HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 11-05
Meridian City Council Meeting November 5, 2003
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:23 P.M., on
Tuesday, November 5, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Kenny
Bowers, Bill Musser, Kathleen Kuebler, Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
__X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary
__X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird
O Robert Corrie
De Weerd: Okay. I will open up the City Council Regular Agenda. It's Wednesday,
th
November 5. It's 7:23, and Council, before we have roll call attendance, I would like to
ask -- we had a -- one of our Planning and Zoning Commissioners passed away last
night and if we could take a moment of silence in his memory. Okay. I'm sorry. Our
Planning and Zoning Commissioner Jerry Centers passed away in his sleep last night,
so we just will take a moment in his memory of silence. Okay. I'd like to welcome you
all here tonight. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 2, adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we adopt the agenda as published.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Bird: Have we got a change?
Nary: The Planning and Zoning Director had a department report to add at four.
De Weerd: Our P&Z Director has another item to add?
Powell: Yes.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 2 of 76
De Weerd: Okay.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, there has also been a number of
tablings. I don't know if you want to announce them now or --
De Weerd: Yes. Let's go through those, please.
th
Powell: The first one is Bear Creek No. 7. They have asked to be tabled to the 25.
De Weerd: That's Item Number 10?
Powell: Correct.
De Weerd: To November 20 --
Powell: Fifth.
De Weerd: Fifth.
Bird: Okay.
Powell: Item Number 16, there is a request from one of the property owners to table,
but I would, actually, ask that you at least take some staff testimony and provide for
input, rather than tabling that. That affects Item Number 17 as well, and then, as is
noted on 19 and 20, those were not posted properly. Number 18 there were some
comments from ITD that neither the applicant, nor staff, nor the Planning and Zoning
Commission had a chance to address, so we have got the recommendations done for
next week, so we are asking that that be tabled a week.
De Weerd: And that was item what?
Bird: Eighteen.
De Weerd: Eighteen.
Powell: Eighteen.
Bird: Madam President, I will change my motion, then. I move that we adopt the
th
agenda with the changes of Item Number 10 being tabled until November 25, Item
th
Number 18 until November 12, Item 19 and 20 will have to be continued until
th
November 25, because of notification, and with those changes, I make a motion we
accept the agenda.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird would that include additional department reports?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 3 of 76
Bird: Yes. If they so require. Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Second agree?
Nary: I would agree. Just because I didn't hear, just to be sure, so on 16 and 17 what I
heard Mrs. Powell say is we were going to keep it on the agenda --
Bird: We are going to keep that on the agenda.
Nary: Okay. Great.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, it's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as
amended. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. October 21, 2003
Approve minutes of City Council Regular
Meeting:
B. Continued from October 28, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-019
Request for
annexation and zoning of 16 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
Highgate Subdivision
proposed by Harris Homes, LLC - 2700
North Meridian Road:
C. Continued from October 28, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-023
Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 10 other lots on
Highgate
15.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Subdivision
by Harris Homes, LLC – 2700 North Meridian Road:
D. Continued from October 28, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-039
Request for a
Conditional Use Permit for single-family residential Planned
Development with a mix of attached and detached housing in a
Highgate Subdivision
proposed R-8 zone for proposed by Harris
Homes, LLC – 2700 North Meridian Road:
E. Development Agreement: AZ 02-028
Request for annexation
and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for
Cedar Springs North Subdivision
proposed by Howell-Murdoch
Development Corporation – south of West McMillan Road and west
of North Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 4 of 76
F. Non-Development Agreement: AZ 02-028 Cedar Springs North
Subdivision for Lot 18 Block 13:
G. Water Main Easement for Idaho Banking Company:
H. Sewer Main Easement for Idaho Banking Company:
I. Streetlight Agreement for Cobblefield Crossing No. 1:
J. Streetlight Agreement for Baldwin Park No. 3:
L. Lease for Fire Safe House between the Meridian Fire
Department and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District and
Joint School District No. 2:
M. Public Pedestrian Easement along Ridenbaugh Canal for El
Dorado Business Campus:
N. Approve Bills:
De Weerd: Item Number 3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda with one exception. Item
Number K needs to be moved to 5-K on the Regular Agenda, because there are some
questions we have got to -- need answered on that. I believe our Parks Department is -
- I thought -- yes. She's here, so -- we move that to 5-K and that the Council President
sign and the Clerk attest to all proper papers.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, with
the exception of moving Item 3C to five -- or 5-K -- or 3-K to 5-K.
Bird: 5-K.
De Weerd: And ask the Council President to sign and Clerk attest. Mr. Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 5 of 76
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports
A. Meridian Police Department:
1. Discussion of Officer Ballistic Vests:
De Weerd: Okay. Four. Department reports. We start with the Meridian Police
Department. Chief Musser.
Musser: Madam President, Members of the Council, I know there has been some
questions as to what the status of the Meridian Police Department is in regards to the
ballistic vests that have been in the news as of late. Part of the reason I'm here this
evening is just to go ahead and update you on that. The Department's really in pretty
good shape in regards to that. We only have four of our officers that are affected by the
Second Chance Ultimate Vests that are in question right now. One of the things I
wanted to let you be aware of is that will probably be a replacement issue for the
department in this budget, looking at the approximately to 2,520 dollars to do that
replacement, so we can immediately get them out of service. I believe we can probably
do it within our current budget. However, if we do go long in uniform and equipment,
that would probably be the main reason why and I just wanted you to be aware of that
and I'll stand for any questions if any of the members have any questions on the issue.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none. Thank you.
De Weerd: No. Thank you, Chief.
Musser: Thank you.
B. Anna Powell - Report
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, we'll move on to Item B.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I'm sorry to barge my way onto the
department reports, again, and not make the agenda. Yet, again, I met with Ada
County staff and was kind of thrown a curve ball regarding the adoption of our
Comprehensive Plan, so I wanted to give you an update. We -- last week we discussed
the issues of the definition of rural area and the adoption of the -- or withholding Building
Permits until they are able to take care of the park plan fees and I think we got those
issues resolved. They have raised a new issue in the term rural area residential
development. They want more guidance from the City Council on exactly what that
term might mean and, specifically, I think we have narrowed it down to -- I'm pretty
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 6 of 76
confidence that what we are talking about is just subdivision applications, not building
permits or lot splits or anything of that nature, but pretty much subdivision applications
as pertaining to that. There are two kinds of subdivisions that could occur in the
rural/urban transitional area. There is the straight five-acre sub -- five-acre minimum
parcel size, which seems to be referenced in our notes and I think it's pretty clear that
rural area residential development would apply to those five acre subs. There is also
one called a cluster sub, which can either be one acre lots on individual well and septic,
with the remainder of the property -- it's one unit per five acres still, but they would be on
one acre to one and a quarter acre lots on well and septic. The remainder of the
property would just sit there as open space until such time as city services were
available. The other variation of that, which you have seen, is the one where they ask
for the reduced lot sizes, such as an 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lot where they would
be going for a sewage -- a community sewage treatment facility. It's clear that -- I know
we don't want that one, because we want the city water and sewer there. I understand
your feelings on the reduced lot with the sewage, but I don't know how you feel about
the one-acre lots with the remainder lots. I don't know if anyone's ever brought this up
to you and if you want to have this as a more detailed discussion, but just in trying to
keep on track with their hearing schedule at Ada County, I'm coming to you now. We
can either -- if you feel uncomfortable giving me advice now, then, I can schedule a
work session with you. If you need more information, just ask me.
De Weerd: Anna, what is the time frame they are working with?
Powell: I go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission next week.
De Weerd: Next --
Powell: I think it's next Thursday.
De Weerd: Next Thursday. Well, is it possible that you can get us more information,
maybe summarize it in writing and we can have the discussion at our next meeting, so
that you can have that information going into Thursday night's meeting with Ada
County?
Powell: Sure. I will get it to you -- let's see. They burn disks -- I can -- I'll give it to you
tomorrow, so it will get on your desk and I will try to even give you a summary of -- do
you just want more information on the one-acre lot subs?
De Weerd: Yes.
Powell: The other subs we are okay on? Okay. Perfect. I can do that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Powell: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 7 of 76
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
K. Hold Harmless Agreement for Participation in Activities and/or
Use of Facilities with Joint School District No. 2:
De Weerd: Anything further, Council? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Five. We moved K
onto Item 5, so Item K is Hold Harmless Agreement for participation in activities and/or
use of facilities with the Joint School District No. 2. Mr. Bird, who is doing this?
Kathleen.
Kuebler: Yes.
Powell: Well, Mr. Bird, would you like to introduce our new Recreation Superintendent?
Bird: Recreation Director? This is Kathleen from the Parks and Rec. She's our
new Recreation Director. She came from a cold place called Florida and she's kind of
getting --
Kuebler: Kind of cold.
Bird: -- accustomed to our weather up here, so -- she's doing a good job for us.
De Weerd: Welcome. Thank you. Okay. Would you like to give us an overview?
Kuebler: The contract is a Hold Harmless Agreement, but on the third page of the
contract, it may read a little odd, because it says there is 1,600-dollar fee for use of the
gym. What that is is -- it is a 40 dollar an hour fee, I have a letter into the school board
trying to waive that fee, which, in the past, it has been waived. I don't want that fee to
cause any red flags, I wanted you to know that the documentation is in to waive that fee,
although it reads, pay the fee on that contract, but not on the Hold Harmless
Agreement.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols is that going to be a problem if they do agree to waive that fee
to have even mention of it in our agreement?
Nichols: Madam President, if I can ask Kathleen a question. The public knows, would
you explain what it is you want to do with the facility, so they can understand what it is
that you're doing.
Kuebler: The facility is for the use of a co-ed adult volleyball league. From what the
school board has told me -- you're the attorney -- but when you sign a document --
when they approve the fee waiver, that will supercede the contract, so it won't matter.
Nichols: Okay. Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 8 of 76
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, when the party that's to receive
the benefit -- which, in this case, the benefit of payment of fees, waives that benefit in
writing, that supercedes the provision in the contract which requires the payment. I
presume that this approval would be subject to obtaining the waiver of the fees from the
School District.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I guess that was the question I was going to ask. If the fee isn't waived --
Kuebler: If the fee isn't waived, we need to pay the fee or not have the co-ed volleyball
league.
Nary: So, where is the fee -- where is the fee going to come from if it isn't waived from
the registration fees?
Kuebler: Yes. It's coming from the registration fees and also from our recreation
budget. Yes, our recreation budget covers that fee.
Nary: But I mean when is this supposed to occur? I didn't see that.
Kuebler: The board meets next week, I believe. The school board.
Nary: Okay. What I'm asking is if the fee doesn't get waived next week, have we
already advertised this program, so that people already paid their fees?
Kuebler: Yes.
Nary: And their fees include enough to cover this 1,700-dollar cost -- or 1,800 dollar
cost?
Kuebler: Not all of the cost.
Nary: So, some of that's going to have to come out of the recreation budget?
Kuebler: Yes, it is.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Kathleen, what are you charging the coed teams?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 9 of 76
Kuebler: 260.
Bird: 250 and how many of them have you got?
Kuebler: Six.
Bird: Six of them? Okay. That's 1,500 bucks. Actually, budget is going to pick up the
other 180, unless you -- do you have paid referees at the volleyball level?
Kuebler: Yes. We also have a staff member.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I have no problem with that. Thank you very much.
Nary: Madam President, could I ask --
De Weerd: Yes Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, how did we get in this pickle that we already signed up to have this league,
but we haven't made the decision -- or we haven't had the approval to waive the fee or
incorporate that into the cost of the league? Because I'm assuming that 260 are
supposed to pay for the staff member there, the referees to be there, and the facility so,
we are losing money to do this.
Kuebler: Yes. Yes.
Nary: So, how do we -- how do we assure that we don't do this again in the future, so
we don't have to just absorb the cost?
Kuebler: We haven't had to do this in the past, but what happened was there was a
transition in this position, so for several months there was no recreation superintendent
to see that this letter got there in time. When I got here, I discovered that this letter had
not been sent. That's why it's a little later than normal.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: In Kathleen's defense, this isn't the only thing that was dropped on her head when
she come on board and she has worked out quite a few situations that wasn't very nice.
It's something that -- and most rec programs, Bill, that I know of, if they break even we
are very fortunate.
Nary: Sure.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 10 of 76
Bird: And that's what we have -- you know, that's what some of the taxpayer dollars do
go to the parks for and it's for the recreation, but Kathleen was late getting in and the
previous person did not do some stuff that she probably should have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Any other questions? Okay. Mr. Bird, do you have a
motion?
Bird: You bet I have a motion. I would move that we -- that the President of the Council
sign and the clerk attest the Hold Harmless Agreement for participation in activities
and/or use of facilities with Joint District -- School District No. 2 and hope that the
School District will waive the fees and I believe that's it. They got the contract drawn
and for you guys to sign it. That's -- I don't what else I can say.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Is that you hope the school district --
Bird: Well, I hope they will, but I can't -- I can't tell them they have to. I can't tell them
they have to.
De Weerd: I just thought I'd ask.
Bird: I hope they would -- I mean there is no way I can tell them they have to.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Ordinance No. : ZOA 03-002
Request for
Sign Ordinance
Amendments to :
De Weerd: Okay. Item Number 6 is Ordinance 03-1055 on ZOA 03-002, request for
Amendments to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by
title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
1055, an ordinance amending the sign code for the City of Meridian, Idaho, specifically
amending Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Chapter 14, Title 11, of
the Meridian City Code, providing for appeals, conflicts, validity, savings clause, and
providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1055. Is there anyone
who would like the ordinance read in its entirety? Thank you.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 11 of 76
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I had a question on the memorandum that we received here from Mr.
Hawkins-Clark, if the ordinance that we are passing is the one with these changes, it
seems like just fairly minor changes, but I wanted to make sure we were passing the
right --
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, the changes that Mr. Hawkins-
Clark pointed out and requested have been made to -- in fact, that's why there is one at
your desk, instead of the one on your CD-ROM.
Nary: Great.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Also, one of the issues before was the effective date. The provisions with
regard to the regulations on the animated signs are specifically mentioned as having an
effective date, which is 30 days later than the other portions of the Sign Ordinance.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Thank you for doing that.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-1055, the request for
amendment to the City Sign Ordinance, with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1055. Mr.
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 12 of 76
Item 7. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-017
Request for
annexation and zoning of 6.00 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed
Parkway Subdivision
by Six Point Development, LLC – 355 West Ustick
Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item Number 7 is Ordinance 03-1056, on AZ 03-017, request for
annexation and zoning of six acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Parkway
Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC, 355 West Ustick Road. Mr. Clerk, will you,
please, read this by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
1056, an Ordinance finding that John Kay Barton and Lita Barton, owners of certain real
property generally located at 355 West Ustick Road in Meridian, Idaho, to known as
Parkway Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City
of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in
writing to the Council that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning
designated Low Density Residential District (R-4) and declaring that said land, by
proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of
Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in
conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps
of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a
certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County
recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of
Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You have heard the reading of ordinance 03-1056.
Is there anyone who would like hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I would
entertain a motion.
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1056, request for
annexation and zoning of 6.00 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Parkway
Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC, with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1056. Mr.
Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 13 of 76
Item 8. Ordinance No. : AZ 02-028
Request for
annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for
Cedar Springs North Subdivision
proposed by Howell-Murdoch
Development Corporation – south of West McMillan Road and west of
North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Number 8, Ordinance 03-1057 on AZ 02-028, request for annexation
and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for the proposed Cedar
Springs North Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
1057, an Ordinance finding that Hal Murdoch Development Corporation and Chukkar
Estates, the owners of certain real property generally located on the south side of West
McMillan Road, one quarter mile west of North Meridian Road, to be known as Cedar
Springs North Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the
City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in
writing to the Council that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning
designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8) and 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 maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the
Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the
areas to be annexed with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and
the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-
223 and Section 63-2215.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1057. Is there
anyone who like this ordinance read in its entirety? Council?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve Ordinance 03-1057, AZ 02-028, request
annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for the proposed
Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Hal Murdoch Development Corporation, south of
West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road, with suspension of rules.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03-1057. Mr.
Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 14 of 76
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-020
Request for
annexation and zoning of 1.13 acres from R-6 to L-O zones for proposed
Office Jet Subdivision
by Wardle and Associates – 1975 North Locust
Grove Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is Ordinance Number 03-1058, AZ 03-020, request for
annexation and zoning of 1.13 acres from R-6 to L-O zones for the proposed Office Jet
Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-
1058, an Ordinance finding that Jake Centers, the owner of certain real property
generally located 1975 North Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as
Office Jet Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City
of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in
writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning
designated 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 maps of the
City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified
copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada county
recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of
Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1058 by title only.
Is there anyone who would like it read in its entirety? Okay. Council?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-1058, the request for
annexation and zoning of 1.13 acres from an R-6 to an L-O zone for the proposed
Office Jet Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, at 1975 North Locust Grove Road,
with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1058. Mr.
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 15 of 76
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Tabled from October 7, 2003: FP 03-052
Request for Final Plat
approval of 12 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone
Bear Creek No. 7
for by Bear Creek, LLC – South Stoddard Road and
West Victory Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 was tabled from October 7, 2003, and it's been asked to be
th
tabled until November 25.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table FP 03-052, the request for the Final Plat approval of 12
building lots and nine other lots on 10.92 acres in an R-4 zone of Bear Creek No. 7 to
November 25th, 2003.
McCandless: Second.
th
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Item 10 to November 25.
All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Councilman Nary is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 11. FP 03-058
Request for Final Plat approval of 48 building lots and 9 other
Sundance Subdivision No. 4
lots on 15.40 acres in an R-8 (PD) zone for
by Sundance Limited Company, LLC – north of East Ustick Road and east
of North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11. FP 03-058, request for Final Plat approval of 48 building
lots and nine other lots on 15.40 acres in an R-8 PD zone for Sundance Subdivision No.
4 by Sundance Limited Company, LLC, north of East Ustick Road and east of North
Meridian Road. Staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this is the Preliminary Plat that you
see before you. The property does have -- at the south is Ustick Road and on the west
is Meridian Road. This is Phase 4 of that. Here it is. It's located approximately in this
area. The Final Plat is in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat. I
did want to go over just a couple minor issues with you. There was a Planned
Development approved for this property to allow the office uses in this corner here. The
Planned Development did not allow any reduced frontages for any other dimensional
standards. This issue came up last week, so I kind of wanted to address it this week in
a little more detail. What happened on the Preliminary Plat, we have this measurement
here that says 40. When they are doing the Preliminary Plats, because it takes a lot of
time and energy to calculate the exact curve distance, they take a cord measurement,
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 16 of 76
which is -- saves them a lot of time and money and it's appropriate for a Preliminary
Plat. The problem is when it comes to the Final Plat. You will see here there is the
curve table C-42, well, the actual distance on curve C-42 is on the order of 39.68 feet,
instead of 40 feet. The Zoning Ordinance has a dimensional requirement of 40 feet
along these curves or 65 feet. As the Final Plat is coming in, they are just shy of that.
Now, on the one that happened last week, they, actually, had requested reduced
frontage requirements as part of their Planned Development. That was not the case in
this instance. Now, staff is not saying that -- in any way that this isn't in substantial
compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat, I just wanted to make that clear, but we
do have an issue here where they are not meeting exactly the frontage requirements for
the zone. However, this is exactly consistent with what we approved as a Preliminary
Plat. This is the landscape plan. Staff -- the applicant has addressed those concerns in
their response letter. Just kind of wanted to let you know what the situation was. I think
that you will find that the planning and zoning staff are now going to ask every applicant
specifically what frontages they are looking for. I think we -- if the engineering staffs
want to do the cord measurement, I think they need to kind of bump it up to 41 feet on
their half to make sure that they have got that frontage requirement when it comes in on
these Final Plats. Unless we want to change the standards to just measure a cord
length, rather than a curve length. That's the other possibility.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, did you have anything further?
Powell: The Public Works Director, former City Engineer, did mention that it's always
been 40 feet that they have had to adjust those in the past.
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. Now, Anna, the applicant had a couple of other items.
Do you have any response to those?
Powell: The fencing issue is fine. There is no need to create a tunnel lot there. The
property that adjoins that Lot 50 is very odd shaped. There would be no need to have a
fence there. It's unlikely that that will ever redevelop. It will probably just be a driveway
for a single family home for -- unless somebody wanted to put a wedding chapel or
something very odd back there, it's not likely to change. There are no concerns with
that? The others were all frontage requirements. The Nampa-Meridian irrigation
requirement, they actually -- it is within their jurisdiction. The applicant has talked with
them and they have preliminary okay that it won't be a problem, so that should remain
as a condition of approval.
De Weerd: So, the only item that you would maintain to keep -- or have them change is
item eleven on the cord lengths. Or not change.
Powell: Well, yes, just kind of -- the reverse Condition Number 10 we could remove, the
requirement to fence along that west boundary. That one could be changed. I think
that eleven -- the frontage requirements, I think it's been the policy of the city in the past
to make them 40 feet and probably need to maintain that, from what I'm hearing today
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 17 of 76
from over my shoulder and Item number 14 needs to remain as a condition of approval
as well.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I know Councilman Smith is sitting over there, but I'm wondering on this
thing were they also making a statement -- that's fine. They are making a statement
that other -- that the other phases have had the same ones, so now they are asking for
basically -- for two different reasons. One, because they want to be consistent with the
other phases and that was kind of the whole design of the project, as well as the issue
of whether or not that's -- you know, the issue that you brought between cord length and
the curve -- the arch length, but do you know on the other issue here where they talked
about the other phases?
Powell: I have to admit I didn't go back and check the past phases and I did not speak
with Sonya about that. I guess in other places I have worked the general -- my general
philosophy has just been -- just because they made a mistake in the past doesn't mean
I need to continue it in the future.
Nary: True.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? State your name and address.
Stiles: Sheri Stiles. Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens in Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stiles: Just to clarify a little bit on the cord length versus the arch length. The
Preliminary Plat that was approved for this subdivision did have dimensions for the arch
lengths, not the cord lengths. If you would take a scale to the Preliminary Plat that was
approved, it would show that that does not meet a 40-foot cord length. This was also
interesting. We inherited this project from another engineering firm and I don't know if
Bill Nichols will remember some of the finagling that went on after I left, but there was
even a new plat approved after the fact. They submitted a plat. When this was initially
approved -- I don't know -- it was sometime during the summertime and they presented
st
a plat that was dated December 1, which was after the Council action. The Council's
action included required changes to the plat and when that road -- one of them was
when the road was realigned to match up with Dave Couch on the south side. He was
adamant that he wanted that to match up with his driveway, we did -- or the former
engineer did make those changes and as a result, some of the lots fell below the 63 --
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 18 of 76
or 65. There is only one lot now that will be less than the 65. The other two we have
room to accommodate that and change those, so they will meet the 40 feet -- or 65-foot
frontage. However, changing those, so -- those lots so they are 40 foot cords, instead
of arch lengths, will require removing two of the lots. There is no wiggle room. The
applicant doesn't want to lose any of the lots. They based all their financing on this
number of lots. I would respectfully request that we not be required to meet that cord
length and that we be able to have the arch length of 40 feet as was shown on the
approved Preliminary Plat. Then, the other issue would be the one lot on the left side of
that entrance -- just on the other side of the entrance, it's about 63 feet, and then, on
item 14, I didn't have an error on that. The -- Lots 34 and 35 at the top where you see
there, the easement there, apparently, does not belong to Nampa-Meridian or Settler's,
either one. Those will be parts of their lots and we will not require a license agreement
for those -- or an encroachment agreement for those two lots. For the remainder of the
lots on that eastern boundary we will have to get an encroachment agreement for the
ten feet. Do you have any questions of me?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sheri, I understand reading Item Number 12, Lot 40, Block 7, is the only one that
cannot be adjusted, is that right?
Stiles: Right.
Bird: The rest of them can be adjusted?
Stiles: The ones that fell below the 65-foot width, yes.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: But they still require -- or they still fulfill the minimum lot size?
Stiles: The 6,500? Yes.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Are we having a pow wow back there?
Powell: Madam President, Council. No results. I guess I had misspoken. I switched
the terms. I'm sorry about that. I don't think we have any new information for you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Stiles: Thank you.
Nichols: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 19 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Anna, can you address the applicant's -- so that we can get these -- this order
of conditional approval of Final Plat correct, would you, please, address the applicant's
response item by item, so that the motion can reflect that specifically, because I'm not
sure where we are.
Powell: Madam President, Mr. Nichols, do you want me to address the staff's comment
-- relate it back to the staff report or the applicant's response?
Nichols: Well -- Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nichols: Anna, usually the -- especially with Engineer Solutions, they are real good
about going down through and saying all the ones that they agree with, so we are only
looking at the three or four that they don't agree with. If you will address each one of
those as to what it is you're recommending the Council do on each one of those where
they don't agree, then, we can get it straight. Because on one of those that they don't
agree with, it has to do with the 40 foot length and if I understood Ms. Stiles correctly, if
you insist on 40 feet, they are going to have to take out two lots and this Council needs
to know that insisting on 40 feet means that and if that's your recommendation, they
need to know that. One of the other ones you disagree with has to do with a lot, which
is physically impossible to get to 65 feet, because the alignment required with the road
to the south. Can you agree -- I think you said that you agreed with that one and I want
to make sure that we go down through each one of them so I can get the order correct.
Bird: I agree.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, regarding item number ten, the
question is on Lot 50, whether fencing is required along the eastern boundary. Staff
believes that the applicant is correct in that fencing is not required along the eastern
boundary of Lot 50. Regarding condition number 11. This condition points out a
number of lots that do not meet the 40-foot minimum frontage requirement. It states
that the applicant needs to make the necessary adjustments to meet this requirement.
Staff believes that that is still a valid condition of approval. Regarding Item number 12.
Lots 2 and 5 of Block 11 do not meet the 60-foot -- 65-foot minimum frontage
requirement. Make the necessary adjustments to meet this requirement. Staff believes
that that is still a valid condition of approval. Number 14. Provide a copy of the
encroachment agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for Lots 34 through 39,
Block 9. Staff believes that that is still a valid condition of approval. Excuse me. It just
-- the one change would be that right now it reads from 34 all the way down to 39. This
lot -- it would actually be from 36 to 39.
Bird: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 20 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: What about Lot 40 Block 7, in Item Number 12? What's staff's --
Powell: Staff's concern is that there was no mechanism allowed to -- or approved to
reduce the required frontage.
Bird: Can it be adjusted, though?
Powell: The variations to the open space lot would only require administrative approval,
so they could possibly accommodate that foot and a half in the landscape lot, if Ms.
Stiles is open to that. I believe that you could reduce the width of the landscape lot
through an alternatives compliance from the -- I'm communicating with the applicant.
I'm sorry. I should be going through you. If the applicant wants to reduce the land --
width of the landscape lot, that would be an administrative approval, rather than having
to go through a PD approval. We could do that with the alternative compliance, so that
might be a way to remedy that situation. They could pick up their foot and a half in the
landscape lot.
De Weerd: Thank you. Does the applicant want to respond?
Stiles: Madam President, Council Members, Sheri Stiles, 150 East Aikens, Eagle. I
don't believe our client will want to make that kind of adjustment. He's already planned
out his entryway and it would take significant shifting of every single lot all the way
around, you know, just to -- that is -- that's a lot of work to do for a design tech. I guess
we still assert that these lots are the same as was approved in the Preliminary Plat.
These cul-de-sac lots have not changed from what was originally proposed. They were
always less than 40-foot cord lots.
De Weerd: Were those items of discussion at the Preliminary Plat level?
Stiles: I can't recall. It was a long, drawn out -- you know, this was a project that was
originally denied they resurrected it and brought it back. I do have copies and, hopefully
you have copies in the city file of the Preliminary Plat that was approved. There was
something that happened later that Steve Arnold convinced Dave McKinnon to change
the conditions of the Final Plat unilaterally and we are just stuck with what got approved.
You know, it wasn't our intention to try to -- to try to sneak something passed you, it was
-- it's just how it was approved originally.
De Weerd: So, this complies with what it was at the Preliminary Plat?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you, Sheri. Okay. Any discussion? I
would entertain a motion, if someone wanted to attempt it.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 21 of 76
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just before I do that, I guess my motion -- I guess we will see where it goes. My
motion is going to be to approve it with the requirements as set by Planning and Zoning
and if they have to adjust it, they are going to have to adjust it. I guess I agree with Mrs.
Powell's statement that these were done incorrectly and not in compliance in the other
phases and we are not going to perpetuate that problem. I guess I don't see a reason --
I haven't heard anything as to a reason why to make them than less, than it's
inconvenient, so -- inconvenience isn't enough. I guess I would move the approval of
FP 03-058, request for Final Plat approval of 48 building lots and nine other lots on 15.4
acres in an R-8 zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 4 by Sundance Limited Company,
LLC. North of East Ustick Road and east of North Meridian Road, pursuant to staff
comments and the conditions of the November 5, 2003, staff report, as well as
statements tonight by Mrs. Powell in regards to the conditions 10 -- 10 and 14, and to
leave conditions 11 and 12 as listed in the staff report.
Bird: I'll second that.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 03-058, with the
changes as noted. Is there any discussion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd like to make one statement. I agreed with Mr. Nary on this. Two wrongs don't
make a right and all of us sit here and seen that preliminary thing go through, I can't
believe that we didn't have some questions on it at the time, but I agree wholeheartedly
that -- that we got to make it right, regardless of what one and two is, so that's why I
second it and that's why I'm in favor of it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. 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 12. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: CPA 03-003
Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow
new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for
Stapleton Subdivision
proposed by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West
Ustick Road:
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 22 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. I will first open Item 12 only. Council do you have any problems with
that? Okay. Okay. We will go ahead and open up the continued Public Hearing from
October 21, 2003, on CPA 03-003, request for amendment to the text of the
Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning
designation for the proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates and we
will ask for staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, at our last hearing you directed
staff to work with the applicant to come up with some sort of standards to allow
residential development somewhere within this wastewater treatment plant area. I
guess I'm just going to run you down kind of the sequence of events of what we have
th
done since we met last week. We did meet with the applicant on the 24 of October to
discuss the issue and at that time, we kind of agreed that we would look at three areas
of standards. One would be kind of a separation standard for odor control. We talked
about a -- perhaps a berming or some sort of standards in regard to noise and, then --
and for light or for just the general appearance. We talked about some landscaping
standards. About all we agreed -- we didn't agree to any specific standards that day, it
was shortly after our hearing with you, we just kind of discussed what kind of tactic we
planned on taking it over, what kind of research we planned on doing. We did at that
time set up a second meeting to come back with more specific standards, with the hope
that we would be able to share some ideas on some specific standards with the
applicant at the next meeting. Originally, we had scheduled that for Monday, I believe.
Monday or Tuesday of this week. We didn't actually have a chance to do until this
morning and I will get to -- in little bit about what we talked about. After that first
meeting we did do a fair amount of research. I went through probably a good four or
five inches of articles on industrial standards and separation standards. I was unable to
find anything that was specific to wastewater treatment plants. I also went through
separation standards for CAFOS, the Confined Animal Feeding Operations, basically,
feedlots, dairies, things like that, but those separation standards are in excess of our
whole area, our whole district. Those tend to be a quarter mile at a minimum. So,
those weren't very helpful. The public works staff contacted Boise city regarding their
Lander Street facilities and some of the difficulties or challenges they have in being in a
fairly dense urban area and the cost requirements of their odor scrubbers and some of
the other equipment that they do. Brad can give you a few more specifics on those a
little bit later. The do -- one item in particular, though, is those odor scrubbers and they
did give us kind of a range of price on that that went from like 200,000 to 500,000. So,
those are fairly expensive items and we decided to go ahead and purchase a noise
meter and we took a bunch of readings on the site, because at the hearing it became
evident that noise was an issue. Fortunately, the individual readings that we took are
the little the black dots, so it was a limited sample. Public Works staff was able to do a
little bit of contouring for you and, again, the bubble goes down to the south, because
that's where we took additional data. The more data you have, the -- obviously, the
better model, but this was just an attempt, but what we found is that those noise levels
are pretty high out there. The one on the southern most black dot I believe was 69. I
can't read my copy from here. I believe it was 69. We have a paper copy. I can look.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 23 of 76
This point 69 decibels. This was 70 decibels. Seventy-six decibels. These along here
varied from 69, 75, 70, and 76. There is a fair -- there is a wide variation depending on
if there is a building in front of it. This was, obviously, the -- what generates what most
of the noise, the train and the prevailing winds. As I said, we did meet again with the
applicant today and we were unable to give them specific standards. We just weren't
able to find some. The noise seemed to be the thing that we could get most of a handle
on. As I pointed out, those decibel ratings to you, this is an idea of how those rate in
regard to other noises. Rock music with amplifiers is 110 decibels. The danger level
begins at 70 about decibels, which is a busy street. Sixty decibels is a normal
conversation 50 is a quiet street. Ideally, you would be looking for these kinds of levels,
and this came out of some of the material that I was able to find. For a residential
district with just single family residential during the evening hours you would be looking
for 45 decibels. That's inside. The building itself would muffle some of those noises.
So, outside would be probably closer to the 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. reading, so that would be
the 55 decibels. Multiple family residents -- residential, there is a little bit of a higher
expectation for quiet in those areas and, again, commercial, light industrial, and heavy
industrial. I think that this is in sync with what the idea of the wastewater treatment
plant area was, was that to surround the wastewater treatment plant with some uses
that had less expectation of quiet than others, particularly with regard to single family
residential, and I did talk to the applicant about an issue of -- if the Council wants to
allow residential, that maybe multi-family would be more appropriate than single family,
although limited density still, but with a multi-family residential there is not that
expectation that you're outside in your yard having a barbecue. There is -- sometimes
you have a porch, but that you don't spend the type of time on a porch that you would in
a back yard or have those same expectations that you do with a single family
residential. Kind of in line with the expectations, we know that the applicant is
proposing -- or has proposed the easements that would notify these folks that there is a
facility nearby. Staff still has concerns that, you know, even though someone may
decide that this is the only house they can afford and they want to go ahead and buy it,
they figure they can live with the smell, we still have a lot of concerns that once they get
in there that they are going to decide that they can't really live with the smell and that
they -- even through there is an easement that says they won't complain, that won't stop
them from complaining. Maybe it will stop them from winning a lawsuit, bit it won't stop
them from taking a lot of staff's time and the attorney's time addressing those
complaints. We are very much still concerned with that. I will try and wrap up. I'm
sorry. Regarding the issue of the map area just being too large, there does seem to be
some validity for that, although I haven't done a critical analysis of the materials that the
applicant presented, but I think there were a couple major flaws. One was that there
was no real access to this property, yet we have been talking about Black Cat or Ten
Mile becoming a major access from Gem county through to the freeway, so I think that
that argument that -- that this won't be a draw to mixed use may be short-sighted with
regard to the extension from Gem county. The other thing to consider is that even
though this had -- we showed mixed use here and, then, there is a limited amount of
mixed use shown on Chinden and, yet, when the North Meridian area plan came
through, the developers were all saying, no, this area can support more mixed use. It's
confusing to me how we can support it on a -- the east-west route is certainly more
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 24 of 76
regional at this point than the north-south, but I think that, eventually, there will be the
north-south regional route through this -- or nearby this area, so that this -- over time
that this area could support the mixed uses that are proposed here. I think you can see
that staff is still supporting the Wastewater Treatment Plant as it is. If the Council -- the
only conclusion that we could come up with that we felt comfortable with as far as where
residential might be appropriate -- the prevailing winds go this way and this way. I'm
sorry. For the record, that's northwest to southeast and southwest to northeast. The
way they don't seem to run is west or north. If there were an area that would be
appropriate for residential, it would be these areas that are kind of -- we would want to
keep some sort of buffer. We are not sure what would be appropriate, based on noise
or odor, but we would want to keep a buffer from this west property line of the treatment
plant and along the north, but it would be kind of this area here. We couldn't come up
with anything definitive. I think what our data sampling on the noise study taught us is
that it's noisy out there and that we probably aren't qualified to do a real noise study.
That was kind of the conclusion of that, and that it might be an interesting endeavor to
actually have a noise study done by someone to find out what kind of effect there might
be from the existing facilities. Then, project it over time what the -- as the plan expands
to accommodate the development needs of the community, what it would be in the
future, so -- that is a very long presentation to tell you that we really did try to -- I hope
it's evident that we did try and come up with some good standards. Unfortunately, given
the time constraints and just our staff expertise, we were not able to come up with
anything at this time and the Public Works Director has some comments as well.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Gary.
Smith: Thank you, Madam President, Council Members. I just wanted to give you a
little history on -- excuse me -- on the wastewater treatment facilities that Meridian has
had, to give you an indication of what we have been trying to do to provide these
facilities. Many years ago the wastewater plant was located at the west end of
th
Broadway at about 8 Street and Nine Mile Creek is right there and that was used as a
point of discharge for the treated material. It, then, moved to the north end of Northwest
th
8 Street, which is where the water department is located now and that was our
wastewater treatment plant and it discharged into Five Mile Creek at that point. In 1976
construction began on the wastewater plant at this present location with its point of
discharge into File Mile Creek again and it also has a pressurized line of discharge to
the south channel of the Boise River. This plat was opened in July of 1979. You can
probably tell by the dates that this plant was several miles from the City of Meridian.
The city was -- had forethought enough to say this facility needs to be located out away
from development, but yet in the process to provide lands for development by -- and let
the city grow and that's what it did. This present site will accommodate a plant twice the
size that it presently -- that presently exists. That completed plant will serve a
population of about 150,000 people. This is an activated sludge treatment plant and the
very nature of that treatment is -- a part of that is aeration of the waste and so from that
type of treatment you will get odors. I think any day that you go out to the plant you will
notice a difference in air quality and I think Council Member McCandless can testify to
that. Each time we have our manager's meetings out there, when you drive in you
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 25 of 76
notice the odor. When Rhonda Layton testified at the last hearing, she said that 80 to
100 days out of the year, if I remember it correctly, she notices odor. It's not offensive
to her, because she's around animals and is familiar with similar type of odors. She was
very concerned about the light and about the noise. The doubling of the size of the
plant is only -- that noise level is only going to increase. You know, we can do things
with the lights as far as shielding. We can do things with the noise to a certain point. All
of these things are an additional expense and this expense will need to be paid for by
the users in the City of Meridian. As Anna mentioned, the prevailing wind is in the
northwest, southeast primarily I would say direction and that contributes to the odors in
this proposed plat area. In my opinion, the notes on plats and statements in CC&R’s,
deed restrictions, will be effective for a certain number of buyers and primarily on the
first time, I think as Council Member de Weerd mentioned in the last -- at the last
meeting. I know that Jake builds a pretty attractive facility and at a reasonable cost and
I think people are excited to get into their -- a new facility and they won't understand or
realize what odors can be there, what noise will be there, what light contamination is
there, until they are there. Then, we will be responsible to deal with the complaints. As
Brad mentioned in his testimony last time, the odor requirements, the odor control, and
esthetics are not a part of our NPDES permit requirements. As Anna mentioned, Boise
city has expended significant dollars in deal with odor at their Lander Street plant.
These costs have to go back to the users in the City of Meridian. All the users. I think
that's the extent of my comments, President de Weerd and Council Members. I think
that this is a serious concern to Public Works Department. If it does proceed on to
consideration -- further consideration for residential development, then, a substantial
amount of time should be dedicated to a study of these concerns that we do have in the
odor, the noise, the lighting requirements, et cetera. That we, as your staff, can decide
what this is going to cost. That's what it's going to come down to is the cost, along with
being able to protect the people that move in to a residential development and I guess
protect your staff, too, from complaints that are -- that will be coming -- forthcoming.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President. Anna, did -- I don't know that we ever put in the record the
uses that would -- on this particular -- I know it's a Comp Plan Amendment, but we are
talking about one particular parcel also that's already in the city and zoned. Do you
have the allowed uses in a C-N zone?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 26 of 76
Powell: Mr. Smith is going to go get a zoning book for me. The property is currently
zoned C-N. They are requesting on the applications that we haven't actually opened up
yet. They are requesting a change to residential from C-N. The allowed uses in C-N
include -- it sounds like my computer is self-destructing here any moment. Sorry, I'm a
little preoccupied by it. Principal permitted uses include accounting services,
administrative services, bakery stores, churches, convenience stores, laundromats,
libraries and museums, planned commercial development, shopping centers.
Conditional Uses include automobile service stations, automobile washing facilities,
banks, and other financial establishments. Bars, childcare centers, clubs, and lodges.
Drive-ins, dry cleaning, and good child care homes. Nurseries and daycare centers.
Professional sales offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, and service stations.
There are a number of allowed uses within the C-N zone that would be consistent with
the mixed-use wastewater treatment plan designation.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, are there any other questions? Mr. Nichols? Okay. Is the
applicant here? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Wardle: For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station
Drive in Boise. I appreciate being back here in front of you this evening and also I'd like
to thank staff for the time that they have spent on this. We were invited to go out do the
noise measurements with Mr. Watson, but we were unable to do that. I just had a
couple of questions I want to ask about what exactly -- since I wasn't there, what was --
what were we listening to? Was that just the noise of the building itself or was it
generators or can that -- just so I know what we are talking about here.
Powell: The equipment -- there is one particular piece of equipment that is quite noisy
and that was running. It's always running. I think they have -- okay. Here is Brad.
Sorry.
Watson: Madam President, Council Members, I will try -- there we go. Right -- where
the laser dot is at the center of the contour, that's the highest point we measured. That
is the aeration -- the blower building and it runs 24 hours day forever and ever and ever.
That's what keeps the bugs alive in the aeration basin. It never shuts off. When we
were out there we had the blower going and one generator set that was running that
blower. Those are each 200 horse motors and they whine. It's kind of a high-pitched
squeal. I had asked them to start the generator, because it does run at least once a
week under test -- under test load and, obviously, it will run when there is a power
outage. There are three generators, actually, on site. One of them is enclosed in a
building. The other things that were going on were just normal equipment running.
There is a motor building just to the right of the center of the contours. Those are just
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 27 of 76
recycle pumps. Those run continually. If there are any other questions, I will answer
those.
Wardle: The reason I just -- I wasn't sure if it was -- I heard that you had some
generators out there on site and I wasn't sure if those ran all the time. I would assume
that they are pretty hefty pieces of equipment to keep the center running if the power
does go down, or if it was just the regular equipment in the facility that has that noise
and so I appreciate that. In the discussions that we had with staff -- when we came
from this meeting several weeks ago, we were under the impression that we needed to
come up with some standards. There was quite a bit of discussion that residential may
be okay, but we don't have any standards by which we might enact that, and so there
was discussion, as Mrs. Powell indicated, about buffering. I think there was some
landscaping issues as well and issues with noise. One thing that we had discussed in
terms of a buffer was a 400 foot buffer around the physical boundaries of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant, that no new residential could be allowed in there and what
that basically is, is just saying we are going to create a buffer, so the residential isn't
directly adjacent to it. There was mention made of the Lander Street facility. I have
walked that facility. I haven't physically walked the plant, but I have walked the grounds.
I have also walked the adjoining neighborhood, which is directly adjacent to the facility.
There is no buffer at all. There is even a new development, a little townhouse project,
you just drive right down to it and they have a big -- it's probably 60 feet off the property
line is where the bulk of the equipment is there on that site. What we were trying to
attempt was put a physical buffer around it of 400 feet and, then, what do those
standards needs to be. When Mr. Centers contacted me and said that they weren't able
to come to an agreement, we quickly just wanted to put something together that
addressed some of those issues, because this does affect the entire wastewater
treatment plant. We are not -- we know that we are in here specifically with one
application, but whatever is done here with this Comp Plan Text Amendment does
affect everything, so what are the standards by which new residential development
might occur. This is the same thing that we submitted with our application, we have just
amended what we wrote in terms of addressing a buffer and also by what standards
and we feel like an R-8 standard is appropriate. There was some mention of multi-
family, but we still feel like an R-8 residential standard would be appropriate. The part
that is changed there -- we said that -- cannot be closer than 400 feet from the edge of
the legal property boundary of the wastewater treatment plant. All new residential
development should still go through the Conditional Use process and all new residential
shall comply with the R-8 medium density residential district. Instead of creating a new
type of standard, why not use a standard that is known to the city, which is the R-8, and
we feel that that would be acceptable. Also, as this goes forward there are two
conflicting goals and objectives in the Comp Plan and we have just simply annotated
those there, that as a motion is made those two issues be stricken from the Comp Plan
as a text amendment as well. Really, we came here to discuss those issues, because
that's what we were tasked to do. There are a number of other issues. We are not
trying to insensitive to the concerns of noise, odor, and lights, glare and dust from future
construction. Mrs. Powell is correct that Ten Mile will likely be a north-south corridor
connecting to the north and all the way down to the freeway, and that's good for those
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 28 of 76
properties that front on Ten Mile, but as you move down Ustick, I think the actual ability
to go to a commercial application becomes more difficult. I would like to ask another
question as to what exactly is the zoning designation in the Wastewater Treatment
Plant. What zone is it in currently?
De Weerd: Well, it's currently its own zoning. Isn't that correct?
Powell: Light industrial. Industry.
De Weerd: Light industrial. Mixed used light industrial?
Powell: The Comprehensive Plan designation shows it actually is quasi-public, but the
zoning designation is I-L.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: The reason I bring that up is we understand the concerns that are being raised.
We don't feel that the issue of odor is insurmountable. We presented a way that we can
address that with our future owners. When deeds transfer, there will be something
noted on each one of those deeds, as well as the CC&R’s and a note on the plat that
this is subject to an odor easement, in essence. We feel like that's a very good way to
deal with it. I think there are some things, regardless if we are here or not, as you allow
more businesses to come in or if the decision is for residential to come in or whatever it
might be. There are some things specific to the light industrial zone that -- some of
these issues need to be addressed regardless if we are there or not. Specifically, light
industrial talks about odor, noise, glare -- and I just think those are things that we are
willing to submit, coming into this project, that we can address this with an easement,
we will notify our owners. I think we have a better opportunity to notify owner-occupants
than rental units, I think rental would be probably a least desirable way to go. You
know, there was some discussion on a previous applicant over near Pine Street that
was for a mixed -- or a multi-family project near some industrial, and there was some
concern about that being there and being in the right place. Especially because they
were going to be rentals and there was really no way to address that with those future
residents there. I just -- I feel like we have tried to address these issues the best way
that we could. We have tried to be creative. We have given you the standards -- or
some standards that should be seriously contemplated, because that's what we were
tasked to do when we left this meeting last time. Mr. Centers stood up here and asked
if that's what we are going to try to accomplish, then, let's do that, and now we are kind
of back saying, no, we shouldn't go that way. We just want this to be seriously
considered and we have reviewed the Comp Plan findings in here, we are in agreement
with those that listed, and just recommend your approval of those. I'll stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Okay.
Nary: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 29 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Wardle, tell me again on the 400-foot boundary -- where did you come up
with that number from?
Wardle: Madam President, Mr. Nary, we -- as Mrs. Powell indicated, there is not really
a standard out there, so we just tried to come up with something that was acceptable.
Obviously, we were down on Ustick and 400 feet comes in about this location right here
in terms of where it would hit us. There wasn't really a mechanism to address, you
know, where that came from. There are no standards out there, so we just decided
maybe that would provide a sufficient buffer around the entire wastewater treatment
plant, a 400-foot buffer.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, did you have something?
Bird: I don't right now.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there any further testimony? Okay. I did want
to note -- is there a Bill Hallman in the audience? Okay. He was signed up on an
application that's going to be continued, so -- okay. Council, discussion?
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I wholeheartedly agree with everything that Gary Smith said, because I'm
afraid that if we allow residential out there, that we are going to get inundated with
complaints and expect the city to somehow fix all the problems they have got out there.
I just don't think that's going to be possible.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Cherie on that fact, that it's going to cause a lot of problems and when
we went through this Comprehensive Plan, we probably spent 50 percent of our time on
the Comprehensive Plan as a Council going over this area out there, making sure that
we did it and as Anna stated what is allowed out there and, then, all of a sudden now -- I
don't when Mr. Centers bought his property, but I'm sure the property was bought after
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 30 of 76
you Comprehensive Plan was in place. He knew what had to go out there. I think we
are asking -- not that I don't like to see the developers be able to do what they with their
property, but I think in that area we are asking for major problems if we don't stay to that
zoning that it is already and get in -- we have already turned down what I thought was
halfway -- was better proposal than this and I think if we put residential out there we are
asking for nothing but trouble. I mean, you know, I was raised -- born and raised in
Nampa, Idaho, and I had to go with the sugar factory all the time. I mean that's -- it's
tough and we are just asking for trouble by doing it -- we have got a chance to not -- of
helping ourselves by staying to the zoning that it is right now. That isn't on residential
and the 400-foot buffer isn't going to make a bit of difference up in the air, unless you --
unless you go 6 or 700 feet in the air with some kind of a buffer, but -- which you can't
do.
De Weerd: I guess I would add to that. Our staff, even though we had asked to have
ideas of what standards can be -- if residential were to be considered and staff has
come back with information as far as the noise decibel levels, odor issues that other
communities experience, and the prevailing winds, so that as they look at this and
consider its residential practical in the designated area, the winds and how they blow
that odor do have a lot of factors in the amount of complaints that could be possible out
there and where it would be beneficial to place residential if it would be considered. So,
I think the testimony that our staff supplied us with tonight is very pertinent to the
request we make as far as if residential should be considered, where should it be
considered and what should those standards be. I think what they have brought back to
us is very beneficial as to what we asked them to come back with. You know, it might
be the fact that we need to get more information, because what we do set up we want to
make sure that we are not establishing extra expense to our rate payers and extra work
for staff and misconception of residential where we would place them. We do need to
look at uses and what is most practical and feasible in those areas in light of what's
surrounding it.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Anna, would you put up the other one that shows the land use map picture. That
one. You know, I guess one of the things that sort of troubles me is -- although I agree
with a lot of what's been said about the potential problems of residential, we drew these
lines based on, really, no particular -- no particular scheme of any sort. We didn't look
at what was feasible, what the access road was, where the winds blow, what the noise
radius of this place would be, we just, really, drew the lines in a fairly arbitrary manner.
Now, on the other side of the coin, about the only thing we did agree to was that
residential didn't belong here and we took two years to get to the Comprehensive Plan,
which I know that you know, Mr. Wardle. We had a lot of discussion about this whole
idea of residential. I guess the thing that -- I don't disagree that what you're wanting to
do or what Mr. Centers is wanting to do is necessarily bad. What I guess I don't know is
that if we have enough information to really to make a very reasonable decision. I still
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 31 of 76
believe, like I said a few weeks ago, that I -- I don't know that having a house on this
side of Ustick is a whole lot different than having a house on that side of Ustick. I don't
necessarily -- so, I don't necessarily believe that residential in itself could not work in
this area. There has to be a whole lot more thought and I know part of it is -- part of it is
because -- if what I understood, the winds blow from approximately this northwesterly
area to the southeast and somewhat from the southwest to the northeast, which would
say that residential belongs up in this area somewhere. We don't -- you know, these
lots aren't laid out in a fashion, you know, consistent with the contours of the land or the
wind patterns out there or how the treatment plant is laid out or any of those things. I
guess my point is I think there needs to be some thought on how to make this better.
You've only had a couple of weeks with staff. I do think there is probably some thought
can be done into this wastewater treatment plant. You know, I guess part of the
problem for me is if we had some buffer in here already, I'd have a better sense of
where the residential could go. If Mr. Centers was here -- is it this piece?
Wardle: It is.
Nary: If Mr. Centers was here with a subdivision similar to what Fairview Lakes was
originally four gyrations before where it is now, which had some type of storage type of
facility like this one, because that was the other thing we did like in this area was a
storage facility. If we had a better buffer sense of what would be in this 400 foot area or
500 feet or 600 feet or where ever the line is going to get drawn, if we had some better
idea -- I think the discomfort, at least for me, is the fact that right now what you're asking
is develop this into residential property with really no buffer at all, other than distance,
and our concern is the noise, the odor, the truck traffic and everything else, and until
this gets developed in the buffer area in some manner, I think what we feel like is we
are buying more problems than what we really are ready -- really ready to deal with right
now.
Wardle: If I might, in a previous version on the Comprehensive Plan before this one
was ultimately adopted, December 2001, as a matter of fact, this area, which,
essentially, did put about a 400-foot buffer, was all shown as residential. I asked the
Comp Plan staff why this part was changed to this and he said, well, we didn't want to
cause property to be one part mixed use wastewater treatment plant and the other part
residential, so we took it all the way down to Ustick Road. Now, to me that doesn't
come across very scientific. I mean it was just -- we don't know what to do with this
area, other than we don't want residential there, so let's do that, and see what happens.
We know that -- and I went through this all last time, I won't go through it again, but I
guess we feel that that area -- most of the area, as a matter of fact, but this area
specifically is no different than having the residential here. If the prevailing winds come
here, well, what about these projects here for sometimes when the prevailing winds go
there, what about these projects up here. The odor, if there is an odor, doesn't stay in
those 420 acres. We could put a big wall around it, but it's not going to stay there. We
all have experience from time to time -- the beet factory. You smell that in Boise when
the winds come. I mean that's just a -- it doesn't happen all the time, but it happens
occasionally. What we are saying is we recognize that it's there. We think residential is
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 32 of 76
okay. I don't think you will have any difference -- what's to stop a business owner from
coming in and complaining about the noise, the odor, and the lights? The light industrial
zone specifically says that you need to be free of hazardous, objectionable elements,
such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that need to be operated entirely --
almost entirely within enclosed structures. That's a light industrial zone. There are
other things in there talking about noise and odor. We are saying at least from -- we
want to do this odor easement to address these issues, but that's not going to stop
anybody else from complaining. Ms. Layton, yes, she did say that, you know, 80 to 100
times during the year she does smell it and she lives right here, but she, actually, said
the bigger complain that she had was the lights and the noise. What's to stop
somebody who isn't willing to do an odor easement like we would from asking the city to
change those things in the future?
De Weerd: Well, I guess what you have raised is that it needs further study. If it
arbitrarily has been designated, there has to be some kind of rationale behind things
and I think that's what are staff is saying, too. It needs further study. I don't feel
qualified to make those determinations with the information that we have. It's -- and,
certainly, we didn't have it, then. I do know at the time we designated that is we did
suggest that it needed more information and we are still there.
Wardle: So, what the next step? Because if we go away, then, the next individual that
comes and asks -- it's likely without this further study you're going to say, well, we
haven't got there yet. What are the steps that the city is going to take to evaluate this
further and address the issue of the wastewater treatment plant?
De Weerd: Well, I had kind of hoped that maybe those next steps would be an item to
be discussed and I don't have those next steps for you.
Wardle: I guess I'm just concerned that if we -- if we are denied, that there won't be a
next step. Because, then, there is no -- there is no incentive for the city to address the
issue, because if there is not an application on the table, it just won't be addressed. I
know that the staff is busy in other things and we are not trying to take up their valuable
time. We just thought we'd come up with a solution -- an acceptable solution that
addresses some of those issues, that delineates a buffer, that addresses what the
design standards or development standards may be. If we are denied, there won't be a
next step I fear.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think you're probably right, you know. We all sit here enough to know that it
does take something to drive the train and we did have this discussion a year ago on
this area and -- but I guess my question to you, then, Mr. Wardle, is what do you want
us to do? Do you want us to accept your recommendation? Do you want us to
schedule a workshop with yourself and the planning staff and the Council to discuss
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 33 of 76
that? Because I don't -- I guess I don't feel like this is the appropriate forum for us to
decide between whether it's 400 feet or 500 feet, whether or not -- I mean I think what
you propose in general makes some sense, you know. You're right, if a person comes
in with the uses that we consider to be allowed to a degree in this area, the concerns
about noise and odor don't change and their ability to complain about it doesn't change.
I think you're right, I think there has to be something that we have to figure out what do
we do with this big orange block, because we didn't draw it based on anything other
than the lines of the properties that are there and that was it. We know from other areas
and when we have done that, that that by itself doesn't work and we have to figure out
what really works the best. That's the only thing I can think of. It's -- rather than
deciding on your application that we have some opportunity and time to discuss that in a
more informal setting. We may have to ask both our staff to provide the best input they
can, as well as maybe provide us with information of other people that might provide us
even better. I think they feel the same challenge that President de Weerd is feeling,
that we don't have enough information or the expertise ourselves to do that and I think
what we had hoped is that someone else would take that upon themselves to do that.
That, obviously, didn't happen. Now what we are left with is -- is what you're suggesting
and I'm just wondering how we are going to do that.
Wardle: Madam President, Mr. Nary, I -- I apologize I got dizzy all of a sudden. Just
give me a second. I agree, this is not the appropriate time, probably, to hash out those
issues. We just don't want this to be pushed aside. I believe that we have offered some
very valid arguments as to why the uses that are potentially allowed, if granted a
Conditional Use Permit, will unlikely fill up this entire section and what does that give
us? What's left over? That's what we are really pushing for. We would hope that you
would accept the recommendations that we gave to you, but recognize also your
wanting to make the right decision based on good information, so I just don't want the
issue to be dropped.
De Weerd: Well, I know at one time we asked the Mayor to pull together a list of
projects. I think almost every meeting we have the opportunity to load one more task on
the shoulder of our staff and, you know, they can't juggle all those balls and so we need
to take a look at what projects are there, what priorities they have been assigned and
where we can fit this in. We have a number of property owners asking for items and
when sewer is going to be there and everything else and our staff cannot do it all at the
same time and so what we need to look at is where this can fit within their priority list
and certainly give a time frame to the property owners on when this can happen and
that does need to happen. We owe that to the property owners. At this point I can't tell
you tonight when that's going to happen, because we don't know what our staff work
load is and if it would be unfair to the staff and to the property owners to say that it's
going to happen within the next three months, when it's not practical to say that. What I
would like to suggest is maybe to give this to staff and let them look at it and give us a
time frame -- give us an idea of when it would be practical to bring this up and, then,
what the next steps would be. Staff, is that a reasonable request to make?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 34 of 76
Powell: Yes, and it -- in other jurisdictions I have worked in, quite honestly, a change to
a Comprehensive Plan, the applicant would come prepared with their own findings, their
own reports, to justify the fact that this isn't appropriate, you know, that there should be
some sort of residential development, whether it's an economic study, whether it's a
noise study -- I mean it's not uncommon to see the applicants themselves provide that
information. I think we -- on the -- the issues associated with the north Meridian
comprehensive plan amendment, there was similar problems and they come in, but they
are not -- the thought that -- trying to word this delicately. It's not a level of analysis
that's there for staff to be able to just evaluate it on face value, similar to what we do
with the subdivisions, you know, can we evaluate all of this. As staff it feels like we are
being asked to rewrite these things after we have gone through them. I have been here
a short time, but -- and just go through and research all these things where, really, if it's
an applicant driven request, in other communities it's quite typical for them to do the
research, for them to provide those things, rather than patting that burden back on the
city after you have already done it. As a sideline, we have got a pre-application meeting
on Monday for a mixed use in this corner area, so it may be that mixed use wastewater
treatment plant mixed area is appropriate for this and I still think that this is a new
designation. If 10 years from now, if none of it goes, then, they have got a real strong
argument for -- that this is an inappropriate designation and it just doesn't work. At two
years or at a year and a half, without real proof of one way or the other, I don't know,
and in regard to following lot lines, staff was very consistent on the Comprehensive Plan
to follow lot lines. There is a reason for that. Our zoning code has no way of dealing
with mixed zoning on a property. A property has to have one zone or another. To have
a Comprehensive Plan that has two designations would foreseeably, if they didn't want
to subdivide, generate the need to have zoning on two -- two different zonings on the
property and it's just impossible. It did make sense to follow lot lines. In this case, they
were large 40-acre properties.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Mr. Centers, did you have some additional testimony
new to this -- is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Centers: It is.
De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Centers: We are coming right back where we were last time with the whole thing. I just
wanted to bring up a couple points of -- I guess I'm just having a hard time really fully
understanding what staff's whole hang up is about allowing residential in this zone and
from what I'm hearing it's really to help protect the wastewater treatment facility and
particularly the odor keeps coming up. You know, we have done our research on it.
There has only been two complaints in the last five or six years -- and I don't even know
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 35 of 76
if they were legitimate complaints, as much as maybe inquiries into, hey, you know,
what's the smell deal, so -- you know, it's not like the city is receiving a lot of phone calls
at this point. We have heard talk of expanding the wastewater treatment facility, more
people, more processing equipment. Well, you know, I bought a cell phone two years
ago, I bought one last month, and the one I bought last month has way more technology
than the one I bought two years ago. I would think that the same would hold true for
wastewater treatment equipment, that whatever you're buying today is going to be a lot
more technologically advanced than the ones that you already have in existence and, if
nothing else, they are going to be equal. You know, even though you're going to add
more equipment, it's actually going to be better technology and probably scrub the air
better than the systems that you in there now. I think you're, actually, going to get an
improvement in the facilities and the product that it's putting out by purchasing this new
equipment, which you're going to have to do anyway, regardless.
De Weerd: Mr. Centers, these are assumptions and what we are saying is when you
come with an application to amend the Comp Plan, you need to come with more than
just assumptions and you need to come with more than just vague ideas of what can
happen. I think you have raised some very valid points on the amount of uses and that
it does need more study, but what Mrs. Powell is saying is when someone comes with a
Comp Plan amendment request, they should come with something very solid as far as
what the recommendations are, what -- more than what the assumptions are, so that we
have something to base our decisions on and that is not here for us to make those
decisions on and that's what we are saying. You know, we can make assumptions and
-- but we are passed that. What we ask and what was brought back is still not enough
to make good, solid decisions on that is going to affect that whole area and that's what
the conversation is based on right now.
Centers: Okay. Well, I would just revert back to what started this whole process was
we looked at the other projects that were brought before you in the past and denied and
we looked at the records, the minutes on those meetings as to what the massive public
input was on what they wanted to see in this area and the answer to that was
residential. That, coupled with the fact that -- you know, of the facts we presented with
you before of 420 acres is not really feasible to fill it with the allowable uses and I think
we got somewhat an agreement from this Council on that. That's our justification for
allowing residential in this area or -- you know, I mean that's why we are here and I
don't know what more factual evidence we can bring to the table on that, and, you know,
the other part about, you know, putting the burden on us to come up with the
boundaries or the standards, you know, that's kind of unfair, because, admittedly, those
boundaries and standards that are on that map right now were totally arbitrary. They
just decided, oh, let's just go with some property lines. I mean there was no scientific,
you know, evidence or real planning put into that map. You know, I don't -- I mean
that's kind of tough to put that back on us and say, okay, you come and prove why what
we did was wrong.
Bird: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 36 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Centers, when you purchased this property what was the zone?
Centers: The zone was C-N.
Bird: Okay. So, in other words, you walked in and purchased this property knowing
what the zone was; right?
Centers: Yes, sir.
Bird: Okay. Now, you're coming in wanting to change the Comprehensive Plan, right?
Centers: That is correct.
Bird: Which seems to be about every project out in this area we get. You're 100
percent right whether Utility or whatever the name of that thing was, there was a lot of
testimony in favor of residential in the testimony.
Centers: And I made that decision to purchase --
Bird: And that is right, but -- and I'm sure that you got a good buy on that ground,
compared to the others, because of the zoning of it. It is not zoned residential and it's
not -- you know, it's industrial and she read off what -- what was allowed in there. It
seems like that we waste about three -- and we did waste a lot of time. Don't get me
wrong. I'm not -- we can all take -- a credit that -- me, in particular, because I was here.
I have been here the longest, but -- for having our Comprehensive Plan go so long to
get, it fixed. This is one place that we had public testimony out at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant over this particular property around there and we had no public
testimony that wanted residential in there. I'm like Mr. Nary, I think -- and I think like
President de Weerd said, if you're bringing this project in, it's to benefit you guys and I
know you realize you got to have a pencil to it, you should come in with standards and
stuff for it. We shouldn't have to go do that. We can accept it, but our staff is loaded
down and to be fair to all our taxpayers, you know, we expect some of this stuff to be
invented by the -- and it benefits you to do that. Is that not right?
Centers: That is correct, and that's what our understanding was when we left the last
Council meeting and so I guess tonight we presented with you some standards and, you
know, I guess to move forward with this, you know, what else is there -- I mean what
else can we -- there are no standards. I have talked to the DEQ, the EPA, I have talked
to wastewater treatment facilities in southern California, there are no standards for --
you know, no federal standards for residential around wastewater treatment facilities, as
far as that goes. Everybody is kind of -- you know, the EPA and DEQ said, you know,
it's up to local municipalities to -- you know, it's their own issue. You know, it's just kind
of -- I mean what if, you know -- and United Water does own wastewater treatment
facilities in other states. What if they owned this facility? Would we be having this
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 37 of 76
conversation? Would they have to be in complete compliance with the industrial zone
and if they were and -- you know, your ordinance, you know, you cannot spill light onto
other people's property in any zone. There is verbiage in there about noise in an
industrial zone. You know, I mean I know we are being protective, because it's the
city's plan, but, you know, as Council, that -- you have to make that plan comply with its
zoning, regardless of who owns it.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, I'm not sure that we are going to solve this in the next ten
minutes. Just some points to raise. First of all, Mr. Centers and Mr. Wardle did bring
forward the light odor and noise easement, which was a new concept and so they did at
least bring that forward, which is something that hadn't been seen before and was a
worthy effort them to dig that up and they should be credited with that. I think we are
getting a little too far a field, Mr. Centers, on the issue. The issue of incompatible uses
is confronted by this Council almost every week. It wouldn't make any difference if you
owned the Wastewater Treatment Plant or United Water did or the City of Meridian did,
if there is a potential of incompatibility of uses that has to be addressed in connection
with any land use decision and they do that here. I, frankly, take a little offense to the
comment that it makes a difference who owns that Wastewater Treatment Plant,
because that's not the case. Just to finish up here, we had hoped, I think, that staff and
you would be able to find somebody that's invented this wheel before, so that you could
grab onto those standards. Those criteria by which this type of change could be judged
and by which a residential development could be allowed in proximity to the wastewater
treatment plant, but you haven't found that wheel having been invented and staff wasn't
able to find that wheel invented by anyone else. That's why there aren't any standards
that are put forward, other than the 400 feet issue, which coincides with the
approximately the north boundary of your property. I would say that I think what we
need to do, if -- is everybody takes a deep breath and back off a little bit here and think
about where you're at. If Council wants staff to look at its priority list and say here is
what they can do and when they can do it, they can certainly come back and say this is
what's available with regard to a Comp Plan amendment that might allow residential use
in that area. What we heard tonight, it could be something like residential use would be
allowed in an area where the prevailing wind 90 percent of the time doesn't blow the
odors from the Wastewater Treatment Plant and that wouldn't -- from my looking at the
map, wouldn't help you. You don't want to go into this without some discussion and
looking to see -- maybe Meridian will invent the wheel on this and it will be the place that
comes up with the standards, but I don't -- Madam President, I don't think we are going
to get here --
De Weerd: No.
Nichols: -- and I just wanted to make those points.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 38 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird?
Bird: I just want to expand on what Mr. Nichols said. Mr. Centers, my personal opinion
-- and I think I can speak for the other three -- it's not -- we are not worrying about the
wastewater plant. It can take care of itself. It's the people. It's the taxpayers and our
constituents who will be buying your property that will be complaining that I'm looking
out for. Now, you know, I could probably move out there -- are you going to move out
there and live? Is Mr. Wardle going to move out there and live?
Centers: We are not.
Bird: No. You're not, and that's who I'm looking out for and if you guys can come in and
prove to me that residential is compatible out there, that will be great. I think -- you
know -- and I don't care whether United Water owns it or Boise city, the Lander Street,
you can say all you want, call down there and ask them the complaints they get. They
get complaints. You bet they do, and that's what we are trying to protect our citizens
from having to do.
De Weerd: And I think to judge on how many phone calls we have gotten, we don't
have residential uses out there. They are very sparingly and so -- and there are -- that's
staff's point. We do need to move on on this.
Centers: Okay. I guess I'd just like some direction as to just -- from you as -- can we
continue towards coming up with standards in residential or are you just flat out not
going to allow residential like --
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess, Mr. Centers, that for me -- and I'm not going to speak for the rest of the
Council. For me I have always said every time someone's asked to amend our
Comprehensive Plan, show why what you want is better than what we have already
said it should be and I think what I keep hearing from all us up here is you haven't done
that. Right now we have said no residential. We said here is what you can do there.
Some light industrial, some office, and a variety of different neighborhood commercial
types of uses. If you'd like us to continue it, so that you can bring it back to us as to why
this is better and not because nobody else is probably going to want to -- because I
think what I heard the first time was nobody else is probably going to want to do the
level of commercial that this property would take based on what it's currently zoned.
Assumptions again, as President de Weerd said. Instead of those assumptions, if bring
back why this is better, why this alternative is better, what those standards are. What's
this going to look -- because we have tried very hard to steer away from 13, 14, and 15
and I did tell you the last time we were here I'm not even convinced at all on those items
that you're going to meet that burden. Even if you get over hurdle 12 -- or Item 12, I
don't know that 13, 14, and 15 even make it. I think that's -- I guess that's, to me, where
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 39 of 76
you're at. If you'd like us to continue it, I would suggest we continue it for at least a
month, maybe two. For me, I guess I haven't changed my opinion. You need to tell me
why what you want is better than what we thought it should be and I really haven't heard
that. We have had a lot of discussion about why you think you'd like to do this and what
standards we could have and how to make this compatible and all those things, but
really haven't heard a lot about why we should change what we decided. I know we
didn't have a lot in our minds we didn't have a lot of specifics. I recognize that some of
the lines we drew were based on simply property lines and anything else, not potential
uses or anything, but I really haven't heard why what you want is better than what's
there, other than it works for you and I understand that. I think Mr. Bird can support that
very strongly, because it can work for you and it's your property, but to change the comp
plan is different than just -- than just a Conditional Use. I guess that's to me where we
are at. I think we should at least set this over for a month. We do need a little
separation from it. I think there is probably some work that you can do and there is
probably something that staff could review and assist you with, but I agree with Mrs.
Powell, they have a lot to do. If you're asking us to set a times table, six months is
probably as soon as we could get to something like that. There are a lot of people who
have the same urgent concerns you do and I don't know that we can really place a
bigger burden on the staff with the number of projects, the number of people that we
have, to push that up sooner than that. If you want it sooner, that is going to be up to
you.
Centers: I would respectfully request that this be continued for a month.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that I would move that we continue the Public Hearing for CPA 03-003, the
request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential
uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, 3680 West Ustick Road to November 25, 2003.
Nary: Madam President, before -- I guess could I second and, then, I will ask, maybe,
for a possible amendment.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Since, obviously, I think -- let's see what Mr. Bird thinks, but I think we are going
to have to have a lot of discussion versus action. I'm wondering if --
Bird: You're a hundred percent right. We need to go into December. I apologize.
Nary: I wonder if we should move it into December and we should have it as a
workshop type of --
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 40 of 76
th
Bird: I'm still in October, if you want to know the truth. Let's go for the 9 of December.
Nary: And I'm wondering if we should have it as a workshop type of item, so we can
actually, really, have more discussion.
Bird: Let's have it in Pre-Council.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. We can't do that.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, you have got -- it's a Public
Hearing. I think you could schedule it, but you would limit discussion and, then,
anticipate that if you got some standards out of it, there be the hearing continued
further, so that those standards could be discussed and reviewed by the public and
commented upon. I mean what I'm saying is you could limit who participates in the
hearing, but it would still be a hearing as such and would still need to be part of the
Regular Meeting agenda.
Bird: It's still a Public Hearing right?
Nary: Well, we couldn't -- I guess, Mr. Nichols, are you saying we couldn't continue this
Public Hearing to a workshop style hearing, allow the public to testify, set it at 5:30 or
6:00 -- could we do that?
Nichols: Councilman Nary, I think you could do something like that. I just -- I don't think
it's a Pre-Council matter. It's a Council Meeting and you have ability, under your
ordinance, to change your Council Meeting time to say when you're going to start it, so -
-
th
Bird: Okay. I will change -- I will amend my motion on date wise to December 9 at
5:30, we will start our regular Council meeting at this time and we will expect -- the
discussion will be based on standards, which a decision might not be made at that time.
Nary: And I would second that if I could also ask Mr. Bird if we also -- one of the things
we had discussed at that prior hearing was we had two neighbors who had came to
testify, Mr. Crane and his neighbor.
De Weerd: Ms. Layton.
Nary: Ms. Layton. Thank you, and what we had tried to assure them is that we would
send them notice.
Bird: That's fine.
Nary: So, if Mr. Clerk could send them -- specific notice to them, because, otherwise,
this is just general notice.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 41 of 76
Bird: That's not a problem.
Nary: If we could do that, I would second that, if you would concur.
Bird: And I concur.
Nary: Great.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, do you have any questions on this motion because it is a directive
to you on -- a very specific one.
Berg: Madam President, Member of the Council, I understand the noticing of those two
property owners. Also, just a question of are we going to start the Council meeting at
5:30 and whenever we get through we are just going to continue the other items?
Bird: Just move right on. We will not have a pre-Council that night.
Berg: Is that just a Special Meeting that we are starting earlier?
Bird: No. It's a Regular Council Meeting.
Berg: By ordinance it's 7:00.
Nary: What you're asking is could we set a special meeting of the Council to begin at
5:30 and a Regular Meeting at 7:00 like we have done on occasion?
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Madam President -- Will, correct me, but I think you're right, it does say the
Regular Meeting will start at 7:00 and it's -- the Pre-Council is the ones that --
Berg: Are special ones.
Nichols: Okay. If you call it a special meeting at 5:30 just on this topic, you can take
this up, discuss it, and conclude it by 7:00 and, if necessary, continue it on in the 7:00
o'clock meeting.
De Weerd: So, a special meeting, and this Council -- or Mr. Bird and Mr. Nary, is for the
applicant to bring information back. The burden is not on our staff.
Bird: That's right.
Nary: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, it's been moved and seconded to continue this Public Hearing
th
CPA 03-003, to December 9 at 5:30 for a special Council meeting is that correct?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 42 of 76
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say yea. Okay. All yeas. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: RZ 03-009
Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed
Stapleton Subdivision
by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick
Road:
Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: PP 03-019
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots
Stapleton
on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Subdivision
by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road:
Item 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: CUP 03-034
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-
lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks
Stapleton Subdivision
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed by Wardle
and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 13, 14, and 15, how would you like to continue those? Mr.
Nichols?
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, it might be appropriate to continue
th
those until the 7:00 p.m. meeting on the same date, December 9.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion on Items 13, 14, and 15.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we continue the Public Hearings on Items 13, 14, and 15, RZ
03-009, the request for a rezone of 6.39 acres for the proposed Stapleton Subdivision.
PP 03-019, request for Preliminary Plat for, again, the Stapleton Subdivision and, finally,
Item 15, CUP 03-034, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
for the Stapleton Subdivision, all by Wardle and Associates at 3680 West Ustick Road
to our December 9, 2003, regular City Council meeting on December 9, 2003, at 7:00.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 43 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue 13, 14, and 15, RZ 03-
th
009, PP 03-019, and CUP 03-034, to December 9 at the regular City Council meeting.
All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Continued Public Hearing from October 28, 2003: AZ 03-018
Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G
Kissler / Cobbs / Eagy / Ruwe
zones for by BRS Architects – southwest
corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 03-022
Request for annexation and zoning of 5
Kissler (Dealy Parcel)
acres from RT to C-G zones for by BRS Architects
– southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. We did have -- Item 16 and 17 are related. Can I open those up at
the same time? Any problems? Okay. I will open up the continued Public Hearing from
October 28, 2003, on AZ 03-018, request annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from
RT to C-G zones for Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, Ruwe by BRS -- Ruwe -- Ruwe by -- I'm
sorry if I ruined someone's name out there. -- by BRS Architects and also the Public
Hearing from AZ 03-022, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RT to C-
G zones for Kissler Dealy Parcel by BRS Architects, and start with staff comments.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, tonight's theme seems to be no
easy applications. On this project -- I suppose it's a little -- I'm sorry. This project -- the
first hearing on this particular project -- and I'm not really prepared to talk about the
second one. The Council directed the applicants to come back with a Planned
Development, particularly for the four property owners on the eastern -- the three
property owners, excuse me, on the western portion of this application, which is on the
west side of Eagle Road and south of Ustick. They -- there is kind of a good news, bad
news thing, and that's two of the property owners were able to come to an agreement
on a conceptual plan, the third decided to pull out of the application. Eagy is the one
that decided to withdraw from the application -- annexation application. That leaves
Ruwe and Kennevick, Cobbs and, then, of course, that would be too easy, because
they could go across the street and catch Kennevick, but the annexation path, of
course, was through Eagy. These two properties in Carol Subdivision provided the
annexation path to Eagy and, then, down to Ruwe and to Kennevick. What's preventing
the annexation path is this little strip that separates the Ruwe property from any city
owned property. I asked that this not be tabled, as the applicant requested, without me
bringing this up. I have talked to the public works staff. There is a problem in that we
no longer have an annexation path. There is also a problem in that we no longer have a
correct description of the proposed annexation boundary. Ruwe is working with the
former land -- I think this land is currently owned by the person who developed this
subdivision. It was a surveying error. It's just a survey error and what they are
proposing to do is divide that there and Ruwe would take ownership of that property,
Eagy would take ownership of the property up here. They need to do that through the
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 44 of 76
county before they can come -- through the county assessor's office, the county
assessor's office said that they need to get it cleared through county development
services, so it's at least a month long application before they are able to straighten that
out. I wanted to talk to you all about it and to get an opinion from Mr. Nichols, I
suppose. I think they need a new application. We have got a new boundary, we have
got new property owners involved -- to me, it would seem to need a new application just
for the purposes of notification and a good record for the city, but I wanted the attorney
to be able to comment on that. I probably shouldn't have just surprised him with it
tonight and I apologize, but wanted you to look at that and I also wanted you to look at
the conceptual plan tonight and that will take me a second to come up -- bring up. It's
on the overhead project -- to get an idea if this is something that is acceptable, so that if
they do need to bring it back or when they do need to bring it back, is this level of detail
acceptable for the concept plan. Probably can't tell them that it would be okay as far as
a concept plan, but if we could just address the question of the level detail and I will
bring that up now.
De Weerd: Well, I guess I understand why the applicant asked -- or one of the
applicants asked for it to be continued. It sounds like there is a lot of information
needed to --
Powell: Well -- and I guess what I think is that it -- instead of tabling, I think they,
actually, need to withdraw it and that's why I wanted to bring it up tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols, I guess I guess there was a question posed to you on
this. Nothing to put you on the spot, but -- do you need us to take a short recess?
Nichols: Until December -- no. Madam President, Anna, if I can -- while you're working
there, if you could answer this question. Explain to me why you feel that it needs to be
a new application.
Powell: Because the boundary that was submitted with the application included this
property -- it came down here, it came on the other side of that line over here and, then,
over to the Kissler property that's on the other side of Eagle Road. Now, that the
boundary of the application looks something like this and, then, it comes over here.
They have got a completely different annexation path. The 300 foot noticing would not
pick up anybody new, it's unlikely, although with the addition of I think 60 feet there is a
possibility that it could pick up somebody new over here on the other side of the street.
Nichols: And so to summarize, the new application would be everything but Eagy's
property?
Powell: Correct.
Nichols: Because Kennevick, Cobbs, becomes contiguous by the Kissler property
across Eagle Road.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 45 of 76
Powell: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Can you show the other slide?
Powell: The conceptual plan?
Bird: Yeah. Back up one.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Where we see the Kissler property, too, please.
Nichols: The vicinity map.
Bird: Yes. Vicinity. Excuse me.
Powell: Okay. I have got it. It's frozen here. Can I show you this, so that I don't have
to go back to it? Sorry. This was the concept plan. They had some multi-family
residential, a mix of retail, commercial, and office. Some straight commercial, retail of
commercial and office here. Then, they just kind of had a utility buffer idea here. I think
that we had asked them, if they come back, to have more of a -- kind of a landscape
buffer or something along that. This was, I believe, high intensity commercial here, as
well as this intersection here. This was the kind of level of detail we were looking at. I
can come back to that one. Let me get the --
De Weerd: And, Anna was another concern of the enclave that we will be creating?
Powell: Because Eagy has frontage on both Eagle and Ustick, it wasn't as much of a
concern there. They are providing specific cross-access points. They have shown
where they intend to have cross-access. It's, obviously, not something we could
measure, but they are saying, basically, okay, we are going to have access here, we
are going to have access here, we are going to have access here. I thought, originally
we were going to have one here. It looks like that one went away. That's kind of the
level of detail with -- we could address, but Eagy is kind of the -- because it wraps
around, it may not be as much of a concern, particularly with this one where you have
got the -- almost one user size parcel there. I can freeze this one while I go to the
vicinity map if you'd like.
De Weerd: I think this shows it.
Bird: This is fine.
Powell: Oh, is this fine? Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 46 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: One of the things, Anna -- have you had that discussion about withdrawing the
application? Have they been resistant to that or have we not really had that
conversation?
Powell: We had that conversation with Mr. Strite. I think that the applicant would prefer,
obviously, not to start over again and pay new fees, but they'd prefer to continue on. I'm
just not sure whether they can. I'm not sure that there is huge public interest -- in all
honesty, I don't know that we'd come to any different conclusion when we got to this
point making them go through the process. I'm not suggesting that they have to go
through the process just to make them do it, I just am afraid legally and that's why I
wanted the advice tonight.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: What I'm struggling with is that typically when we -- when we say something --
when we send something back for another application, it's usually because there has
been some substantial change in the proposal in the way of the Conditional Use or the
Preliminary Plat. The layout, something that's specific to -- to the issue, where here the
difference is which parcels. The zoning stays the same, but it's just simply the legal
description of the parcels that are seeking to be annexed. The annexation itself doesn't
require the hearing, it's the zoning that does, and so that's what I'm struggling with is
typically when we have got something we say it's a substantial change, it's because it
affects the layout. It may affect where, you know, the access is made onto the public
streets, the collectors or the arterials, and that really doesn't apply here, so I'm
struggling with whether this constitutes the type of substantial change that would require
a new application. I'm just not sure.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess the part that -- to me that makes it not necessary for a new application is
because what they are really doing is what we have asked them to do. We asked them
to give us a concept plan. I mean if we can overcome the legal description by
amending it and if we need to give new notice further out, I mean I think we can do that.
I guess I would hate to send a message that if you did what we asked you to do, you
have to start all over again, because that's, really, all they have done. They took out the
part that they couldn't make fit and now they have asked us to look at all the rest of it
and have tried to bring it in as a conceptual plan. I guess to me that's all the more
reason that it's really an amended application, more than a new application, because
they are, really, just following more what our directive was to begin with, so --
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 47 of 76
Powell: Given Council's comments and counsel on the end, perhaps, then, the best
thing to do is just grant the applicant's request for the deferral at this time and, then, we
will bring up the subject of a concept plan. At that point it would be more appropriate to
have it -- I just wanted to bring it up tonight more in reference to if we sent them back
through the process, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I do see there are people out here. If there is anyone who
would like to testify tonight, you certainly have the ability to do so. Is there anyone who
would like to provide testimony? Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ruwe: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Ruwe: Janet Ruwe, 2935 North Eagle Road.
De Weerd: I'm sorry I messed your name up.
Ruwe: Oh, that's all right. Everybody does.
De Weerd: Well, mine, too, so --
Ruwe: First of all, at one of the last Council meetings I erred in saying that Sue and
Tom Davis were opposed to the Carol Subdivision, when, in fact, they were opposed to
the development of Carol Subdivision as a mobile home park, so I erred in saying that,
so I just want to set the record straight on that. That little sliver as -- Jack Crane in the
assessor's office in Boise and we spent a good deal of time with him last week, because
this error in -- he said it was signed off by Elgin Gray, who he thinks was a realtor in this
area. In those days when property was sold you didn't have to have a state licensed
surveyor and basically that's what happened, they went off of an old fence post in the
back of my property, instead of the deeded property line. It's just a matter of getting this
cleared up through a -- get the right word -- it's called a property line adjustment. It's
been really a gray area. We have been paying taxes on this and I have been and Greg
Eagy has been and we just have to straighten the whole thing out. It's the same land,
it's just that it -- and, actually, I think the meters and bounds are the same, but they just
got misconstrued over -- well, I think it's a very gray area, but we are all working on it
together and it will get resolved.
De Weerd: Okay.
Ruwe: Okay, and I think we did come up with a pretty good, you know, plan of what we
plan to do here, and we are trying to follow your suggestions and do the best we can.
Thank you for listening to us.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 48 of 76
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mrs. Ruwe -- Ruwe. I butchered it.
Ruwe: It's Ruwe. But that's okay.
Bird: Anyway -- now you have got the county redoing the property line and stuff?
Ruwe: Yes.
Bird: Because we can't annex you until -- did they say how long that would be, so we
can continue this?
Ruwe: My surveyor is Bob Nelson and Greg Eagy has Connelly Marks and they are
working together on it with the county assessor's office, so --
Bird: Have you got any idea how long? Because we can't -- we can't annex it until that's
all --
Ruwe: And I don't think it's going to take too long. I mean I would say a month on the
outside, but they didn't seem to think it was too difficult to get it together, now that they
found the error and it happened about 1957.
th
Bird: So, if we continue this to the 9 of December, we would be -- we would probably
be all right?
Ruwe: I believe we would be all right, because we are already working on the -- if all
the different agencies know about it. It's just getting it all coordinated.
Powell: President de Weerd?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Powell: Members of the Council, there is -- for the applicant's edification, they also
need to apply with the development services department for a property boundary
adjustment application once you get your surveying done. They would be the -- kind of
the -- my counterpart at the county and their standard frame -- time frame is to have
those type of applications done within a month, but it usually takes just about the full
month, so once you get that application in, I would count on at least another full month.
th
I suppose I bring this up -- I think it's optimistic that you will be ready by December 9 is
all.
Ruwe: Okay so, shall we --
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 49 of 76
Nary: I think you're going to need two months, realistically so, that you don't have to
continue it again.
Ruwe: So, shall we say two months? What if it gets ready early? Can we request a
meeting earlier than that or do we just get on the agenda for two months?
thth
Bird: We have to do it by January 6, because it's old Council business and the 6 is
thth
when we -- isn't it? January 6 is when we change. We got to do it on January 6 or --
Ruwe: At the latest.
Bird: At the latest. We have to get this done and you do have to go through -- like Anna
said, there is some other --
Ruwe: And I'll talk with Anna and get the name of that agency. I didn't write that down.
Bird: Oh, I'm sure Billy Ray can help you out on that. He knows what --
Ruwe: And I appreciate this. I mean this is just a crazy thing that came up. We
thought it was solved and it just -- out of the woodwork it just seemed to come up. I
mean I thought I owned it. I mean I do own the property, it's just -- it's mine, it's just a
crazy thing how it got -- I mean it took a long time to find it, but now that we found it,
they said the battle is over.
Bird: Is that little --
Ruwe: Mostly.
Bird: Is that little sliver on your tax roll?
Ruwe: Yes. Well, he called it a sliver. I didn't. That's what Jack calls a sliver.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, did you have something?
Nichols: Madam President, I'm a little -- Anna, with the addition of the concept plan -- I
mean it is literally what the Council asked that they do, but I'm wondering about the
Carol Subdivision residents, particularly with a multi-family residential concept adjacent
to that property in terms of soliciting public input, so we may need an additional mailing
with some language about the concept plan, just -- that way we don't have notice issues
with somebody, even though we continued the hearing, brought it up, talked about it,
told people when it's going to be, but just the potential additional notice by mail, so that
it's out on the table and we don't have someone saying that they never heard about it.
Ruwe: I think that's very wise.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 50 of 76
Bird: Good idea.
De Weerd: I guess that would open up something else as to how the access out onto
Eagle Road is going to happen and with those kind of road trips or car trips, you know --
Ruwe: I might address that a little bit on my property. I did talk to the transportation
department just last week and they feel that I'm -- my property there is far enough away
from the corner. They said the Eagy property -- they are the ones with more of a
concern and they said that my property -- they didn't think it was going to be a problem.
I, actually, had two accesses already onto Eagle Road and they didn't -- I mean I
wouldn't be getting anymore and they didn't seem to think that was going to be a
problem. I mean it hasn't been gone through any process.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Does Jack and Lyle's property up there in the corner, does it still -- do they still --
they don't have any exit onto Eagle Road now, do they? See, that's so close to the
corner, I --
Ruwe: You mean Kennevick Cobbs there?
Bird: Yes. I don't recall any -- they don't have any, do they?
Ruwe: I'm not sure if the little yellow rental house is his or on the next property.
Bird: Are they going to allow that to be that close? This is something Billy Ray is
probably going to have to answer, but -- I mean you're not talking about a quarter of a
mile away from the corner, if that.
Nary: We are getting a little far a field.
Bird: What?
Nary: Aren't we getting a little far a field from discussing of continuing it?
Bird: Yeah. We are.
De Weerd: Yes. We are only looking at continuing it based on some of these legal
discussions -- or the legal description, the property boundary adjustment, and, then,
come back and start discussion on that conceptual plan. Is that the plan? Okay. Thank
you. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Thurston: Yes, it is.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 51 of 76
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Thurston: My name is David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way. I'm one of the five
property owners that -- on the west side there. I got a couple questions and I just need
some clarification. The conceptual plan shows multi-family residence. Does that follow
under commercial -- the proposed commercial zone? Does that fall into that?
Commercial general.
De Weerd: Yes. I believe it did. Under the mixed-use designations.
Thurston: Because the request is for a -- I think C-G. Does multi-family residential fall
under C-G?
De Weerd: No.
Bird: No, it doesn't.
Powell: Pardon me for interrupting. Madam President, Members of the Council, as you
will recall, one of staff's primary concerns with the straight commercial zoning was that
the Comprehensive Plan specifically points out the need for residential uses in these
areas along the major transportation corridors. That is something that staff had
specifically said they were looking for in the concept plan. I'm trying to multi-task and
find the schedule of use tables, which I'm --
De Weerd: So, Anna, you're suggesting that this is a mass transportation corridor?
Powell: A large transportation -- it's a major transportation corridor. I'm sorry if I said
mass. I should have said major.
De Weerd: Okay.
Powell: Eagle Road. Apartments are not allowed in a C-G zone, so they would have to
be done as part of the Planned Development, the 20 percent use exception.
De Weerd: So, the request of C-G would not be appropriate.
Powell: It would with a Planned Development and that's what -- the staff went to great
lengths to include a lot of language about residential and the appropriate
Comprehensive Plan language in the Development Agreement for the annexation, so
that we could address those concerns with a Planned Development for the property.
This is basically a concept plan for a Planned Development, that we would be looking
for a detailed Planned Development in the future as the property is developed.
De Weerd: But the request is not for a Planned Development.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 52 of 76
Powell: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Good question.
Thurston: So, I'm just wondering if the application is for a rezone into C-G, how do we --
who does -- of course, you can figure that all yourselves how to make that work.
Originally, when we went before the Planning and Zoning Committee with this, there
was talk about because Leslie Way is -- well, low residential, a transition should also be
in the low residential and not in the high residential. One of the requests of the
conceptual plan was how -- what was the transitional uses going to be. Also, one of the
other questions for the conceptual plan, what are the accesses, not only for the Ruwe
property, but for other properties and also the connection, possibly, to the property,
which is to the south. I guess there should be some consideration for that property,
because right now there is no access for that property. I'm the only property owner
that's on the west side of this property here tonight, because the others were under the
impression this would be continued as it is. We definitely would like to have the
opportunity to speak to -- if this is a conceptual plan that is going to be worthy of the
Council's consideration. We definitely want to be able to speak to this conceptual plan,
because I know there will tremendous opposition to a multiple family dwellings next to
the property line there, especially since we are already lower light residential in that
entire area. We'd definitely like to have that opportunity to speak to that.
De Weerd: Well, thank you, Mr. Thurston. I think your points are well taken, that it does
show some of the accesses, but it would be important to show a transition and that
testimony will be when we continue it, so there is more information at that point, too.
Thurston: One more question. Three hundred feet from where the proposed multi-
family dwelling is proposed, how far over is 300 feet. Does that hit all -- everybody on
the other side of Leslie Way, on the west side of Leslie?
Bird: How large is your lots?
Thurston: I don't know. Almost an acre.
De Weerd: Well, they are probably deep enough, but, then, the road is wide enough, it
may not go across the street. Does it? No?
Berg: I think it does.
Bird: Yes. I think it would.
Thurston: It's about a football field I know that.
Bird: No.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 53 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk is not being taken on public testimony. Please use your
mike.
Powell: Madam President, I have the 300-foot list. I can clarify what was included. It
did not include -- it did not cross the road. It went to here and it comes across through
that lot and, then, over to the backside of these lots. It did not -- it did not include these
properties on the west side of the lane.
De Weerd: Why?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: It seems like we are getting a little far a field again, because we are talking about
this concept plan that hasn't even been presented to us yet. One of the things I guess I
want to ask Mr. Nichols before we continue this matter, I think Mr. Bird raises a valid
point, that we have this whole business, but we have sort of a strange situation here.
We have a new Council in eight weeks. Half of this Council will be new. We have this
concept plan which hasn't been presented and can't even be presented to us until these
people can actually be annexed into the city, which might take six to eight weeks from
now before we can even have it. Legally, should we set this whole matter into January
and hear it then? Because it doesn't make much sense to try to hear this in December
th
and if we -- or even on January 6, because if we try to approve it, we will have findings
that won't come until a new Council is here and they can't vote on it and half the Council
is only able to approve it. It only makes sense to me, I think, and that's why I'm asking
Mr. Nichols, that we set all of this into January. I recognize it's a delay for these
property owners, but -- I mean some of it's -- you know, part of the reason is because of
this little sliver of property and the delay in that. It just doesn't seem to make much
th
sense for us to try to even shoe horn this in on the 6 of January or a special meeting
th
on the 30 of December. I think Mr. Thurston has raised some points that need to be
addressed and Mr. Strite should have the right to address them first and he hasn't had
the opportunity, because we are really only talking about continuing it, so --
Thurston: The reason why I asked the question about the 300 feet was to make sure
that there is notification given to those people on the other side of the street, to make
sure they have the opportunity to respond.
Nary: Absolutely.
Thurston: I really wonder about those 300 feet, though. That --
Powell: Just call me blond today. It does go across the street. I'm sorry. I was reading
the map incorrectly.
De Weerd: What does being blond have to do with it?
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 54 of 76
Powell: Oh. Excuse me.
Nary: Blond. She meant blind.
Powell: That was it.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, do you have a question?
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, even if it didn't go across the
street, you have the flexibility under the code and state statute to expand the notice, if
it's appropriate to do so. For future reference, if we have something where the 300 feet
falls six inches sort of the boundary line on the far side of the street, we have the ability
to say it makes sense to add those folks and by looking at a map do that. With regard
to the continuance, just a couple things to point out anything this time of year you're
going to run into Thanksgiving week, so that you blow about three days that week. I
mean they are gone, because the folks that you may need to deal with at Development
Services may have saved up their vacation or whatever on the boundary line
adjustment and, then, you have got New Years and Christmas in there and so it just
compresses the number of work days that are available to get things done anyway.
Even when you look at two months, that's an optimistic two months. Continuing into
January for the new Council to review, they can review the minutes of the first portion of
the hearing and, then, go from there. I would recommend that it be continued to date in
January, which the new Council can review and consider it and that should match about
the time necessary for Mrs. Ruwe and the Eagy’s to complete the property boundary
adjustment process with Development Services, which also works with the assessor's
office.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
th
Bird: I would suggest, then, at that point let's go to January 20. That's two weeks
passed the swearing in. That gives the new -- two new members a chance to -- two
weeks to look it over.
Nary: That's very generous. No one said this job would be easy, but --
Bird: What?
Nary: I said that's very generous. No one said this job was easy. Give them two
weeks, but --
Bird: Well, I'd hope they'd give me two weeks.
De Weerd: Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thurston.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 55 of 76
Thurston: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: We do have a Public Hearing here that will be continued, but is there
anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Okay. The applicant, Mr. Strite,
would you like to provide any comment? You will have to be sworn at first. Okay. Is the
testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Strite: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Strite: Billy Ray Strite. For the record, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here, along with
Janet Ruwe, obviously. I think there have been a lot of comments made. I think
Councilman Nary hit it on the head and also Councilman Bird. I would think that the
th
January 20 would probably the earliest. I, in fact, agree with Mr. Nichols, that to get all
these legalities out of the way, dealing with the county, their present record -- well, I
shouldn't say it that way. Their present timing has not been exactly the most expedient
th
I'll put it that way. It would be my guess that January 20 would be the earliest that we
could comply with the documentation necessary to proceed and, again, without being
repetitive, the whole issue tonight is the deferral. We certainly agree to that deferral and
th
would ask that we be placed on that agenda for January 20 and that's all I have to
offer.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Strite: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue the Public Hearing AZ 03-018 and Public Hearing
AZ 03-022, which is a request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to
C-G zones for Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, and Ruwe, by BRS Architects. Also, the request
for annexation and zoning for five acres from R-2 to C-G zones for Kissler Dealy Parcel
by BRS Architects and before somebody seconds that I got a question in my deal. Well,
we pulled -- Eagy has been pulled, so how do we -- how do we continue -- it's still on the
application, but he is pulled, and so I have got a question for the legal -- poor old Mr.
Nichols is earning his money today.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 56 of 76
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, the title on the agenda is not
determinative of the issue and so we can continue to include Mr. Eagy's name on the
parcel, recognizing that he's withdrawn his consent to the annexation for those parcels.
Bird: Thank you. Then, my motion is done.
Nary: And I would second it. I just had a comment, too, Madam President.
De Weerd: You sure make this record a challenge too, I'm sure.
Nary: I like to make Mr. Willis earn his money, too. Also, too, I think -- I think what we
have expressed that some amended application and we certainly have had formerly
known as designations for titles, so I think we will be okay on having a --
Bird: I was just scared that without you guys -- that without the legal opinion of Mr.
Nichols that maybe we are forwarding something that isn't legal anymore when you
have -- when you have an applicant withdrawal.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: But that answered it, so we are okay.
De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue
Items 16 and 17 to January 20, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Berg: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Berg: If I could just ask for clarification and direction. I'm sending out a complimentary
th
additional notice with the concept plan for the Public Hearing on January 20. Is there
anything that needs to be added to that concept plan or is that --
De Weerd: You may want to get with Mr. Strite and see if there is anything that they are
going to add before you send it out.
Berg: Okay because we talked about access points and a few other things. I just
wanted to make it --
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Yes. Madam President, Members of the Council, I think it also needs to
clearly indicate that the Eagy parcel is out and has been withdrawn.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 57 of 76
De Weerd: Okay so, Mr. Strite can get with you on what you will be sending out. Okay.
Thank you all very much.
Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 03-026
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15
Stokesberry Subdivision
building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for
No. 2
by Properties West, Inc. – west of North Eagle Road and north of
East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Okay. We are at Item 18, Public Hearing for PP 03-026, request for a
Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for
Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2. We will open with staff's comments. Oh. Well, I still
have to open and -- and we don't want staff comments, because they want to continue it
th
to November 12.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move we continue Public Hearing PP 03-026, the request for Preliminary
Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 until
November 12, 2003.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 18, Public Hearing
th
PP 03-026, November 12. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-010
Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from
Woodside Creek
R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed by Woodside Properties,
Re-Noticed for November 25, 2003
LLC – 1115 North Ten Mile Road:
due to Inadequate Property Posting
Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-025
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15
building lots and 5 other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Woodside Creek
proposed by Woodside Properties, LLC – 1115 North
Re-Noticed for November 25, 2003 due to Inadequate
Ten Mile Road:
Property Posting
De Weerd: Okay. Items 19 and 20 are also Public Hearings that have been asked to
continue, but I will open those -- no? I don't open them?
Berg: Madam President, they were not noticed properly, so there is not really a Public
Hearing for tonight.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 58 of 76
De Weerd: So, do we need to even continue them?
Bird: No, we don't.
Berg: We will re-notice it.
De Weerd: Okay. We will recognize that Items 19 and 20 will be re-noticed due to
th
inadequate property posting and so they will be heard on November 20.
Item 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-044
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Development in a proposed C-G zone for proposed
Silverstone Business Campus
by Sundance Investments – southeast
corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. I will, then, move to Item 21, Public Hearing for CUP 03-044, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in a proposed C-G zone for the
proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments and I will open the
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Powell: Excuse me. I need to get back to my presentation. Sorry about that. It wasn't
-- could have done that beforehand. Sorry. Again, on the theme that there are no easy
projects tonight, this -- this project was -- originally a Preliminary Plat was done on the
project, but as part of the Development Agreement that the applicant was asking for, we
asked that come through with a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development.
This is kind of out of sync with the Preliminary Plat at this time. You have already
approved the Preliminary Plat. I hope I'm getting this straight. I'm trusting that the
applicant will correct me if I'm wrong later in the presentation. As you know, The
Silverstone Business Campus -- the Silverstone No. 1 is immediately to the west of this
property and it fronts on Overland and Eagle Road. The property adjoins it on its east
side and, then, the -- okay. Here is where it gets tricky. This was the site plan that was
submitted with the Conditional Use Permit. The original application. Shortly after that,
the applicant provided a second site plan where the lots along here are a bit smaller and
the lots here we have got a larger building going east-west, rather than more north-
south buildings. The applicant subsequently submitted a third site plan with a large
approximately 10-acre property here and some smaller uses out front. When the
project went before the Planning and Zoning Commission, they specifically asked that
staff be given the flexibility to say that any one of these -- somewhere in between or any
one of these three site plans would be consistent with the concept plan or the Planned
Development. That they not have to come back in for a concept plan either -- or a
detailed preliminary development plan, that they be allowed to come in with either
principal permitted uses as established in the Development Agreement or conceptual
uses as established in the Development Agreement. Mr. Larsen did speak at the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. There was no testimony received in
opposition to it. The Commissioners did discuss the types of uses to allow special use
area A. I can go down to that. The applicant is proposing kind of two sets of uses.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 59 of 76
One, a large list of uses that would be allowed in B and, then, trimming those down by I
think about ten uses to allow in A and those are set forth in the staff report. I could go
over those in more detail if you'd like. They did do -- the Commission did make some
changes and -- or amend some of the definitions for uses that would be allowed in A.
They also allowed for the expansion for the Michael's of Oregon operation as part of the
Planned Development. There was one -- on the summary sheet provided by staff, there
was one outstanding issue that the applicant has provided a revised sight plan to
address that issue and that was regarding the ten percent open space. Brad Hawkins-
Clark did have a chance to review the revised plat and it does meet the ten percent
open space. That plat was being amended to reflect the new development plan, which
was primarily based on site plan number two. Have I confused you all enough? I hope
so at this point. It seems to be the goal tonight. This is -- part of the reason I wanted
you to look at the concept plan on the Eagy Ruwe properties is because we kind of
have the same issue here is that we are still struggling with how do we get some sort of
conceptual approval for these large commercial developments, but still allow them the
flexibility to come back through with their uses and get more detailed approvals as time
goes on. This is the concept plan presented for the annexation was one way to go.
This applicant is asking for some flexibility between a number of site plans and that is a
second way to go -- or a third -- yes, second way to go. In regard to their site plan
number three, though, I do have concerns. They are trying to accommodate a large
user at the southern end of the site. Unfortunately, the Planning and Zoning
Commission specifically talked about kind of a buffer zone here and it was an important
part of the staff's discussion, because they wanted that transition to the residential uses
that would be over here, as designated for medium density residential. With site, plan
Number 3 you don't really have the opportunity to provide that buffer along this edge.
Not with the transition in uses, anyway. The one possibility might be to relocate these
four lots with small buildings on them along here, to make that transition and make
those in the A designation. I don't have a problem in leaving the flexibility between the
three site plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission specifically said, though, that
staff would not have the authority to make any substantial changes to the approved
Preliminary Plat. Site Plan Number 3 represents a significant change in the road
network for the property. We would argue that -- they still have to come back through
with a new Preliminary Plat, but they wouldn't have to go through the -- dare we call it
the Devon -- or the Fairview Lakes syndrome of having to come in with repeated
conceptual use permits -- or conceptual Planned Developments, they'd just be coming
in with a Preliminary Plat. I think I'll leave the rest of the discussion for the applicant and
stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I don't.
De Weerd: No? Okay. Is the applicant -- is the testimony you provide the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Larsen: Yes, it will be.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 60 of 76
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray in Garden City.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you. Madam President and Mayor elect, tonight we are here before the
City Council to present the last phases of Silverstone's business center and corporate
center, we think. What I wanted to do tonight is just kind of walk you through some of
the ideas that we had for it, as well as address maybe some of the staff's comments.
We are pretty much in concurrence with the way the Planning and Zoning approved the
project. We don't have any real issues with their approval and the conditions that they
placed on the project, but to try to help us address a couple of things that aren't really
shown on the overall maps that you have in front of you now that were requirements
from the highway district, I want to talk about those a little bit and some exchanges that
we were working on with the highway district. Along this boundary, which is the east
boundary, there is a parcel of ground here that was owned by Sutherland Farms to be
C-G zone and it is incorporated in their plan for what would happen to the south of the
Silverstone project. Also, as a condition of our approval, there was a road that was
coming across the canal at this location. It was stubbed in here from Sutherland Farms.
We were required to extend that down to where it intersected with this location of
Copper Point or the one that was shown on the previous plan. It isn't really reflected on
the drawing that you have for conceptual plans. That road is missing on those
conceptual plans and we would consider that that would be a requirement of the
highway district, so it would make that -- it would not be a substantial change to that --
to the plat. Secondly, ACHD owns a parcel that's right -- excuse me. About right in
here currently that they were using for a detention pond for the collection of water on
Overland Road as Overland Road was improved from the location that it is now to Five
Mile and that retention pond -- part of the reason that ACHD is involved in the
application, we were asking to move it more interior to the site and use it for a part of
our open space and go ahead and improve it into a grass swale situation and to make it
more of a green open space, as opposed to a concrete detention pond, if you will.
Typically with what ACHD has done on Federal Way. It ends up being fenced it ends
up with gravel sides, kind of pretty ugly. We'd like to try to create it into a more open
space amenity and I didn't see Mr. Mills here, but I think they are in concurrence that
that would be acceptable to them. Also, during the approval process -- and you may
recall from the previous meetings that there is the issue on Overland Road and how it
would be improved to satisfy ACHD, the neighbors, and the reconstruction of Overland
Road. The developer has had ACHD prepare four options for what could happen to this
road and they have been presented to the neighbors on the north and the developer
made that presentation. Now subsequently in the next couple of weeks the highway
district will be having a meeting to see which one of those options may be most valuable
to solve some of the access issues and street improvements up there. Hopefully, as
happened on Eagle Road over here, we will get to a resolution on that with the highway
district and be able to move forward with improving that section of road. As far as our
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 61 of 76
request for a larger parcel -- being able to have a larger parcel, I'd like to address that
particular parcel and, then, another one that's over in the corporate center about right
here, which I talked to Anna about earlier in the lobby, but our intent here is that we
have a large parcel that we could take a major user and place them on it and we'd like
to have that flexibility. It's really hard in commercial to know whether you're going to get
a 20,000 square foot building, a 40, or a 60 or 100 or whatever it's going to be and so
we were looking for a couple areas that we could place some larger facilities and one
would be in this area and one would be in this area. Now, these lots could, as Anna
suggested, move and maybe become part of this buffer over here, along with this road
or maybe this boundary could be expanded to be a little wider landscape buffer to buffer
the residential properties that are along this side. As far as the special use areas, in the
B area, which was in this area right here, we had indicated that those uses would be as
listed in the Development Agreement. We also asked -- had asked to include some
uses that were in the Michael's of Oregon project here that we had to come back
through when we were doing that project to get the specific Michael's of Oregon project
approved. Their intent would be to expand somewhere in this area with another facility.
Their projection is they will run out of space by the end of 2004. Right now their
assumption is that they are going to go somewhere in here, so we'd ask to include those
uses in the Development Agreement, so we did not have to come back again if they
decide to expand and we made it specific to the Michael's of Oregon use. Hopefully,
that will give you some idea there of what our intent was with that request. Along this
site, part of the reason we revised this -- the original drawing that kind of had a straight
road and some larger lots into some smaller lots and meander the road a little bit was to
try to force some smaller buildings over along this boundary. It's got a fairly steep slope
coming down right here, so these are going to end up being smaller buildings and by
forcing the road over, these end up being smaller buildings. These uses become less
intense next to the residential area, so it would be our intent that next to the residential
area that the uses would be smaller and less intense and Planning and Zoning
forwarded that recommendation to you in their approval. Then, I wanted to kind of jump
back to an issue in the Silverstone Corporate Center, and this something that's
becoming a little bit difficult for us to solve. Anna was going to look at how that might --
how we might look at that option, but in the original overall project, Michael's of Oregon
sits here, Sundance now has a user that's willing to purchase ground in this area. They
would have 500 to 700 employees that would be moving into that facility. They are in
need of a communications tower, which is a Conditional Use, as we understand it, in the
ordinance. One of the questions we had is can that communications tower be
considered as an accessory use to that particular project. Anna had indicated that she
would try to research that a little more thoroughly for us and we also need to get her
some information on size and height and what it might look like. We have a concern
about being able to do that there or if there might be a way we could amend this
Development Agreement to include a cell tower or communications tower that might be
associated with the other Silverstone project. Our intent was trying to -- they want to be
st
open by June 1 and that's a very aggressive schedule on their part. It is a good
employer and is a good employment base and so with that I was going to conclude my
presentation and try to answer questions and see if I could answer any of them that you
might have.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 62 of 76
De Weerd: Anna, I guess my question is can you respond to Cornell's statements and,
then, secondly, even if -- if it was an option for this newer part to house that new
employer, with the length of time it takes for Final Plat, signatures, and all of that, is that
even a possibility?
Larsen: That's why they want to be here, because the time frame here is not too
acceptable to them. They couldn't get there. We might be able to get through the
platting on this and be able to have a lot where their communications tower could go
through an easement or something like. In an effort to get -- and we do have one
building permit that's obtainable or maybe two on this parcel here. Their intent was they
liked the Eagle Road site and they were looking for a location to put the tower and
putting it on this area was a little bit more concern to us than maybe putting it back there
by a well site we have or something like that.
De Weerd: That is a better site.
Larsen: Secondary to the location of the middle of the project.
Bird: How far can that cell tower be away from the building that they would be working
out of?
Larsen: I think we can go 600 feet to 1,000 feet and probably be okay. They do need
to be fairly close to it, because of the business they are in.
Bird: How big of lot will this tower need?
Larsen: My guess is it's probably only going to need something that's like 25 by 25 at
the very most and I know there are some issues with cell towers and all the other
problems with them. That's why I was asking the question, to see if there was any
consideration or anything that we might do.
De Weerd: Anna, do you have any answers on that?
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, that portion of the code, I have to
admit. I have not read in detail. I -- I don't even know what it covers and most of the
sections I have at least glanced over and have some idea, but no one's brought in one
since I have been here and I just haven't looked at it and they tend to be very detailed
pieces of code. I really am hesitant to say anything and, basically, what I -- I probably
gave Cornell a very blank look when he first brought it up, because I just -- my first
thought was I just have no idea. The copy of the code I have here does not have -- it
was one of the recent updates, so I don't have it. I have been able to peruse it since the
hearing started either. I just -- I have absolutely no comment. I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 63 of 76
De Weerd: Well, I know you need a fast turn around time to respond to this person. If
we could -- if you could even check with Dave McKinnon. I mean he worked in
researching this at an earlier date. Or Brad Hawkins-Clark did as well.
Powell: I just need to get a copy of the code. I can meet with Cornell on Friday and we
can go over it. I just have not looked at it.
Larsen: I'm going to be out of town Friday, but Monday would work fine.
De Weerd: Is that good enough turn around?
Cornell: Yes. I think that's fine for right now. My question tonight was if there was any
potential way to include the communication tower as an accessory to a project that may
locate in either one of the Silverstone projects, if there was a way to add that into the
Development Agreement CUP and Mr. Nichols has had his workout tonight, so --
De Weerd: He is earning his salary.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I don't think you could do it that
way. I mean just -- as I recall, the communication tower was such a bugaboo, it was flat
out prohibited in residential zones, there were free fall zone area issues. I don't recall if
there were any that were permitted outright, unless they were the stealth variety and I
can't remember if even those required a Conditional Use and it sounds like this
particular use might be more intense than what would be possible through a stealth
tower.
Larsen: My rough guess is it's probably going to be 100 to 120 foot high tower and
that's a rough guess, because I don't have anything other than a picture and you're kind
of standing there going how big is this and I didn't bring the picture tonight, so --
De Weerd: I think the attorney has the dimensions.
Nary: Unless it could be a really tall tree to look like a stealth tower.
Bird: It would be a very tall tree to look like a cell tower. Anyway, I was trying to see of
there was some way that they could be accommodated through this process and if there
isn't, then, there isn't, but I wanted to at least explore that with you tonight and since I
was last on the agenda, I thought it might be -- or maybe not last, but close to it.
De Weerd: Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? Oh, I'm sorry, chief.
Musser: Madam President, Members of the Council, one concern just came to mind in
listening to the comments that were just presented that we may have to take a look at
from a public safety standpoint. If this call center is a cellular operated call center,
where Ada County is currently on a narrow band 800 megahertz format, we have been
experiencing a number of interference problems with active cell towers in a call format
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 64 of 76
in other metropolitan areas and I would caution that we probably just need to make sure
where we are at on that, so we don't interrupt -- end up having some interference as a
result.
De Weerd: Thank you to whatever you just said.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, I think I heard the police chief say that the communications
tower needs to be through a Conditional Use Permit process, so everybody can study
what it's going to do and how it might affect emergency services, unless the ordinance
allows it as an outright use or some accessory use, which I don't believe it does.
De Weerd: So, I guess you could work with staff on these issues. Mr. Berg, will you,
please, talk into your mike, because our City Clerk is really adamant about --
Berg: That important stuff. Madam President, I will see if my staff can e-mail him the
ordinance tomorrow and, then, he could review it, as well as Anna.
De Weerd: As well as Anna and maybe the chief. If you can both look into it. I think
they need some -- a timely response to --
Larsen: Madam President, we might be able to get some information on bandwidth or
something to that effect that might help satisfy the chief's concern. I'm not sure that I
can or can't, I would just have to start making some phone calls to see if we could track
that down.
De Weerd: You. Okay. Well, I imagine that we may have some testimony -- some
further testimony? No? Okay. Are there any further questions for the applicant?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: There was a letter earlier from Mr. Thomas.
De Weerd: Oh, yes, by Mr. Thomas.
Nary: And I didn't know if that -- if his particular issue had been addressed at some
point regarding the -- assuming his residence is somewhere over here.
Larsen: About right there.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 65 of 76
Nary: And he was, basically, wanting a divider and barrier and turn lane and all that. I
didn't know if that -- if those issues have been discussed or addressed with him.
Larsen: Those are part of the issues that would go in front of the ACHD meeting that
they would be having with the neighbors in the next -- I can't -- I don't have a notice from
ACHD when the meeting is going to be. They had told us within a couple of weeks and
that's been about last Thursday, so I'm kind of anticipating that someplace between the
thth
17 and the 25 of November that they will have a meeting with the neighbors. They
wanted to schedule that and hold that and as a result of some of the things that
happened on Pine Street, they felt like it was necessary to have a neighborhood
meeting with the neighbors on a developer-funded road. They would address the
issues of a turn lane or center median at that time. Overload Road, historically, they
have not had a center median that has blocked a left turn from -- basically from Vista to
-- as far as -- as far as it is to Meridian Road. I'm not sure that that's going to be their
policy, but they do have a copy of his letter as well, because I'm sure he's copied that to
them.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Larsen, would the outcome of that meeting further change one of these
site plan iterations that we have here?
Larsen: Madam President, Mr. Nichols, what there were is there were four proposed
options on that road and I'm not sure I can remember them all, but I'm going to try to do
what I can. One was is that -- the first option was that they keep the road on the same
center line alignment that it's on currently, which is probably going to require that they
buy three of the homes that are located on the north, because they are going to be in
the way of the improvements for the project. The second option was that a frontage
road be placed along the residential property and that the Overland Road be shifted 25
feet to the time south and that was not an option that was favorable to the neighbors at
that particular point. The third option was that they shift the road about eight feet to the
south and that, in itself, was fairly favorable to most of the neighbors that were in the
meeting, the vast majority, as I understand it. Then, the last option was that they have
some sort of -- they build some sort of turnarounds, so that they didn't have direct
backing onto Overland Road on the residential property and that would be a part of an
ACHD construction project. There were four options that would or could change the
depths of these lots on the frontage. We would not be shifting the ACHD pond, but
most likely the frontage would be reduced by some amount between eight and 25 feet is
my guess right now. I don't know if that answers your question. The best answer I have
today.
Powell: Madam President?
De Weerd: Anna.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 66 of 76
Powell: I'm sorry he's getting far too many questions from staff. If the applicant --
originally there was a concern from the property owner immediately adjacent about an
access point out of here. Has that issue been resolved, Cornell?
Larsen: No, that has not. That is, actually, the same gentleman that wrote the letter
that is attached to the staff report. Mr. Mason I believe his name is, but I can --
Powell: Thomas.
Larsen: Thomas. Ted or Ed Thomas.
Powell: Ted.
De Weerd: Edward Thomas.
Larsen: Edward Thomas. It has not and the location of that drive has not. At one time
we were asking for four full approaches here and a right in, right out. The highway
district conditioned it upon three, one there, one there, and one in the center. When
they moved to the center, that's when Mr. Thomas had his objection about the location
of the curb cuts.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Staff? Okay. Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
De Weerd: Discussion? Motion to close the Public Hearing?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I might have got lost here, but what are we doing? I mean are we setting this over
so we can find out more on the cell tower? I mean there were a lot of issues. I guess I
was a little lost, Madam President.
De Weerd: I believe we want to continue it for the ACHD report as well.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As I understand it -- I mean I have no problem passing it and as I understand from
the counselor that -- that that's going to have to be a -- the cell tower is probably going
to have to be a separate CUP of its own after we find out. I think we go ahead and
either pass or deny the CUP here and go from there. That's my -- that's my observation
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 67 of 76
and with that, Madam Chairman, if nobody has got any -- Madam President, if nobody is
going to make it, I'll make a motion that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 03-044.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
21. All those in favor please say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Discussion? Motions?
Bird: I got a question. Staff, Anna, would you, please, put up the site that shows the big
bottom -- there we go. That's site plan Number 3 right?
Powell: Correct, sir.
Bird: While the Council is deliberating, I just wanted to point out an unusual condition of
approval and I mentioned it earlier, but I just -- if you wanted to look at the specific
wording on Page 3. It says: The P&Z Department staff is hereby granted authority to
approve modifications to the master site plan that conform to either of the concepts
submitted with the application. Note this does not grant authority to approve substantial
modifications to the Preliminary Plat. Perhaps either should be changed to any,
however, depending on what your thoughts are. That would be -- well, not any. I'm
sorry. One of the three that are presented tonight. Forgive me.
De Weerd: Okay. Are you still awake?
Nary: Mr. Bird seemed to follow it better than any of us, so I was waiting for him.
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Nary: You seem to be following it better than anybody, so --
Bird: Well -- now you've got me confused. It doesn’t take much, but -- you say that's
item four that we are talking about on Page 3? Is that right?
Powell: Yes. Unless the applicant wanted to limit it to Site Plans 2 and, but I think they
wanted all three options still open.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, one of the issues you have to
address in connection with that Item 4 is whether Site Plan 3 constitutes a substantial
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 68 of 76
change from Preliminary Plat, which has the road across the bottom of that parcel. You
would have to make a specific finding that that road alignment was not a substantial
change from the Preliminary Plat.
Powell: President de Weerd, Members of the Council, would an alternative be that they
could approve that flexibility, but if -- if it were a substantial change, that the Preliminary
Plat would be null and void? Or that they'd have to come for a -- not null and void, but
they'd have to come in for a new Preliminary Plat.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, if it's a substantial modification, as
I understand this recommendation, you can't approve. The only way that it could come
back in that configuration is through a replat.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I believe that the P&Z
recommendation is just saying that staff does not have the authority to grant a
substantial change to the Preliminary Plat. Not that the Planned Development couldn't
be changed, it's just that if the applicant -- if it were a substantial change to the
Preliminary Plat, they need to come through with a new Preliminary Plat. That was my
understanding of the P&Z recommendation. Maybe we need to clarify that.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, the problem that I have is that --
as I understand it, Site Plans 1 and 2 is what was in front of the Commission. Is that
correct? Or was Site Plan 3 also in front of the Commission?
Powell: I was told that there was all three site plans in front of them. I was not at the
hearing that night, so --
De Weerd: Does that satisfy --
Nichols: Madam President, the problem is that you could have a site plan that doesn't
fit your Preliminary Plat. That's the problem.
Powell: That's already been approved.
Nichols: Yes. You have an approved Preliminary Plat that shows this street
configuration more towards the bottom to the south end of the parcel, so if they come in
and ask for Number 3, it's not going to fit the plat. They apply for a Final Plat and staff
is not going to be able to say that it substantially complies with that Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Aren't we glad we closed the Public Hearing.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 69 of 76
Bird: We are in a pickle, but -- would they have -- then, we have to modify the
Preliminary Plat at this point to let the three site plans -- work on it or what? I mean you
don't -- you know, you don't go down and wait until the Final Plat comes through and
they have, evidently, come up with the idea that probably Site Plan Number 3 is going to
be the one they go with, if they have got some people that are interested in that large
lot, so --
Nichols: Madam President, I'm just not sure.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Boy, this has been a fun evening.
Bird: What do we do? I mean the CUP is very -- in my opinion, is a very good CUP.
Could be passed. We do have the one hold up between the Preliminary Plat and site
number three, which they want all three sites to be included in the CUP and, like you
said, then, when the Final Plat comes, if they use site number three, the Final Plat and
the Preliminary Plat aren't even going to resemble one another. How do we get
ourselves out of the pickle? We open up the Public Hearing again or -- I don't think so.
Powell: Madam President?
De Weerd: Anna.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, would it -- I think at this point we
are grasping at feeble-minded straws, because we are all too tired to think clearly. On
Condition Number 4, if we made a specific reference that said to develop in substantial -
- or to develop as depicted on Site Plan Number 3, the applicant shall be required to
submit a new Preliminary Plat application to the city. That gets them out of the -- the
real desire here is to get out of the -- having to come back with a new concept plan for
you and to -- if they have to come back with a Preliminary Plat, I think they are willing to
acknowledge that and accept that. It's more the -- having to come back with both the
Preliminary Plat and the concept plan, and I don't know if you remember, but we went
through a whole fee waiver on this one, too, so we probably have to come through with
that again. I think if we can address the city attorney's concerns, but still leave a little
flexibility in the Planned Development, that's all we are asking -- or all the application is
asking. They are not -- they -- Planning and Zoning Commission specifically didn't want
to give them the authority to -- for staff to approve changes to the Preliminary Plat and
staff doesn't want those either. It's just the need to get out of the -- to get the concept
plan kind of established with some flexibility.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 70 of 76
Bird: Anna, though, the only problem is if we leave that last sentence in, the note --
regardless of how we word the upper one, I don't see where it's going to help, because
that bottom one just says this does not grant authority to approve substantial
modification to the Preliminary Plat. If you change the wording up there, you're going to
allow some modifications and who decides what's substantial or not? One lot change
could be substantial with some people and --
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Anna, on a new Preliminary Plat application, how long does it take to process?
Powell: New Preliminary Plat? Six weeks to get before Planning and Zoning, so you
have one hearing there and, then, another month to get up here. So -- and, then, two
weeks for findings, so 12 weeks. Let take one more stab at this. If, on Condition
Number 4, we were to strike the parenthetical phrase and replace it with a second note -
- so, let me give it a shot. I'll just read it. P&Z Department staff is hereby granted
authority to approve modifications to the master site plan that conform to concept plan --
or Site Plan Number 1 or Site Plan Number 2, submitted with this application. Period.
P&Z Department staff is also granted authority to accept or approve modifications to
Site Plan Number 3. However, a new Preliminary Plat application is required to develop
consistent with Site Plan Number 3.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with that wording. I have no problem with it. Actually, on the Preliminary
Plat, you're telling me we are looking at six to eight weeks to get it through if they have
to redo it?
Powell: It would be a new application. It's already gone through the process.
Bird: But you're basically saying if they go with Site Number 3, they have to get a new
Preliminary Plat application going through. Isn't that what you -- maybe I
misunderstood.
Powell: Yes. I believe it is not in conformance with the -- it's too far away from the old
one. I thought that's what everybody had decided.
Bird: I have no problem with staff being able to look at the existing Preliminary Plat and
seeing that if Site 3 can go on it, putting it on it and, then, coming back, as long as staff
does it. I mean I don't want an applicant to be doing it. If you agree to it, go back -- I
mean if you -- we are setting them back another six to eight weeks if they decide to go
with site plan three, if I understood right.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 71 of 76
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, a couple issues. One is I think if there is a substantial
change a new plat application is required anyway, despite the wording of this condition.
The issue, though, is how do you -- how do you bring that into congruity with being able
to approve a site plan that doesn't fit the plat. The difficulty that Mr. Larsen and his
client have is if somebody wants to buy and begin building on that large parcel, to tell
them it's going to take three months is a problem, as I see it. Also, you wouldn't want to
hold up the ability to sell or build on those lots that would be unaffected Anna by the
revised plat application. You certainly -- I mean I can see us maybe crafting something
here that says the area of the plat that would be affected by the replat would be -- you
couldn't issue Building Permits. For the rest of it, they could proceed with building
permits and I'm getting an affirmative high sign from Mr. Larsen that maybe we have
struck on something here that works. A new Preliminary Plat application would be
required to comply with Site Plan 3, but they could still apply for a phased Final Plat for
the part that isn't going to be changed by the replat or something in -- we can find some
way to word it. It still allows them to proceed with some development. They would only
have to, essentially, replat the part that's going to change.
Bird: That's the lower part.
Nichols: Right. They would still have some delays, which affect the marketability.
Bird: That's a good idea, Mr. Nichols. I think that's a very very good idea and you and
Mr. Nary are telling me it's legal, that we can do it on something like that where we just
do a partial Preliminary Plat.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council. There is not a building on the site
currently, so they do have one Building Permit that they could use if they wanted to start
construction earlier. I'm not sure whether they can submit a new Preliminary Plat
application on a portion of an unplatted property. We generally have to have some sort
of boundary to work from and this would be a boundary from an unplatted Preliminary
Plat. Getting into territory to Fairview Lakes once again. If -- I think the applicant is
willing to accept that if this user wanted to go in, that they could take that one and only
building permit until the Preliminary Plat was turned into a Final Plat.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think what we are going to need
is -- I will need to visit with Mrs. Powell and see if we can't come up with an acceptable
wording for the condition, which we can run passed the applicant and, then, we could
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 72 of 76
approve findings and you have a chance to pass upon the condition wording and we
can get this done.
Bird: So we'd need to pass the CUP right now right?
Nary: I -- Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think what we have -- I think all we really can do -- and, partly, because I don't
think we really know what we are doing right anymore -- is I think what we can do is
simply move for Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Powell and the applicant to discuss -- I think Mr.
Nichols has hit on probably the best way to resolved this issue. I don't think we can
make a motion for those findings, because we don't really know what that's going to
say. All our motion would simply be would be for Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Powell, and the
applicant, to work to come up with findings to bring those back to us. Either one or two
weeks, whatever is -- within two weeks, so that they can formulate those and, then, we
will have a little bit better read of what we are looking at to then approve. Does that
make sense?
McCandless: Was that a motion?
Bird: That makes sense to me.
Nary: That would be my motion.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded for the applicant and staff and our
attorney to make findings on this -- on CUP 03-044 and to bring it back within a two
week period. Is that what your motion was?
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 22. Canvassing the Votes for City General Election:
De Weerd: Thank you. Now, I hope Item 22 is not as complicated, although I will say
that I have gotten a lot of comments -- and it's not just from the people who waited last
night for election results. I heard it all day today of comments from Meridian residents
who felt like we were the neglected step-child in Ada County as to why Meridian's was --
was not only neglected by the visual media, after the Boise elections were announced.
That they came in so late and since they were so small in comparison to Boise, why
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 73 of 76
they weren't run before Boise. I do think that we need to send a letter to Ada County to
both their elections office and probably the Ada County Commissioners and ask them
to, please, address this before our next series of elections in two years.
Berg: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Berg: I think before the Council sends a letter, maybe we should listen to an
explanation of why it is the way it is.
De Weerd: That sounds like an excellent idea. Will you, please, enlighten us?
Berg: I had a nice prepared presentation, but because of the late hours and I think I
was -- 24 hours ago I was there, along with somebody else that's in this room. The
computers and the counters are set up that once you start one city, you go through the
whole city election and count the ballets. The City of Boise brings their absentee ballets
in at 8:00 in the evening, so they start, and they wait until every precinct is at the city
and they have to count through all those and when they are completed. Then, they can
do the next city. Fortunately or unfortunately, they had a good turn out, they didn't get
completed until almost a quarter to 11:00 and Garden City only -- they had less than
2,000 ballets and since I'm the brand new contacted city for them to count, I was in
third. It was really kind of irrelevant, because Garden City probably didn't get as
exposure either than the City of Meridian after the 10:30 news. At 11:30 our city was
counted -- was started counting in the process that they have to check some logic and
accuracy tests that I took the day before with computer. At 11:53 we were completed
so, it didn't take us very long to go through the process, and it was just that we were
behind a large city's process. I can't tell you about the television exposure, but the
Statesman, Channel 6 and Channel 7, were all there waiting at the window waiting for
our results, and as soon as the results were completed, Ada County did their broadcast
fax to the media and faxed all the information for me to the media. That's the process.
Things that can be done to change the current process, I don't know if there is any.
There has been talk about in the near future having touch screen voting booths, which
would be on individual type of computers, which you would have instant results, rather
than hours of results so, there are some other things looking down into the future. I
don't know if I can -- we can change the process that's there at Ada County right now,
because of the way they have their system of counting, and there are three counters, so
it's not like it's just one machine counting, there is three counters, but it's completing one
city before they can start another.
De Weerd: Well, I guess my point is just with Garden City and Meridian equating to
6,000 votes, you know, why you can't count those -- the smaller cities before you tackle
the big one, and then, just bring to their attention to see how they can be part of this
solution, since they are the agency that's in charge of this. You don't have to be sworn
in.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 74 of 76
Krowley: Thank you. Kathleen Krowley. I'm a reporter for the Idaho Statesman. I
know the Statesman had three issues, three editions that we put out on a daily basis.
That's a state issue, a Canyon County issue, and an Ada County issue and -- those
editions. I because of the lateness of the hour -- and this is, of course, no fault of Mr.
Berg, just the system set up with Ada County -- is that the rest of the state didn't get the
results from Meridian and they won't get them until tomorrow in our newspaper. To my
mind it's not serving the public good to do it in that manner, because, you know, the rest
of the state of Idaho didn't know what Meridian, one of the fastest growing cities in the
state, how the election turned out and they won't know from our paper until today. If
that comment has any, you know, bearing on the future discussions, I'd just like to enter
that into the record. Thank you.
De Weerd: I appreciate that.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I do think -- I mean I do think there is things about the election process here that
we maybe can have that discussion about. I don't -- I mean I agree with Mr. Berg, I
don't necessarily see a real solution. I mean we had paper ballets two years ago, we
had to count all of those by hand, and it took approximately four hours to get results by
doing that. We did have a levy at the time, so the counting was a little more
complicated. Here it took about an hour, we counted the ballets, and we still got the
results at the same time. I mean I don't know if it really is going to -- I don't know that
there is a solution, unless we had the capability to count the ballets here. I don't know
that there is any other solution to it, and the expense and cost of that may not -- may be
prohibitive to do that at this point, so -- but I think it's certainly worth the discussion. Not
tonight, but I think it's worth the discussion as to process improvement and ways to do it
and, again, we maybe end up at the end of the day saying there isn't any. I did
appreciate that the Statesman -- the Ada County edition did have the results and did
have photos and we did have coverage and that was good. The Statesman website
was able to pick that up. Channel 7, it looks like, picked up the results. There were --
there were ways to find it, but, you know, it would be nice if there were better. If would
be nice if the TV didn't turn off, but -- at 11:30, because the Boise elections were done
they could run their regular show, but, you know, the city of Boise is 200,000. They are
going to govern what happens. That's just, unfortunately, the way it ends up working
most of the time.
Bird: It's the old adage. The dog wags the tail. The tail doesn’t wag the dog, and in
Ada County Boise is the dog.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for the one-liners.
Berg: With advanced technology, Madam President, I'm sure things can change and
we can hope for the best and I assure you Dave Navarro and the Ada County election
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 75 of 76
staff is looking towards those things, because they want nothing better than to have
people happy.
Bird: Madam Chairman?
De Weerd: That's great. We like happy people. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, seeing how I got to eat supper tonight and I'm going to go run and get
something somewhere, I'll make a motion that we accept the results from the city of
Meridian general election as published on November 4, 2003.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to accept the results from the City of
Meridian general election dated November 4, 2003. All those -- well, do we need to
have a roll call vote? Okay.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Thank you.
Berg: And thank you. If you have any questions on the report, let me know, but I try to
put enough information to kind of see how other trends are and even from the last
election.
De Weerd: Thank you, Will. This is very comprehensive.
Nary: Madam President, before we adjourn.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Because I think that's what we are up to.
De Weerd: We are up to that.
Nary: Okay. Yes. I agree with Mrs. Powell. For some reason tonight was much more
complicated than it normally was and I don't know if it had anything to do with the fact
that it's Mr. Berg's birthday, but I think we need to note that it was his birthday today.
Bird: And he's getting close to 50.
Nary: He's a little closer to 50 than he was yesterday. With that being said, I guess I
would move to adjourn.
Meridian City Council
November 5, 2003
Page 76 of 76
Bird: I'm long passed 50.
De Weerd: Can I second that?
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in
favor say yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. It's 11:15.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK