposed on
any other applicant in this city, to have an easement in advance of the Final Plats when
there is no Public Works project pending. I don't think it's in the best interest of this city
to get between private parties. I guess what -- Commissioner Nary asked what's the
heartburn here. I guess I really do have heartburn when another party comes to the city
and asks them to impose a condition on us, which, in effect, costs us money, costs us
time, costs us a lot of things and you might as well be putting your hand in our back
pocket and putting -- you know, taking money out of our pocket and putting it into theirs.
That's really what it came down to. Now, if they want to come to us and negotiate
easements, you know, we will be happy to talk to them, but to have the city impose a
condition like this is very distasteful to me. We have said before -- and if the city -- you
know, I think originally Mr. Watson suggested that, well eventually we would need some
relief for Vienna Woods, which is on a lift station. Well, it will be a long, long time before
that Vienna Woods lift station reaches capacity. If the city decided that it needed it two
or three years from now and they needed an easement to get that north sewer -- north
trunk sewer through -- North Slough Trunk through, you know, I think we have a good
record of working with this city. I think that you can take our word for it that we will work
with the city, but there are some conditions -- I've learned through experience,
sometimes sad experience, not to agree to a condition over which I have no control.
This is like many other developments, we own part of the property, we have options on
the balance of it, we have no ability to guarantee you that we can grant you an
easement through parts of the property that we don't have title to and I can't agree to
that condition. You know, as Mr. Johnson referenced before, when we worked out the
sewer to get it to our project, that was through a negotiation that involved consideration
on both sides, it involved land swaps, it involved cost-sharing agreements, and the city
didn't get involved in that. We worked it out between us big boys ourselves. I urge this
City Council not to get involved in a private agreement. If you find in the future that you
have a need that's a public need, come to us and we would happily work with you and --
and make sure that the public need is met. I guess I do want to keep the focus, though,
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 42 of 51
on, you know, the project and I believe it is a desirable project. We ask for your
consideration and approval of the annexation, Conditional Use Permits, and the
Preliminary Plat with the conditions as proposed to be amended by Mr. Wardle in his
documentation to you and in his testimony. I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Turnbull, I -- you know, I do think it is unfortunate that this is kind
of taking over the testimony, because it is a great project. I, in particular, appreciate the
fact that you have worked well with the school district. I hope to not hear that you will
be charging them more money than what you're telling them, like I have heard others
have done after it gets through our process. I find that very distasteful. I know you
have a very good history of working with the school district and that you really are a
person of your word. I do appreciate that. It's a great project, but I guess I do have
questions -- you know, I didn't know to and through meant anything different than that
and I guess we never see it up on our end to even question about when that does
happen, so this is all new and it's definitely something that we are going to have to think
about -- or I am. I don't feel I have enough information to really make a decision at this
moment. I guess what concerns me -- and this is probably something that typically
happens in developments anyway. You're telling me that -- or what I'm hearing, so,
please, correct me if I'm wrong, is you can't even guarantee that the easement for what
we see planted in front of us and so is this going to change, because you don't own that
property and the easements are still uncertain? You know, is this not what we are going
to approve?
Turnbull: Madam President, this is what you're approving. We do have ownership or
options on all of the property. We don't have the title on all of the property. That's
typical in many, many development applications that you approve. We do have options
in coming years to buy those remaining parcels and I can assure you we will be doing
so, as of this point we don't own property and we can't grant easements over property
that we don't own.
De Weerd: Then how can you plan for that property?
Turnbull: Because we have an option that allows us to do so.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would like to echo what Council President de Weerd said, although I do like it
when it gets all legal. I do think this is an excellent project and I don't have a concern
about the follow through on this project. I guess a couple questions and one of them is
Ms. McKay had raised the issue about -- in Boise and that the type of condition placed
was similar to what's being asked here. I think there is some difference and I guess I
wondered in your experience that in developments in Boise that those types of
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 43 of 51
conditions were -- as Ms. McKay stated, the conditions were that the easement has to
be provided when the city requests it. How has that worked in your experience and why
is that different than what's being requested here?
Turnbull: I can give you a specific example. When we did the Hobble Creek
development, Ms. McKay had a property owner client to the south of us and there were
other property owners to the west of us and all of those sewer easements came through
our -- all of those sewer lines came through our property. We negotiated an easement
agreement with her client to the south of us and provided them the sewer easement, but
there was some consideration involved, because it does, in fact, cost us money to do
those things. It is not a simple task. The way this condition, quite frankly, is stated, we
have to go through and do, you know, some detailed planning before we were ever able
to even come to you with the first phase. That's just not reasonable. I have never had a
development in the City of Boise where that's been a condition and I would ask -- and
maybe Brad can help us out here -- if this has ever been a condition that's been applied
to any Meridian city development. I don't believe it has and I think this is totally
unprecedented. Now, we -- you know, there are dangers in granting those easements
ahead of time. You know, sometimes things change, sometimes things can move
around, and I think you have had problems in the past where some things had to be
relocated, easements abandoned, and sewer lines relocated, so it's not as simple as it
seems to be when you just look at it on paper. There is a lot of detail that goes into that
kind of project. Can it be done? Yes, it can be done, but what it does is that it locks us
in, it takes away our flexibility, it takes away -- you know, just -- I mean if you want to
even get down to the farming operations, how it complicates that. It's not without cost
and to require of us, without compensation, for another private property owner that
desires it now to give them something like that for free at our expense is just not right. I
won't talk about legalities, but I'll just say it's just not right.
Nary: On this particular project -- I guess this particular project I noticed in the minutes
from the Planning and Zoning there was discussion about providing -- some of the
concern that was addressed was providing these easements at the Preliminary Plat
stage and that they, really, should be done at the Final Plat stage. Is that -- is that what
you still think? Is that where you believe that this type of condition needs to come at the
Final Plat stage?
Turnbull: We will certainly do it at the Final Plat stage, unless something is negotiated
previous to that.
Nary: Okay. You're talking the Final Plat of the entire project or are you talking still
about each phase?
Turnbull: Well, we are not Final Platting this all in one phase. It's a multiple phase
project.
Nichols: Madam President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 44 of 51
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Turnbull, could you outline what the phasing plan is on this development
as you have it?
Turnbull: I don't know if it has been included on that or if that shows it on -- I don't see
well enough with my problem here to tell whether that has the phasing plan on it or not.
It, essentially, goes from west to east, as you follow the natural progression.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, if --
Wardle: Yes. The plat that was provided to staff after the Planning Commission does
re-phase the project and, specifically, the first phase is this entry area, second, third,
and so forth. That, basically, you are working from Linder Road easterly in a
progressive way and, obviously, the market will dictate how quickly it accelerates. It
doesn't mean that you only do one of these per year, you might do several per year, if
the market is strong and there, but it, essentially, begins here and just builds on it and
moves easterly. I think the actual ownership line is at about this mid section point right
now. This area east is under option. They have fee ownership for the property west of
that so, first phase.
Nichols: And, Mr. Wardle, how many total phases are there?
Wardle: I think depicted there are 21, but, again, some of these would happen in
combinations, but it's just breaking them down into pieces that you would literally -- you
know, easily plan and implement. For instance, it works it way through this westerly
area first and, then, starts down the center, working toward Meridian Road to the east.
Like Phases 11 -- well, 10, 11, just -- it's a progression based on where the
infrastructure is at that point but 21 total phases are identified and might certainly
happen is just, you know, a matter of a few years if the market is strong.
De Weerd: And you will probably need another access point at some stage. Is there a
trigger on that?
Wardle: Access to --
De Weerd: To another arterial.
Wardle: Well, actually, for instance, the access to the arterial Chinden Boulevard
occurs in -- well, it's an early phase. It actually -- the roadway itself would come into
play -- quite strictly that would be moving forward early in the project.
De Weerd: And if the elementary school is accelerated, you will get it at least down to --
the easement or sewer to them?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 45 of 51
Wardle: Absolutely and that's the point. We get to this point early, very, very early in
the project, and, then, getting to the elementary school could be a realignment of the
phases and there is a condition that says that we can modify this and work with staff to
do so.
De Weerd: Council is there any further questions?
Turnbull: Ms. Butler said there was some testimony previously provided about a certain
case and I think you have asked your city attorney to make some comments, so Ms.
Butler would like to just give you the exact language of one of those cases and if you
have any further questions for me I can answer them now or after Ms. Butler. Thank
you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Butler: Joann Butler again. Mr. McColl mentioned the City of Tigart, rough
proportionality test is what he mentioned, and to assist counsel and what the court said
in Dolan was the degree of the exaction is what we are concerned about. They have to,
quote bear the required relationship to the impact or the needs of the proposed
development -- of the proposed development. The court called that the rough
proportionality test and the court said no precise mathematical calculation is required,
but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required
dedication is related both in nature and extent the impact of a proposed development
and that's what we are saying here. We are asking that the condition be reasonably
related and roughly proportionate to the needs that are created with each plat as each
phase is recorded and lots are available for sale. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, the attorneys I think that have
testified have correctly stated what the law is with regard to exactions, which those
cases, typically, arise in -- in Dolan, I believe, it was a Conditional Use Permit for
conditional parking or some expansion of a hardware store. Nolan had to do with a
view easement or a public beach access easement. Those -- and that was I think, in
connection with a building permit. None of those cases involved annexation that I'm
aware of. I think that when you -- although the applicant has done a pretty good job of
trying to pars this development into pieces, of phases, that when you apply the Dolan
test, you apply the Nolan test. You look at those issues, it's also appropriate to look at
this entire development as a whole, because it is being brought to you as a whole and is
being proposed as a whole, even though it may be built in phases. You always have to
look at, on the annexation, since it's a legislative decision, what's in the best interest of
the citizen of the City of Meridian and are there any conditions associated with
annexation, which help you, arrive at that decision. You also have to look at what this
condition as proposed by staff does not do and it does not require an actual building of
the sewer ahead of the development, it simply does require providing those easements.
I do see a potential issue in terms of the specificity with which the easement has to be
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 46 of 51
designed and how that cost may be part of the development ahead of when they are
actually ready to build it, in other words, legal descriptions for the streets into which the
sewer may be placed. At the same time, the proposed modified comment as stated by
Ms. McKay certainly makes some sense from a public standpoint, does not impose the
easement ahead of development as necessary, as determined by this Council or some
Council in the future, and would not require that those easements be granted now. That
might be worth exploring. The Public Hearing is not closed. You could ask staff to
inquire of similar circumstances in our neighboring community where perhaps that was
imposed and under what circumstances and how that might play out. You do have the
ability to make a decision to annex, to zone, to impose the conditions on Preliminary
Plat and the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Development and to not include the
sewer requirement in that. With the understanding that if it became necessary to extend
the White Sewer Trunk for any future development or for the existing development that's
already out there that currently pumps into the White -- or will soon pump into the White
Drain. I believe that at that point you would be faced with the decision to proceed to
exercise the right of eminent domain. I believe that although there is -- I believe there is
adequate basis if you -- if you, as a Council, decide that you need to extend the sewer
out to Vienna Woods in order to eliminate a lift station, the Payette Lake Sewer District
case I think gives you sufficient basis upon which to initiate eminent domain
proceedings. I think your decision -- you can defer the decision for additional
information from staff, with an opportunity of the applicant to rebut that information as it
pertains to other developments where there was a condition imposed, such as stated by
Ms. McKay. You could decide to annex without the condition, with the understanding
that if you decided in the future that easements ahead of the Paramount project
construction schedule would require eminent domain. You could decide not to annex,
because the easements weren't there to take it all the way through, and I think all those
decisions could be supported by the evidence that's in the record. I guess where I'm at
is I'd like to know a little bit more about how this condition worked in the adjoining
community where the easements are only required when requested, recognizing that
you also have to take into account -- I think it's a legitimate concern that if the
easements are actually built and a road is put in across a farmer's field before there is
going to be an actual development there. I think that really does need to be taken into
consideration, in terms of conversation, negotiation, and those issues, because it does
-- I doubt that despite their admitted skill in negotiation, that Mr. Turnbull and Mr.
Johnson anticipated this condition in negotiating those options. I can see a landowner
trying to put the bind on them to close the deal ahead of where they are prepared to
construct, based on those easement issues alone. That's at least something that needs
to be considered.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 47 of 51
Bird: I would like to throw something out here and having sat here for five and a half
years on the Council, I can assure you that everybody that has testified tonight, we
could go to the bank on their word, so there is no discrepancy there. Every one of them
have -- I think this is a deal that Meridian should have thought about three or four years
ago. I take the blame for that. We should have had the thing in place and forgot about.
We don't. I would like to -- I would like to continue this and ask staff to come back with
a proposal of how much it would cost to sewer out the North Slough and also to answer
some questions that Mr. Nichols had. I'm like him, there is stuff that comes up here that
-- and, you know, we give him a half hour, 45 minutes to come up with a decision -- or
an opinion, so that would be my preference to continue it for a week or so and to come
back, see if these people are -- can get together, work it out. I think it can be done,
because they all are quality people.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think that Madam Clerk said that our Council Agenda next week is pretty full, so
we, really, would be looking at a couple weeks if we want to continue it. I guess I only
had a couple of comments. Far be it for me to disagree with legal counsel, so I -- I think
there is -- I mean I appreciate a lot of what Mr. Turnbull said and what he's talking about
of -- and I do want to explore -- or I'd like the staff to explore the issue that was raised
by Ms. McKay of the type of conditions that the City of Boise has used in providing
these types of easements. I think from what I heard Mr. Turnbull say is that if the city
was wanting to build this sewer between now and when they were ready to develop it,
that that wasn't a problem. The concern was in providing this for a private entity being --
and access to this easement and build this sewer across property that they don't own
currently, so they would have to secure that, or across their property prior to without any
compensation to them. That's where I guess my concern is from the staff report of Mr.
Freckleton and Mr. McKinnon, is it really doesn't address that concern very well. It isn't
-- it isn't the city's place to provide that for some other private party. It is appropriate, I
think, for the city to provide that for the city to build that sewer, but not necessarily for
somebody else to do that. I think that's a very legitimate concern being raised by Mr.
Turnbull as to what can happen to them. I guess I would like to, really, I guess follow up
on Mr. Nichols' advice, I think that's a good avenue for us to explore further as to how
this has worked elsewhere and I don't recall, at least in my year and a half here, of us
having this condition. I think it's because most of the time I think it's like Ms. McKay's
testimony, that's been worked out and it's already been resolved, so it just isn't an issue.
It happens to be one here. I am very concerned and our rationale in the staff report is,
really, to make sure other people can develop their property sooner than this property
may develop and I don't, really, think that's our position to do so. I agree, I would like to
have a couple of weeks to see if we can get a little more information about how this can
be accomplished in a different manner. I think Mr. Bird's suggestion is good as well in
making that decision, we probably want to see what impact the cost would be for the
city in trying to provide this as well, so --
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 48 of 51
De Weerd: I would agree with what has been stated. I guess when we go back and --
before Councilman Nary's time, the North Slough was not one of our priorities and it
was -- if anything happened, it was development driven and so far that's somewhat how
it's been. Personally, I don't see the city taking a lead in this. We have staff resources
that we have stretched thin. We have a priority now of the Ten Mile area, so that we
can get an interchange done. You know, I do believe that it needs to be provided for,
but it has always been provided for through the negotiations of the private parties. I,
too, would be interested in getting more information, so that we can make a well-
rounded decision and we know what the different options are. I think if further
development is to happen along the North Slough, just as it has happened in other
areas, it's been development driven and it's been negotiated by those parties, so -- but
certainly, with more information we certainly can make a better decision. I guess if
there is a motion to continue this Public Hearing, we can go ahead and move it along.
Powell: May I just -- one cleanup issue, only because it looks like we are really going to
focus on the sewer easement. I just want to clarify that regarding the irrigation
easements that Mr. Wardle had claimed earlier today that they met the condition that
was given him. I would say that, yes, he met the exact intent of it, but perhaps not the
spirit, which was to plan for those irrigation easements and how they may affect his lots.
As long as -- I just want to make sure it goes on the record that we do have concerns
about relocating the irrigation easements and how it affects the built -- the ability of
people to build on those lots, where they go, and also along the linear pathway up here.
That if it is in an easement, then, he will not be able to put trees in it and those trees are
required as part of the Landscape Ordinance. I just want to make sure that that's on the
record. He and I discussed it before and, yes, they are things we can deal with at the
Final Plat stage, but I just wanted to make sure it made it onto the record. Thank you
for letting me say that.
De Weerd: Well, as we look at continuing this, perhaps you can work a little bit more
closely with the developer on that with some language that you feel a lot more -- that
you feel more comfortable with. That's another issue we can discuss. I think, too, the
issue of the commercial retail property I don't have an issue with that, so I don't think
that there is anything, other than the irrigation and the sewer easement.
Bird: Madam President, with that I would move that we continue the Public Hearings AZ
03-006, request for Annexation and Zoning for Paramount Subdivision, also Public
Hearing PP 03-004, the request for Preliminary Plat, and also CUP 03-008, a request
for a Conditional Permit for a Planned Development, all of them are Paramount
rd
Subdivision, to June 3.
Nary: Second.
nd
Bird: June 2.
Nary: No.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 49 of 51
De Weerd: No. He's --
Nary: I was concurring with you.
Bird: I thought I had that --
Nary: I would concur.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items 16, 17, and 18 to June 3,
2003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 19. This is to inform you in writing if so choose that you have a
th
right to a predetermination hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, May 20 before the Mayor
and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim
made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain
stth
counsel. Your service will be discontinued on May 21 and/or May 28, unless
payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her
water, sewer, and trash delinquencies? Seeing we have a full room here. No
response. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the
city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho state code. Even
though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is
$24,542.86. Council?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
st
Nary: I move that we approve the turn-off list for May 20, 2003, turn offs on the 21 and
th
the 28 of May of 2003 and the amount of the turn off list is $24,542.86.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Deputy City Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. Council, we -- if you wouldn't mind, I would like to call an Executive
Session, probably to item C, so if someone could make a motion.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 50 of 51
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to go into Executive Session per
Idaho State Code 67-2345(c).
Nary: Roll call vote.
De Weerd: Okay. Roll call vote, please.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Cherie, should we ask the attorney and Gary Smith to join us or do you
want to just do it with Council about yesterday?
McCandless: Oh.
De Weerd: Okay.
(Enter into Executive Session at 10: 12 P.M.)
RECONVENED AT 11:02 P.M.
McCandless: I move we come out of Executive Session.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay all those in favor – oh sorry. Can we just all say aye?
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Are we even on?
McCandless: Yes.
De Weerd: Oh sorry. All those in favor say aye. No decisions were made.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: No final decisions were made is really the way.
De Weerd: No final decisions were made. No there weren’t any decisions made.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 20, 2003
Page 51 of 51
Nary: Sorry my mistake.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
McCandless: So moved.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. Thank you. Meeting concludes at what is it
11:00?
Nary: 11:02.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:02 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK